Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-03/23/2011 Jill M. Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President James F. King Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, March 23, 2011 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Bob Ghosio, Vice-President James King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, April 20, 2011, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 16, 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make a motion to come out of executive session. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our March meeting. Happy Spring, with the snow outside. If we could all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance is recited). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Again, welcome to our meeting. We have quite a large agenda tonight, so if you do want to say something, come up to the mic, speak your name clearly and please try to keep your comments to five minutes or less. We have Wayne Galante here taking the Minutes for us, and we have Audrey Horton here representing the Conservation Advisory Council, and they review our applications and make recommendations to us, And we have Lori Hulse here as our legal counsel. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspections are Wednesday, April 13, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion? RECEIVED ,~.~ Soulhold Town Clerk Board of Trustees 2 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Wayne Galante Stenographic Services 631.835.7882 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Next Trustee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 20, 6:00 PM, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have an approval of the Minutes of February 16, 20117 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for February, 2011. A check for $8,872.36 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. Ill. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 23, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. This applications are listed as follows: Ronald & Theresa Furman - SCTM#16-7-7 Nicolas & Irene Andreadis - SCTM#106-6-25 Louis & Elizabeth Mastro - SCTM#52-5-9 Fishers Island Ferry District - SCTM#12-1-10 Carla Starcic - SCTM#70-6-9 William H. Price, Jr. - SCTM#43-5-10 Kevin & Alexandra O'Mara - SCTM#72-2-2.2 Mark McDonald & William McDonald III - SCTM#135-1-5 Reydon Shores Property Owners Assoc, Inc. - SCTM#80-3-21.1 Barrett Katz - SCTM#86-6-7 Port of Egypt- SCTM#56-6-3.4,4,6.1 Maria Stanisic - SCTM#51-4-1 Board of Trustees 3 March 23, 2011 North Fork Kiwi, LLC - SCTM#111-10-13.1 Peter Schwab - SCTM#10-7-27.10 Susan Norris - SCTM#115-9-4 South Brown Limited Liability Co. - SCTM#18-6-18.1 Robert Warden - SCTM#9-3-14 Fishers Island Development Corp.-P/O East End Rd. Fishers Island Linda Borden - SCTM#9-9-27.4 Michael & Susan Jeffries - SCTM#1-2-11 Celeste Theophilos - SCTM#51-4-9 Hedge Street, LLC - SCTM#10-7-16 Lazaros Laskos - SCTM#44-1-17 Anne R. Bunting - SCTM#10-6-14.1 Susan Magrino-Dunning - SCTM 17-1-2.1 Otto Schmid - SCTM#70-4-12 James P. Martin - SCTM#123-4-11 Debbie Grillos - SCTM~N-4-1-14 Robert Grober - SCTM#73-4-4.1 Douglas Gerowski - SCTM#127-4-4 Barry Root - SCTM#86-6-20 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a motion on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before I go any further, I would like to go over the postponements of the night. Page three, number two on the bottom, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of NORTH FORK KIWI, LLC, requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7203 from Christine Hunt to North Fork Kiwi, LLC, as issued on November 18, 2009, and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7203 to allow the installation of 50' of fiber coirlogs at toe of bluff and 1,600 square feet of erosion control jute matting on slope, and revegetate slope with native plantings. Located: 5700 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Page four, number three, MICHAEL & GILLIAN WILSON request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5438 to change the dock from 20x4' to 30x4', add a four-foot fiberglass open-grate walkway along the bulkhead and designate a 10' non-turf buffer landward of the walkway. Located: 590 Tarpon Drive, Southold, is postponed. Page five, number ten, Docko, Inc., on behalf of ROBERT WARDEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 62 linear feet of four-foot wide wood pile and timber pier and install an 8x16' float with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat bedhing tie-off piles, utilities and ladders all waterward of the apparent high (spring) water line. The overall length of the pier from the existing patio is Board of Trustees 4 March 23,2011 70' landward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation. Construct shoreline soil retention and stabilization, cribbing of concrete, wood or plastic materials, backfill with suitable topsoil and plant native non-invasive, salt tolerant ground cover. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, is postponed. Page six, number four, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LINDA BORDEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4x27' wood timber and pile supported pier extension, to the apparent Iow water line, with associated ladders. Located: Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island, is postponed. Number five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HEDGE STREET, L. LC, requests a Wetland Permit to repair or partially reconstruct 79 ~inear feet of 6.5' wide pile supported timber main pier, a 10x14' pile supported "L" pier, 660 square feet pile supported timber pier landing, a 10x24' float with associated ramp and one 4x25' float, and two (2) tie-off piles; retain and repair as recovery 78 linear feet of existing mortared stone seawall with a concrete cap, all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island, is postponed. Number six, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct 72 linear feet of eight-foot wide pile supported timber main pier, a 1,300 square foot pile supported timber pier landing, two 6x20' floats and one 8x24' float all with associated restraint piles/pipes, retain 55 linear feet of existing concrete seawall all at and waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Hedge Street, Fishers Island, is postponed. And number eleven, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of MICHAEL & SUSAN JEFFRIES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a garage addition, driveway retaining wall, and drainage for driveway. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island, is postponed. Page eight, number 22, David Corwin on behalf of BARBARA PAGANO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead, install in same location 56 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, reconstruct existing 6x20' wood float, 6x10' wood float, 3x14' ramp, 3x6' platform, install two float anchor piles and replace approximately 10 cubic yards lost fill. Located: 2435 Cedar Lane, East Marion, is postponed. And 23, Samuel Fitzgerald, Architect, PC on behalf of ANNE R. BUNTING, requests a Wetland permit to remove the entire 3,000 square foot swimming pool complex, including partially above-ground pool, surrounding deck, storage building, spa, and pool equipment enclosure; solarium and adjoining decks; two-story family room and master bedroom extension on north side of house; entire length of deck along southeast side of house; two-story portion of house between existing garage and main body of house, making the garage a detached structure; and all windows throughout. Construct a one-story addition to the northeast side of the house; 2.83' extension of kitchen to north; 121 square foot pergola in place of 3,000 square foot swimming pool complex; new bluestone terrace on southeast side Board of Trustees 5 March 23,2011 of house in place of existing wood deck; extend existing deck in rear of garage by 92 square feet; covered roof connecting house and garage, which will be a newly created accessory structure; and new windows throughout. Located: 2427 Isabella Beach Road, Fishers Island, is postponed. Those postponements will not be heard tonight. IV, RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, we have PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests an Administrative Permit to install a six-foot fence surrounding the rear yard. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. This is not a public hearing. The Board reviewed this. This is a property that has a non-disturbance area and the fence is being requested right through the non-disturbance area. So the Board is willing to discuss a different area for the fence. Mr. Pawlowski, if you were in this area, we would like to see, not in the area that you propose because that's through the non-disturbance, but in another area that is out of that non-disturbance, if you wanted to put some split-rail fence to delineate some of the property lines, we would be willing tp discuss that. And it was found inconsistent with LWRP. The reasons for LWRP inconsistency, the plan failed to identify the type of fence, method of construction within the buffer and mitigation to enable to migration of wildlife, (reptiles, amphibians) between habitats; policy 6.64, protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem. That is what we assume the intention of the fence was, to delineate the property line. MR. PAWLQWSKI: No, for my dogs, really. I wanted to do a deer fence for my dogs, really, and that's really it. There was a pre-existing fence there along the south side of the, north side of the property, the entire way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. It's still on the survey. So the deer fence is basically what I was trying to accomplish. So basically, one, I wanted to put it on the property line, it would be nice for delineation, and I recall, I thought you were allowed to put a deer fence within ten feet of wetlands. I'm not sure, though. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says within ten feet, but this is in the wetlands. That's not within ten feet, this is actually in it. MR. PAWLOWSKI: So I could shrink it, I could do whatever, you know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, the boundaries, you can put it on the buffer line, is that what Jim was saying, because we have the buffer area. We would allow maybe like a split-rail fence, I don't know, what about a deer fence in that area? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Basically the same, it's a post and rail. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, but the split-rail allows for smaller wildlife to go through, and that's what you are trying to stop. I understand that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, given the Town Board's recent Board of Trustees 6 March 23,2011 decision on deer fence, I would have no problem with a deer fence along that line. MR. PAWLOWSKI: It would not be a black chainlink, it would be -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: As long as it meets the most recent Town Board specifications for deer fencing, just speaking for myself, I would not have a problem with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's still within the wetlands. That's a wetland boundary, so it would have to be -- our policy, our discussions -- we didn't say ten feet away from the wetland but if it's within the wetland they have to come to us. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So this is within ten feet, if they come to us, we could put it on the buffer line. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes MR. PAWLOWSKI: The buffer is the 50-foot boundary line TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the 50-foot on one side and 30 foot on the other, which is a non-disturbance area now, as of last month's meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know, I still have an issue with it. The whole reason we made this area this way is for the wildlife there, and if we are blocking it off, then why even bother with a non-disturbance area? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unfortunately, the deer out here have become pests and so that's why ~ would agree with what you are saying, Jill, under normal circumstances, the fact they are requesting a deer fence, the deer have become pests, the Town Board recognizes that through their recent legislation, that's why I would support a deer fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree with that but I'm also thinking of ali the other wildlife, too. And that's the whole reason why this area is so sensitive. And that's why we have this buffer area, non-disturbance area, so. But it's up to the majority. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Am I allowed to go to the boundary line with it, or no? TRUSTEE KING: I would have an issue with that, going to the property line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yeah. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Not the property line, the boundary line. The straight line on that survey. TRUSTEE KING: 30-foot buffer line, you mean. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we are talking about. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Can I follow that line? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we were considering. I hope we didn't misunderstand you. That's what we are considering. MR. PAWLOWSKI: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good, I wanted to make sure we are on the same wavelength. MR. PAWLOWSKI: This is from the house to the boundary line is obviously what you are talking about with the non-turf Board of Trustees 7 March 23,2011 disturbance as well, right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you want to come up, we can show you exactly what we are talking about. Because before you get your permit for your garage, because you have not received that yet, you'll have to put that on that survey. You have here, this line here, this is 30 foot, this is 50. (indicating). This is all non-disturbance. And this has to be, says "buffer" now, should say "non-disturbance" for any further approvals. So what we are discussing is a possible fence on this line here. MR. PAWLOWSKI: And this was deemed non-disturbance as well, from the last meeting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, this area here is non-disturbance (indicating). This is already disturbed. This buffer can't be disturbed. It means you can't go in there, take trees down, do anything, you can't disturb it at all. MR. PAWLOWSKk If I follow that line, it would be all right? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are discussing here, to amend your application to that line. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: What do you have proposed for the roadside front, as far as the fence goes? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Nothing. It would dive into the house. I would stop it. TRUSTEE KING: Because you talked about keeping your dogs in. How do you keep them in if you don't have a front fence? MR. PAWLOWSKI: I would come in the side on it, would follow in. So this is the fence here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This drawing here? MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I see it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you would just put a fence in this area. MR. PAWLOWSKI: I would follow that, yes. TRUSTEE KING: I thought you wanted a fence on the whole thing? MR. PAWLOWSKI: There should already be a pre-existing fence here. This is just the jagged line. They would string it from the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would stay in the backyard, again, complying with the deer fencing code. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it would be in the front yard, too. He's coming up the front here. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Is that considered the front? Because here is the front. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And he's going across here. (indicating). TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, this is the front of the house. Maybe, Lori, you can give a better determination. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe enclosing the back of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Building Department determines it. MR. PAWLOWSKI: They said this would be the front. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And this is the side yard. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to mark this up in this area? (indicating). Board of Trustees 8 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We need a new survey because he has this here. MR. PAWLOWSKh So that change goes buffer to non-disturbance? TRUSTEE KING: How about this -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He is talking here (indicating). TRUSTEE KING: So that's what we are talking about. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Yes, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are we requesting he withdraw the application or are you amending the previous application for the pool to cover this issue? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, this is just the fence. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just this, okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is an Administrative Permit for a fence, if somebody wants to make a motion on this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would approve subject to new plans. Is that it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Paul Pawlowski as has been depicted tonight on the plans dated stamped received by our office March 8 and with the reduction of fence to this area, I would deem it consistent under the LWRP and this would be subject to receipt of new plans, of course, from yourself depicting this as well as the garage, and the non-disturbance area. MR. PAWLOWSKI: Okay. The garage is on there currently, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, you're right. MR. PAWLOWSKh I just wanted to make sure, that's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: By bringing the fence in on to the buffer border makes it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nay. (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Doherty, nay). MR. PAWLOWSKh Thank you, have a good night. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two Peconic Permit Expediting on behalf of CHRISTINE CONTE, requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 275 square foot rear deck attached to the dwelling. Located: 1020 Ruch Lane, Southold. This is a pre-existing deck. We took a look at it and what is there, in reference to what is there, it came in inconsistent with the LWRP policy 66.3, protect and restore tidal freshwater wetlands requirement; Comply with Trustees regulations, recommendation, separate Trustee permit conditions. As I said, this was a deck that is existing, they are just trying to get a permit on it. The Board looked at it. It's far enough away from the bulkheaded property. So I really don't know how we would bring it into consistency with LWRP. Anybody have any ideas? and this was built prior to LWRP, prior to (perusing) Board of Trustees 9 March 23,2011 -- yes. So I basically, I will make a motion that this is consistent under LWRP and I make a motion to approve the application of Christine Conte. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, Jason Leonard on behalf of DAVID STARWOOD requests an Administrative Permit to replace 15x20' deck with a 4x6' landing and 4x15' pad on grade at bilco entrance. Located: 175 Sun Lane, Southold. The Board looked at this. The gentleman had a problem with the septic and had to rip up the deck. So he's replacing basically what was there, and we really have no problem with it. It is consistent with LWRP therefore I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FREDERIC ENDEMANN requests an Administrative Permit to remove two trees. Located: 840 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. This was a Iow sill bulkhead. Through the process of being installed, there are two trees that actually are growing right out horizontally, right across where the sheathing is to be put in. They simply can't put the sheathing in without removing these two trees. I would make a motion to approve this with the stipulation we want to see a replanting plan along the bluff that was cleared previous to this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee Bergen, abstain). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of BLUE MOON PARTNERS, LLC, requests an Administrative Permit for the inkind/inplace replacement of existing masonry patio and walkways; removal of a tree adjacent to the patio; and the repair of existing house foundation, including regarding of adjacent soils to allow for proper drainage. Located: 360 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. This is exempt from LWRP and it was inspected by Jim and we reviewed the file and it seems pretty straightforward. Any comments on this, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, just a case the patio over time has changed, the pitch of it is now pitched toward the house and all the rain water is going against the house, so he needs to pull that up and straighten that out and do some repairs to the sill of the house. And one oak tree about a foot in diameter is growing into the patio, and the roots are growing almost into the basement. So that tree has to be removed. It's all straightforward. I didn't have an issue with anything there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 10 March 23,2011 V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSION/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As we review these a lot of these are straightforward. The next three we all reviewed and I would like to make a motion to approve all three of these applications. They are: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY BETH HENSON requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7414 to include a proposed porch (to be constructed in place of the existing garage with roof deck to be demolished) with a roof deck above it, and within the same approved footprint. Located: 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport. Number two, Mark Schwartz & Assoc., on behalf of THOMAS & MAUREEN DOWLING requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7407 to reflect the new dimensions of the proposed deck and hot tub area. Located: 1200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. And number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ARTHUR CODY requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7252 to revise the footprint of the proposed single-family dwelling, which will maintain the originally approved-for setbacks from property boundaries and tidal wetland boundary. Located: 630 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. Move to approve those as applied for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: STEPHEN GERACI requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 23' boat, replacing Mooring #BC-2. Access: Public. A review of the files shows it's replacing a similar-sized boat, therefore I'll make a motion to approve this mooring. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to go off of the regular hearings and go on public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under public hearings, we'll start with amendments. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVIES FAMILY TRUST requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7417 to construct a 4x74' fixed catwalk with open grate Board of Trustees 11 March 23,2011 decking secured by six-inch piles, a 3x15' ramp, 6x20' float, secured by two batter piles and a tie off pile. Located: 2385 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. We were all out there for the inspection. The Conservation Advisory Council has given its word, they did not make inspection therefore no recommendation was made. And it's been found to be inconsistent with LWRP, under policy 6.3 protecting and restoring tidal and fresh water wetland. 275 requires a determination of the length of the dock must include the dimensions of the vessel, construction operation standards need to be met, asking that they comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions. It does mention that this area is located within a New York State Critical Environmental Area. Such requirements may include but are not limited to denial, shortening or reducing size of structures and reducing width of non-disturbance buffers. It should be noted of course that the dock that is there is an existing dock. As I recall -- TRUSTEE KING: There is docks on either side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We approved this before, so this is just an amendment to what we recently approved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: This was from September, 2010. So that was the first go around. TRUSTEE KING: So we already had done an approval on a dock there. This is a modification to that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought this was a new LWRP. But it's not. Okay. Anybody here who would like to speak on this application? (No response). Seeing none, our notes say we were looking, perhaps, for a Iow profile and using grating, shortening the catwalk and lengthening the ramp. TRUSTEE KING: Right, the overall length remains the same. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do we have the dimensions that we wanted to make it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lengthen this to 20. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Overall length to be 94 feet, okay. All right, I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following change: Total length is to be 94 feet and changing the ramp instead of 3x15', making the ramp a 3x20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's all. 94 is the catwalk and the ramp. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, not including the float. Everything else stays the same. We want to stipulate the use of grating for the Board of Trustees 12 March 23,2011 catwalk. TRUSTEE KING: I think that was on the original. They are supposed to start on the second step to keep it Iow. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, they planned on doing that. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a profile that shows that? I thought there was. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, we have the open-grate deck. Okay, that's it, then. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that your motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can you repeat the motion for me, please? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Make a motion to approve the changes and amendments as applied for with the only change being that instead of using a 15-foot ramp it would be 3x20 foot ramp, and the overall length will stay the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: So the catwalk would be shodened by five feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Coastal erosion permits, JOHN F. BETSCH requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the placement of rocks, approximately 36" diameter to be embedded into the embankment along the eroded area parallel to the shoreline. Located: 2325 North Sea Drive, Southold. This application was held over from last month. It is consistent with LWRP. We had some concerns, as did the neighbors, and Mr. Betsch went back to the drawing board and submitted a new drawing that answers our concerns, and we have reviewed it and at this time I don't think we have any further questions. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BETSCH: John Betsch, the owner, here to answer any additional questions you might have, if necessary. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The noted changes we see are the rock instead of going straight to the end of the property line, curve in, and stay within the property line, and the boulders are beneath the original, the current elevation of the bank right now. And that's what we asked for. I think that's what the neighbors were concerned with as well. And that's what the drawings show, so are there any questions of the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? Board of Trustees 13 March 23,2011 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as amended for John Betsch. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the resolution, on the vote? (No response). Hearing none, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Russell Glover Architect on behalf of CELESTE THEOPHILOS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove deteriorated concrete bulkhead and replace with new timber bulkhead, with no seaward or landward extension proposed. Located: 20365 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This was reviewed as being consistent with the LWRP. There is also an inconsistency, I notice, reconstruction of the concrete landing (deck), with a proposed 210 square foot timber deck is not a permissible action pursuant to 275-11, inconsistent with policy 6.3 protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs shall not be larger than 32-square feet. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the bulkhead is replaced with a steel bulkhead. Plan stamped approved by the engineer, and installation of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. That's the recommendations of the CAC. Is there anyone here who would to speak on behalf of this application? MR. GLOVER: Russell GIover, for the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: We have no notes on the deck. MR. GLOVER: The deck was an existing replacement, inkind. It's a concrete deck. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: That's back on the one side. TRUSTEE KING: It's 10x21 foot deck they want to put in place of a cement deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Did you ask how they propose to move -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Didn't get there yet. TRUSTEE KING: There is a concrete deck they want to replace with a timber deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is that? TRUSTEE KING: Conservation Advisory Council recommended - (Perusing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can I see the survey? TRUSTEE picture. TRUSTEE now? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's close to the bluff. I didn't take a DOHERTY: Is this the deck you are talking about right KING: It is BERGEN: There it is, concrete deck. DOHERTY: And they want to replace it, same size as they Board of Trustees 14 March 23,2011 had it. Is that what they are requesting? TRUSTEE KING: Yes TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, our policy has been to reduce a lot of these structures that were built prior to our rules and our codes don't allow something that big now. We do take into consideration that it's been there a while, that's why we struggle with what size to give you. MR. GLOVER: I'm sure the size is negotiable. It's just when you get down to the bottom there it's a bit restricted, so you kind of need somewhere to arrive at before you walk down to the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What would be a reasonable size that we would consider in this area? TRUSTEE KING: It has a jog in it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's allowed under the code? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under 275 it would be 32-square feet. But we have in the past -- TRUSTEE KING: It's difficult, he has a big jog in his bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so it would make sense to give him this, the area right at the end of the stairs out to that bulkhead, and then go out a little on this side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm thinking is that's where the landing actually turns into a 32-square foot landing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would not be opposed to making it a little bigger only because it's something he had, that's been there, it's something larger, and we have done that in the past. TRUSTEE KING: If we make it a 4x8 landing at the base of the stairs -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's 32-square feet. MR. GLOVER: The one that is there is 200. I mean it was used as a sitting-out area. 32-square feet is not much to get a chair on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm not opposed to making it something like 50-square feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What is there now is currently concrete, broken out at the bottom. MR. GLOVER: Yes, with a handrail around. MR. GLQVER: How about half size? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I could go for a hundred. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, here is the scale. TRUSTEE KING: This is ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's ten feet, so what if we do like 8x10. MR. GLOVER: Can I come up and look? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. What if we do like an 8x10. MR. GLOVER: That would be okay. That would be okay. I mean our main issue here, as you saw, everything is falling down. The deck is a secondary item. TRUSTEE KING: I can see this will be a timber bulkhead. MR. GLOVER: Well, it depends on you guys. TRUSTEE KING: You can't use CCA. Most people are going for vinyl or steel. Most places they are using vinyl. Board of Trustees 15 March 23,2011 MR. GLOVER: I submitted these drawings to the DEC, with timber, they approved it. So I gave them the same thing. There is not a problem with making it vinyl or steel TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a suggestion on the deck. What we can could do, as a suggestion, was we could be adverse to making it concrete. Because if it's concrete, extend it to the property line on the, on to the west of the jog there and then it becomes a splash pad. TRUSTEE KING: Splash pad, part of the surge stone for splash pad. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would still be functional as a sitting area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What Jim is saying, stone; how can you sit on rock? Like big boulders is what I'm picturing. TRUSTEE KING: A splash pad is usually surge stone, 50 pieces, 25 pieces. It's rough stone. It's not somewhere you can put a chair TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As long as it's concrete and it's pitched. MR. GLOVER: This is quite steep here, then it flattens out. So we don't put anything there, it's a flat area. So if you guys say no deck, it's still somewhere you can sit, you know, obviously it would be nice if it was finished but, you know, the big problem we have is the wall, and it's disappearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How do you propose to get all that concrete out of there? MR. GLOVER: They didn't want it taken out seaward so, I don't know, a crane? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Barge? MR. GLOVER: They said no barges. They wanted it all taken back across the site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The applicant? MR. GLOVER: The DEC put it in that permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Why did DEC say no barge? That doesn't make sense. MR. GLOVER: That's what they said. It's very rocky there. I don't know. Obviously we would prefer to take it out the other way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Like Mr. Glover said, it's a flat area. If they put 8x10 wood decking that is spaced properly, I don't have a problem with that. It fits under the Coastal Erosion Code and it's something that has been there, something larger has been there for a long time, and we have given variances to that under 275. MR. GLOVER: This drawing got blown up so you can read the dimensions. It got blown up on the computer and the dimensions got adjusted. These are the actual dimensions, so. TRUSTEE KING: It's out of whack. So you are saying 8x10, you said? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And this is ten feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, eight by that way and -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm finding ten feet to scale. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I see what you are saying. TRUSTEE KING: It's ten feet. So it would be roughly going like this. It would be the size of the deck. MR. GLOVER: We don't mind about the deck. We need to get on with Board of Trustees 16 March 23,2011 the rest of the project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We could shoot for that. This area should be replanted; where the concrete deck is removed, should be replanted. MR. GLOVER: That's on the notes there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we would need a new survey showing that. And to scale, not blown up. TRUSTEE KING: So that - MR. GLOVER: We need to submit something with the deck drawn a different size? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So that should help on the consistency finding on the LWRP. We reduced the size of the deck substantially. The rest of the work, it's going to be pretty tough stuff to remove. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not a whole lot of choice though, is there. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to think what was to the east. Does anyone remember what was to the east? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows a return on the west side. What does it do to the east, does it attach to the neighbor, or? MR. GLOVER: You mean the bulkheading? TRUSTEE KING: There is more concrete bulkheading to the east of us, both sides, concrete bulkheading turns in. We would just fit between them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The concrete to the west was really blown out. MR. GLOVER: The property to the west had blown out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It shows to the west is a significant return. MR. GLOVER: No, that ks up the slope. We are asking for this up the slope, because the neighbor's land is slipping this way, so it's a retaining wall, basically. It's not bulkheading, the place of the offense. The neighbor's property, you can see in the photos, the neighbors -- can I draw on this one? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. GLOVER: The neighbor's bulkheading comes out like this and the other neighbor's bulkheading comes out like that. And I think the photo survey shows that. The drawing, three and four. The second set of photos. There is another set. There you go. Everything was picked out there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the neighbors are all concrete, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any discussion with the neighbors to try to do a project at the same time? I'm just curious. It would just help with expenses for everybody. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The eastern one looks pretty intact TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is to the west, I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The west is a mess. MR. GLOVER: Well, I can't speak for the neighbors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. It's just a suggestion. MR. GLOVER: They have a lot of problems. I did speak to them and they said they didn't need a permit. I said, well, we are going for a permit, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Good advice. MR. GLOVER: So I'm not sure what they are doing. We are trying Board of Trustees 17 March 23, 201 ! to protect ourselves. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The retaining wall that you plan on doing, how do you plan on building that; with the same material? Or how do you, how far down -- MR. GLOVER: That I plan on making the piling with sheathing as well, same material, basically. If they were going to do that, they might as well do the whole thing, but they were open -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think I ever seen that done before. I've never seen that done before. MR. GLOVER: Well, did you guys go on the -- you went and reviewed the site? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we did. MR. G/OVER: Did you see what was happening? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the neighbor to the west is a real mess. MR. GLOVER: They don't need a permit, they told me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, they do need permits. MR. GLOVER: So I don't know how we'll deal with what they are doing, but if they do something, we will have a problem, so this is an attempt to protect ourselves. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's something interesting, I would like to see how it works. I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else, any comments, any questions? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Now, the existing stairs, I think we had a note put the stairs into the description to -- MR. GLOVER: Existing stairs are now on their way down as well. TRUSTEE KING: So what we want to do is add those steps into the permit. MR. Gl_OVER: We do ask to repair them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This will allow for that by adding them in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because in the description on the actual permit you are not asking for that. You might on the survey. On the drawing you have it, but not on your description, so we'll amend the description to mend the stairs. MR. GLOVER: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). MS. HORT©N: I just wanted to clear something up because it seemed kind of like you couldn't understand that part. What our concern was bringing in concrete and bringing in machinery that because we are looking at so many homes on those cliffs right in there, that area, was the damage to any of the plant life that is holding that cliff together, and what is all happening and how fragile it was, which is also why, I couldn't quite hear what you were saying, but sounded like the DEC wanted concrete to go down and not up. TRUSTEE KING: The concrete will be removed off the property. MS. HORTON: Oh, going up, exactly opposite of what we want. Because we are concerned of anything that would be getting done. TRUSTEE KING: I'm no engineer, I would imagine they use a crane. They are not going to drag that up the bluff. Board of Trustees 18 March 23, 201 l MS. HORTON: We are concerned -- it's what holds everything together, and that's just our concern, so people understand. TRUSTEE KING: We'll word the permit that the disturbed area will be replanted. MS. HORTON: But they want the concrete to come up? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, with a crane. MR. GLOVER: We would be happy to take it the other way. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are fine with you taking it the other way. MS. HORTON: Somebody else would like you to take it the other way. TRUSTEE KING: They may be afraid if it comes in by barge and goes out by barge it will just disappear, you know what I mean. I think that is their concern. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, Audrey. MS. HORTON: No problem. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following changes: The existing deck is going to be downsized from 10x21 to 10x8, and it will be a timber deck, not concrete. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Proper spacing? TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't matter, it's all sand under it. And it's behind the bulkhead. And the bulkhead replacement will have to be either vinyl or steel. MR. GLOVER: No problem. TRUSTEE KING: And existing stairs wilt be included in this permit so they are a legal structure. Did I miss anything? Any disturbed areas to be replanted. And I believe -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: To replant the area where the existing deck is. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE DQHERTY: I'll second that. And this brings it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: I think downsizing, that was the only hang up was the large deck. And we downsized that. I think that brings it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. GLOVER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: We'll get new plans indicating those changes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of MARIA STANISIC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approximately 118 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead in place utilizing steel sheeting; 30cubuc yards of clean fill from an upland source is proposed landward of the reconstructed bulkhead as required to Board of Trustees 19 March 23, 2011 match existing adjacent grades. Located: 19725 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition that fertilizers are not used on the bluff. The Board did go out and looked at this application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HALL: Good evening. Dan Hall, Land Use Ecological Services. I'll answer any questions the Board may have of this application. The only thing I want to add was a recent change, we amended with the New York State DEC, I submitted to you guys when we got it. We showed a potential area of disturbance behind the bulkhead and we showed that area would be planted with vegetation as required. Beach grass. I'll answer any questions you may have or the public may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are specifically referring to the plans received stamp dated March 2,2011. As you say, these are the plans that were approved by the DEC. MR. HALL: They were not approved yet, but they requested that change. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you for the clarification. We did have a question about, it appeared to have been wood walls that had been replaced, or very large repairs done to them previously, up near the top of the bluff. Do you know if any of those walls had been permitted? MR. HALL: I don't know the history of those walls. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. IWe have to check to see if there are permits for those walls. Was there any check done to see if there was a permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't get a chance to. MR. HALL: I saw the walls. I know what you are talking about, but I don't know the history. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like it's all fairly new construction. MR. HALL: Some of it was new, some wasn't. Yes. That's obviously new. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can see the picture there. MR. HALL: That's obviously new. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The project itself, we didn't have any problem with the project itself. I think these plans that include the re-vegetation are excellent. Our challenge tonight, right now, we have these walls that are here, we don't know if they were permitted or not. And they might be subject to a violation. But we need to research them to see whether they are permitted or not. And if not, then we would want them, we would recommend that you include them in the permit application or maybe on a separate application, whatever, but it's just we have a challenge tonight of these walls that will prevent us from moving on this tonight. But first off I wanted to see if anybody had any questions about the work as proposed here. So is there anybody else in the audience that had any comment related to the proposed work on this application? (No response). Board of Trustees 20 March 23, 2011 Any other comments from the Board on this application? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No. Like you said, we didn't have a problem with the application itself but we have to do more research on the properly, the existing other structures. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir? MR. HALL: I'm just concerned that the neighboring, adjacent parcel to the east, Karen Daley was going to do a project in conjunction with this site and I don't want to cause any further delays with them being able to do that together but, you know, we are happy to address any issues you have, apply for another application if needed, and resolve the matter. I just don't want to have it hold up the project at hand. You were at the site, there was obviously some severe erosion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do the Daley's have all their permits already? MR. HALL: Yes, they are all set to go. I believe you approved that last meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have a DEC permit on this? MR. HALL: It's pending. I sent the new plans in March, beginning of the month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we hold it up one more month, I don't think that would hold you up. MR. HALL: I don't know if it would or not. The contractor is all set to go, as is Karen Daley. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I feel these other structures are pretty substantial. It's not like you just repaired the stairs. I think it's something that needs more research. That's how I feel. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, so I would like to look into it and see if there is any existing permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree, based on advice from legal counsel, I think we need to table this tonight. MR. HALL: So when we will we be notified what action the Board has taken? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It would go on next month's meeting. MR. HALL: We have to wait for next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We only meet once a month. MR. HALL: I thought I could get a letter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: As soon as we know, we'll let you know, then we can act on it next month, hopefully. MS. HULSE: If there is a violation on the properly, that might hold things up. MR. HALL: Right. Thank you. MS. STANISIC: Maria Stanisic. My husband and I bought this house in '04. My husband passed the year after and I was stuck by myself with this house, and dirt was coming out of the wood because it was all worn out so, my son, I said to him, honey, we are going to lose all the dirt. I didn't understand there were permits and whatnot. And he patched it real good. I mean, you could come and see. It's nothing. The dirt is not coming out anymore. It's very stable. The posts are still there, it's just the wood got all rotten and it was big holes, sink holes, and upstairs, the dirt was going in, t was losing my grass and Board of Trustees 21 March 23, 2011 everything. It's my error. I didn't know I had to get permits to fix up the holes. Ignorance on my part, but I didn't know. If I knew, I would have gladly come in to get the permits. TRUSTEE KING: I would be curious to see how he did the work. I think it's pretty ingenious, some of the work he did. MS. STANISIC: You have to come and see. TRUSTEE KING: We did. I looked at it. I couldn't figure out how he did it. MS. STANISlC: He did. We went to the Riverhead, the lumberyard, we asked what kind of wood we needed, because we were on the water, and we had it delivered, and we did it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think that we need to table this so you can get the application complete and get the proper paperwork for all the structures. MS. STANISIC: If you want to fine me, fine. I did it. I didn't have anybody else do it because, as I said, I would have lost my hill upstairs, because there was sink holes already and there was nothing to prevent it. That wood was rotten and it was going right through. And that's the wood that you put on the water, that's what the guy in Riverhead told me. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, we'll get back to you on it, on what the next step would be. MS. STANISIC: I appreciate it. Because Karen will do hers and I would like to do mine at the same time. Because at the bottom we have big sink holes, and another storm will wash away more dirt. And I planted all rosa rugosa, as you could see, there is hundreds of rosa rugosa in my hills. Because I went to the environmental place and they said that's the best thing to hold the dirt. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, that's the hardiest plant. MS. STANISIC: So we actually did it ourselves, we actually planted the rosa rugosa. So, please. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Butler Engineering on behalf of DEBBIE 6RILLO$ requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing emergency armor stone and filter fabric used to protect dwelling from further tidal damage and reserve stone for later use. Remove remains of existing damaged bulkhead and construct shoreguard bulkhead (approximately 58.75'), construct deck (approximately 720 square feet) and railing, and beach access stairs. Place one row of armor stone seaward of proposed bulkhead (1-3 ton), approximately 40 tons. Located: 55705 County Road 48, Southold. The project has been deemed to have sections of it in various forms of consistency with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act; the Board of Trustees 22 March 23,2011 deck being deemed inconsistent, the bulkhead being deemed exempt and the stone armor being deemed consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is something inconsistent? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, there is. The document didn't carry through to the agenda. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because there is a concern with encroachment on public property and public access, and concerns surrounding storm water runoff. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LARSEN: Frank Larsen, for the applicant. I have a set of plans here. I'm not sure if this is the ones you have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The plan we have, we have stamped in March 1 -- what's the date -- that's 2/28. Is this a newer plan? (Perusing). No, it's the same plan. It's the same plan we have. MR. LARSEN: The stairs on the plan were going to be exempt. We'll leave that out, Jim. The bulkhead itself was going to be inplace of the existing wall, removing the old wall, putting the new bulkhead in place. The construction for the property was going to be done from the owner's property. We actually built a ramp when we did Deitrich's property next door, the one you see to the east, the bulkhead there now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you are not putting stairs back? MR. LARSEN: There were not stairs there prior. I think they just had something they put in and removed. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So are they going to continue with those? MR. LARSEN: Yes, they are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that still has to be permitted. Even though it's removable steps, it's still a structure that we have to include in the description. MR. LARSEN: If I have to, I'll leave it out, because the bulkhead is needed at this time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it shows in the verbal. Maybe I didn't read it carefully. After the square foot deck, railing and beach access stairs. Sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It says that, I'm just going by what he said. He said he wanted to exempt them. So it's already included in the description. MR. LARSEN: Our main concern is put the wall in. We did emergency work there, prior to the storm on the 28th. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board in its entirety visited the site. As far as the bulkhead replacement, I don't think the Board has a concern with that. It's exempt under the town's LWRP. It's an exempt action under consistency. It's allowable under Coastal Erosion. The armor stone, if the DEC's policy change is in effect to dampen some of the energy, we don't have a problem with that. That's consistent. But since the deck was entirely lost and there are limitations on decks on beaches and bluffs, and in connection with the access stairs, we are severely limited in what we can allow on decks. Board of Trustees 23 March 23,2011 MR. LARSEN: So should I change the plan to show reconstruction of the bulkhead and leave out the deck at this time? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a point of discussion. The Board also indicated, on field inspection, this might be a suitable place for a splash pad on the bulkhead construction and limit the size on the deck. MR. LARSEN: So like a rip rap stone, and size of deck would be, we would have to get a little further in on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can discuss that here. But a splash pad will actually help your client. MR. LARSEN: That I understand 100%. And the splash pad in the area of what, four feet from top of the bulkhead landward? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Something like that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would leave that up to the expeds where that should be placed. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Because I didn't want to encroach on what they would allow for a deck. Because I know the property line at that point is very close. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What size is the deck now? MR. LARSEN: It used to encompass the whole area. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What's the width of the house? Maybe just go out the width of the house toward the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You say have the deck the width of the house? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To the extent of the splash pad. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What about the stairs? Incorporate the stairs? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Would it be okay to carry the deck to the wall and have the splash pad on the east and west of that area? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm picturing. I don't know if that's how the rest of the Board views it. MR. LARSEN: With the set of stairs, that would be removable at the point, in line with the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. Would that be something reasonable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under the circumstances it seems, it doesn't seem unreasonable. If they had a 720-square foot deck is a huge deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, it's reducing a lot of structure. And then the splash pad helps a lot. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As long as it doesn't exceed the coastal erosion area limit as far as open constructed deck of 200-square feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 200 square feet, you have to remember, is only 10x20. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, this would all be 10x20, right? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here to this line. So it doesn't quite make the house. The width of the house is 21 foot. This is, the arrow ends there, so it will be a little over. It will probably end up being 230-square feet, plus he'll extend past here a little bit to incorporate the three feet of stairs. So it may actually end up being more like 250. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So why don't we make it 18x12 or whatever it comes out to. Whatever the distance, if you can make the deck in front of the house and make it no larger than 200-square feet. Board of Trustees 24 March 23, 2011 MR. LARSEN: No larger than 200, so that would not be the width of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right, it would be less than the width. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Or the width of the house but it would not get you all the way out to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Whatever you prefer. MR. LARSEN: So keep it within the 200-foot range and not to the east or west of the foundation. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And I would not have a problem with approving that tonight, subject to new plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Neither would I. MR. LARSEN: Because the landing, if you can see the home, the landing you see there. That will have the landing. The stairs will have to come down on to the deck. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. MR. LARSEN: And the plans with the armoring stone, the emergency, take the armoring stone I talked to George Hammarth (sic) on the 17th at the meeting here and he told me we'll put in the plan, we are waiting on that to get stamped. He put one row of rock, like we did on Dietrich, in front of the new existing structure, and he doesn't have a problem that. So we'll use that utilized on the front wall. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, good. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comment on this application? (No response). Hearing no additional comment, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. MS. HULSE: Jay, did the gentleman -- do you have authorization from the applicant in this matter, to speak on her behalf? MR. YENNICK: Joseph Yennick. This is just-- MS. HULSE: Actually, we need Debbie for this. MR. YENNICK: Yes, you have letter the from me, which I faxed you a copy of the letter. MS. HULSE: Is Debbie here? MR. YENNICK: No, Debbie Grillos is not here. My wife owns the properly. The original letter here, I faxed it to the office the other day. If you need a copy, the original letter, I have it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to close the hearing in the matter, then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let's just wait until this is done. MS. HULSE: We need authorization from Mr. Butler. This authorization authorizes this gentleman, Mr. Yennick to speak and act on her behalf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, would you mind forwarding something? You could just say that on the record. Because he has permission. The letter Lori has gives Debbie permission to speak and in turn he can give -- MS. HULSE: No, it has to come directly from her. MR. YENNICK: Actually, she signed the letter back at the beginning of the project giving Mr. Larsen permission to act on her behalf. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we could see that letter. MR. YENNICK: I could get that. Board of Trustees 25 March 23,2011 MS. HULSE: They can act on it but we need it before a permit is issued. MR. YENNICK: I can have that faxed to you tomorrow? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I made a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve the application in this matter with the reduced deck area not to exceed 200-square feet, thus bringing it into consistency with the LWRP, and the addition of a splash pad to be incorporated into the design, and a submission of a new set of plans showing the deck construction and splash pad, and a movement of the stairs to be incorporated into the new deck. Any additional items? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think you covered it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further comment on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. LARSEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Butler Engineering on behalf of LAZAROS LASKOS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing armor stone used to secure void left by storm and reserve stone for use on north side of property; install 25' of bulkhead on southwest side of property to secure void left by storm; install two rows (one seaward of other) of 1-3 ton armor stone on the north side of existing bulkhead. Located: 55915 County Road 48, Southold. The Board was out there and inspected this last week. And I believe most of us also inspected it after the storm. Back in December, that is. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to not support the application because the toe armor appears to be on public property and blocking public access. The proposed new bulkhead is prohibited under Chapter 275, and a perpendicular bulkhead will increase erosion on adjacent neighboring lands. This has been found consistent with LWRP. And upon our inspection, our notes indicate that, in general, we didn't have any problems there, with this application. So if there is anybody here who would like to speak on this application? MR. LARSEN: I had a plan, the same thing, this was changed today. I talked to the DEC and they wanted one row of armoring stone. I have two plans, if you want to look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll take a look at it. Thanks. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only change is showing one row of armor instead -- MR. LARSEN: Instead of two, yes. I talked to John and he said he would be okay with one row in front consisting of about 40 ton of armored stone. Board of Trustees 26 March 23,2011 MS. LASKOS: Lynn Laskos. We have a letter from the DEC. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a pretty straightforward project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is the access for this? MR. LARSEN: All from the owner's property. The reason for the toe armor, with the recent storm surges we have been having, we don't want the structure to get damaged. On the section on the west side, the return running back, we had put the armoring stone in there to protect it as of now. It's a quick fix. That stone will be put back in place, so after the return is run back within the property boundaries, that stone will be placed there to keep the water from splashing and disturbing the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That makes sense. MR. LARSEN: So we just want to run that hole there. There is a hole now at that point of probably ten or 11 feet, last I measured, where the rocks are now protecting it, but no wooden structure is behind. The rock is porous, the water gets throu9h it, it will take the land if there is nothing hard there to hold it back. That section, on the return, we plan on putting in vinyl sheathing to comply. Piling construction, wale wall, simple. TRUSTEE KING: It's been beat up enough. Doesn't need to get beat up by us. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Any comment from the audience? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, along with the new drawings submitted tonight, received and stamped 3~23 2011, indicating the change from two rows of armor stone to one row. MR. LARSEN: Could I just 9et one of those plans back for myself. I think I've given you everything I have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll need two. MR. LARSEN: You can keep it. I'll get another one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of MARK MCDONALD & WILLIAM MCDONALD III requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a total of approximately 110 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead (including 11 linear feet across adjacent parcel to west) in place of storm-damaged and/or storm-destroyed sections of timber bulkhead and backfill (with approx. 450 cubic yards of sand) storm-scoured bluff face, which was eroded at same time bulkheads were damaged during recent Board of Trustees 27 March 23,2011 storm; stabilize backfill with jute matting and Cape American Beach Grass (planted 'i2" on center); reconstruct 4x5' cantilevered platform and three-foot stairway to beach; repair and stabilize existing 12x16' wood decks and stairs as necessary; and re-nourish and replant other damaged sections of bluff with native vegetation as necessary. Located: 21515 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This is consistent with the LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of the properly engineered plan for the repair/replacement, with best management practices. And Conservation Advisory Council has area wide concerns and there should be more than spot restorations. That's their comments on that. The whole Board went out and looked at this, and the only issues we have is the two large, rather large decks, we would like to see those reduced in size. All that being said, is there anyone here to speak on this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman, Eh-Consultants, on behalf of the applicants. I should also note, I think you should have received from us amended plans that would include the most easterly portion of timber bulkhead remaining on the Chiatellis property as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. MR. HERMAN: So this, it's very similar to a set of permits that was issued in the mid '90's which at that time were issued as two permits, 4517, that were issued to William and Mark McDonald for the bulkhead on their, for the main parcel, and then a separate permit, 4589, that was issued care of Bruce McDonald as one of the owners of this, what we call the right-of-way parcel to the west. But that permit also included a, the most easterly section of the Chiateltis property. We subsequently obtained permits from Mr. and Mrs. Chiatellis to construct a vinyl bulkhead but they had stopped short of the property line because under these permits I just mentioned, the timber bulkheading had just been replaced several years prior. So our goal here is basically, the Board has approved the new vinyl bulkhead for Vasilakis and Levin to the east and then also here to Chiatellis and I believe the Karkestas property to the west. So this would replace, hopefully with a much longer life span, the remaining timber bulkhead that spans from the east side of the McDonald property to the most easterly portion of the Chiatellis property. And our hope, again, is to include all of this in the one permit. You mention about the decks. There is no plan to reconstruct these decks. I know we went through this with the Vasilakis property to the east. And what was permitted was that those decks could be temporarily moved and that they could be put back on new posts, but they were not to be reconstructed. And if they were to be reconstructed, we would have to come back to this Board. Now, I'm aware of the history to the site to the east, that's not what happened. Nonetheless, we would ask the Board to issue the same approval to be consistent on this property. Mark McDonald is here. The contractor is here. And our goal would be the same as what was done in the mid-'90's; to simply move these Board of Trustees 28 March 23,2011 out of the contractor's way and put them right back where they were. And they was the same as applied for in the mid '90's, was simply to repair and maintain the decks. Now, obviously, if they violated the permit and completely demolish them and reconstruct the decks, they would be looking at the same type of violation that was issued next door. But we would ask the Board to extend the same consideration that they extended to the neighbor to the east, based on the idea that the McDonald's will do exactly what they are supposed to do with the decks. The decks themselves are, the decking is functional. The problem is the suppods and everything has collapsed because the bulkhead became came down and all the fill came down with it. But otherwise we are really not, I asked Mark about this extensively and, again he is here, but his goal is to not be investing money in those decks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I didn't review any of the old permits. Do the old permits speak about the decks, do they have decks in, or just on the survey? MR. HERMAN: Well, what is actually strange about it, is the plans that were filed at that time, show the two 12x16 decks with the steps and the applications that were, the application that was submitted explicitly says that the -- I can read to you what it says. (Perusing). If I could find it. Just give me one second. Because there is, this is the Conservation Advisory Council resolution from August 24, 1995. Resolved to recommend Southold Town Board of Trustees approval with provisions of the wetland application of William and Mark McDonald to rebuild existing bulkhead and replace existing deck, stairs, etc, as necessary. And that is what was written into the permit application. Rebuild existing bulkhead blown out by 12/22-23-24, 1994, northeast storm. Almost the same date as this year's storm. Replace existing deck, stairs, et cetera, as necessary. But in the permit description itself, it doesn't speak to the decks. But yet there is nothing that I could find that prohibited that from happening, and from what I understand from Mark, that's exactly what they did. So I can't account for why it's in the application, why it's in the Conservation Advisory Council's recommendation to approve but it's not in the project description and the Trustees, only to suggest that, you know, maybe the, at that time, for whatever reason, it was just considered repair work and was therefore not written into the permit. But again, our proposal is not to reconstruct these. But unlike -- I guess my point is unlike some of the other decks we talked about in these scenarios where pre-existing, non-conforming structures have never been treated by the Board, have never been seen by the Board, never been the subject of an application, here is a permit history of this with this site that goes back to 1995. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any comments from the Board on this? TRUSTEE KING: Sounds like this is impossible permitting that went on that was just overlooked on the permit itself. I would Board of Trustees 29 March 23,2011 like to see the minutes from the meeting, from the Trustee minutes from that day just to see what they said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I just mentioned to Jim, the same thing, I think we need to go back, before we move on the decks, go back and look at the Minutes to see if these were, you know, unintentionally left off the permit. TRUSTEE KING: It sounds like it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then it would be a permitted structure. Because if they are not a permitted structure, then we are into that quandary. MR. HERMAN: What Bruce McDonald is telling me, I guess shortly after the storm in '94, did you say it was Al Krupski? MR. MCDONALD: Al Krupski and someone with the DEC. MR. HERMAN: So Al Krupski and someone from the DEC came out and basically described what I was just asking, they said the deck should be picked up, moved aside and work could be done, then they could be put back on replacement piles. Which is, again, it's what you approved for Vasilakis. And probably had that been carried out, you would not be sitting there today wondering whether you should approve this. But, you know, again, it's the way the permit was written, we are just asking you to allow the same thing that you allowed the neighbor to do. If they choose to violate that condition, that will be their problem. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I remember back then, that storm, the DEC did come out here, we sat in this room, and people came in this room with their plans and we gave emergency permits out. So that is, I would believe that to be true that Al and the DEC member went out and said that. Because that's the type of thing that happened back then. MR. HERMAN: Yup. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, if the decks are functional, which they do appear to be functional, and we'll remove them and, like you said, we did do that on Vasilakis, I remember that, and in lieu of the fact that they have been there historically and they in fact may have been legitimized, you know, in these other, these past permits, I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with you, Bob, but I would feel more comfortable if we review the Minutes to see if in fact they were permitted and just inadvertently left off. So we can make sure legally whether we are talking about permitted structures or non-permitted structures. Because under our code there is a difference there. So I agree with what you are saying, totally, I just think we need to review those Minutes and make sure we are making a fully informed decision. MR. HERMAN: The only thing I think we can't take the risk on is putting off this decision on the bulkhead for the decks. Because it's, I spoke to John, and, John Hocker, and also Mark, and it's getting awfully close to that house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't think we have a problem with the rest of the project. Do you have a copy of the survey attached to that peCmit? MR. HERMAN: Um, this is what, I think I got from the town's Board of Trustees 30 March 23, 2011 website. There is not a survey. But there is, you know, a schematic that looks like what Trustees would have received 15, 20 years ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At that time we didn't have a stamp that we stamped but this most likely was what was approved along with that permit. And it shows the two 12x16 decks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It doesn't show the bluff. I understand, but I mean this is -- MR. HERMAN: This was a little more detailed. That was the DEC approved plan. Again, this is just -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is from 1995 from our office. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty good evidence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's there and it was approved, I would say. Even though it was not verbally written in the approval, even though it was not written in the permit itself. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we are looking at a drawing from the DEC approved on January of 1996 that shows the two decks, and we see in another drawing that shows the decks. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So presumably it was supplied to the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Okay. MR. HERMAN: Wait a second, let me just see (perusing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is that sufficient? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HERMAN: I was just looking to see if there was something in the resolution, but it's just the usual language that the Board -- I wonder who did this. That's great. Now therefore be it resolved, and the next page is absent. Fantastic. Maybe Lauren can make it appear. Unless at that time you just went from the resolution to the permit. But there is probably some resolution page. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It sounds like a page is missing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it's, for me that's enough. MR. HERMAN: All I could represent it was included in the application. There is a CAC report that acknowledges that it's in the application, and it is in the plan that was approved. So there is no way the Board didn't see it TRUSTEE DQHERTY: Is there any other comments from the audience? From the Board? (No response). Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of En-Consultants on behalf of Mark and William McDonald as submitted, with the history shown to us tonight and prior approvals from the past, I am fine with the decks being removed and then, so everything can be reconstructed and replaced. If the decks have to be, if they fall apart and have to be totally replaced, the applicant has to come back for further request. And also replanting as per plans. The plans dated and received Board of Trustees 31 March 23, 2011 in this office, dated March 15. And it was consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further conversation on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number seven En-Consultants on behalf of KEVlN & ALEXANDRA O'MARA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct (incorporating existing, previously permitted toe armor) approx. 226 linear feet of rock revetment, consisting of 4-5 ton quarry capstone over 50-100 core stone, on filter cloth; cover stone and backfill with approximately 250 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (12" on center) re-vegetate denuded portions of bluff face with beach grass, Bayberry and Virginia Creeper; and repair existing stairs as necessary. Located: 14345 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed as being consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the proposed erosion control measures are not viable. This section of the shoreline is a major source of sediments filling beaches to the east. Those are the Conservation Advisory Council comments. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the O'Mara's. This is a project that is basically into it's sixth year. Back in 2005, November of 2005, this Board approved a~most precisely what we are applying for now, with the exception of the fact that there was no plan at that time to bury and plant the revetment, and re-nourish it on an annual basis. After we received the Trustees permit in late 2005, it took almost another three years to obtain an approval from the DEC, who had originally maintained the position there was no erosion at the site, despite the loss of the lower half of the bluff and the loss of the stairway. When this property was developed, there were requirements put in place by the Planning Board to provide drainage above the landward of the top of the bluff, to pitch the entire property away from the bluff, to cover the entire bluff with jute matting and plant it, which the applicant implemented. After that failed, we pursued the revetment, which again, the Town approved, but the DEC would not. The DEC required that we put in a single row of stone armor, which we argued would not work because without the vedical elevation of the slope revetment, the stone would be overtopped and the bluff would continue to erode. And so you would have a situation where you had hard stabilization with the toe, without it actually functioning. We were advised to seek the counsel of other coastal experts, which we did. We actually retained the counsel of someone that the DEC had recommended. That person had come to Board of Trustees 32 March 23,2011 the same conclusion that without the elevation of the revetment, the project would fail, and despite having recommended that person, the DEC then set aside their opinion and issued a permit for a double row of stone, on grade. So we came back to this Board, then, I guess it was beginning of 2009, and asked for modification to reduce the scope of the project to what was in fact implemented. And as several people had predicted, by the end of 2010, after the Christmas storm, the area behind the bluff has again been badly eroded. Some spots it held up a little better than others, but basically we have a situation again where all the plantings that were set in place are being lost, the bluff is again eroding at the bottom, the bluff is retreating away from the stone. So this is now the O'Mara's third round of the permit process, after having tried the completely soft solution, after having tried this Iow-profile stone that the DEC had required. We have come back, again, with the request, really, to utilize the same stone that is there but to create the sloped elevation. So we are really not changing very much from what is there except giving the stone the elevation it needs to function. We got in a matter of weeks from the DEC the approval that it had taken a matter of years to get previously. The DEC has now granted what this Board saw fit to grant in 2005. What we have done, though, that speaks directly to the concern, I think you indicated had been relayed by the Conservation Advisory Council, is, and I discussed this with Jim when we went out to a lot of these properties after the storm, the constant struggle along the Sound is the idea that the bluffs that protect the privately owned structures behind them and are themselves privately owned, also provide sediment to the publicly-owned beach front in front of it. So this Board and I think every applicant that lives along the beach front is faced with this same struggle of how to handle this conundrum of what to do on these bluffs. So one thing that we have added to this project, and it will probably be at significant expense to the O'Mara's is to bury the stone with sand and to plant it. And we proposed on an annual basis to go out in the spring, after the winter storms -- not we, En-Consultants, but we, the permittee, I mean they might ask to us to do it, they might not, I don't know, but it's obviously the responsibility of permittee to go out every spring and assess what the situation is. And in theory, if the storms have not eaten away at the sand, you would have a situation where the structure would remain buried and essentially not a functioning structure because it would be remained buried under sand. But if you had a storm, or several storm events like we had at the end of 2010, and the sand was sucked away, then the stone would serve it's purpose of protecting the bottom of the bluff, you would have some storm re-nourishment going on from the sand the applicant is putting down there. And then he would be required to go out and bury the stone again and plant it again. Board of Trustees 33 March 23,2011 You know, I can see in Jim's face, he's thinking you are throwing a few chunks of sand at the beach, but it's the best compromise that you can come up with for the situation so that you have a situation where the beach is being re-nourished. There is not a lot of room to negotiate the project because they are kind of at the end of the line. They have implemented every other conceivable alternative, other than taking no action whatsoever. And I think, frankly, that is why the DEC issued this approval so quickly this time because over a period of the last six to seven years they have tried these other alternatives first and none of them are proving to be padicularly effective. TRUSTEE KING: So you are saying, Rob, if he covers this with sand and all the sand disappears, he'll re-cover it? MR. HERMAN: It's written right into the DEC permit. TRUSTEE KING: Boy. Because I know there was a bulkhead, this is before my time on the Board, there was a bulkhead installed to the west of this project and the Board at that time made him cover it with sand. It didn't last a winter, it was all gone. So. MR. HERMAN: Well, and again, that may happen. But to an extent it's a private homeowner who is seeking approval to create hard stabilization at the bottom of a bluff on his property, and almost as a small tax for that is dumping sand back on to the beach. I mean he's actually one of the people who he never made it to that meeting with the Army Corps, but one of his, one of the things that he has suggested is that for homeowners that live on the shoreline like this, if you, the only way to really maintain beaches that over time are going to erode away is to re-nourish them artificially. And his suggestion was that there should be some kind of a privately funded re-nourishment pot and if you choose to armor, you have to put into that pot to pay for the shoreline re-nourishment in that area. If you choose not to hardfl,~n, then you don't have to pay into it because your property is'essentially feeding the beach. I don't know if something like that would ever work, but philosophically, I mean, it's sort of on point. Because the problem you face in these areas is it's the beach and the bluff, and ultimately the bluff is replenishing material that is lost by the beach. TRUSTEE KING: I agree. MR. HERMAN: But you are in a situation that is a little different than the ocean front, because these bluffs also provide very, very vast areas of vegetation, which provide habitat and a nutrient source, and as these bluffs erode, the vegetation disappears, and it really doesn't come back naturally. So if you don't harden at all and you just let that bluff keep feeding the beach, you get a wider beach, but the natural resources of the bluff itself, I mean, yes, they provide natural protective features for the private owners, but they also provide a vast natural resource that the town and LWRP also seeks to protect. So your option is to end up with an entire coast line of denuded bluffs. TRUSTEE KING: This particular area is a tough area, too. Board of Trustees 34 March 23,2011 MR. HERMAN: It is. And it's the same challenge that the town and the homeowners face. I mean, these, there is always a perception that the private homeowners don't care about the beach. I mean, the value of their property is derived from the fact there is a beach in front of it. So most beach front owners that I've met care just as much of the quality of the beach as anybody else, because without the value of the beach, the home is not worth quite as much. But, anyway, that was what we implemented into this permit. It was actually, for some strange reason, rejected by the DEC the first time around, but the department accepted the proposal this time around. And I think it's, I have to see what the duration of the permit is. It's a seven-year permit. So at least for a minimum of seven years they have a requirement in that permit that he's got to send in photos every spring and re-nourish the stone and plant it. And beyond that, I'm not sure what more we could do to satisfy the concern raised by the Conservation Advisory Council, which again is a legitimate one. But the option is to let the bluff go. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Any other comments? (No response). Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'tl make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). It was found consistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. And I think they addressed some of the Conservation Advisory Council concerns. He's willing to cover that with sand. I think that's a step in the right direction. It's not an easy thing to do either. What's the access going to be, Rob? MR. HERMAN: I want to say Duck Pond. Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of ROBERT BOGER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to re-nourish the eroded bluff face with approximately 2,000 cubic yards sand to be utilized with erosion control matting and planted with native vegetation; establish ten-foot non-turf buffer adjacent to bluff crest (to be planted with native vegetation where presently unvegetated); extend existing row of 3-4' diameter fieldstone to easterly property line with placement of approximately 21 linear feet of 3-4' diameter fieldstone along toe of bluff, and construct a 4x9' wood landing Board of Trustees 35 March 23,2011 and 4x58' timber staircase (including two 4x4' landings). Located: 30697 Country Road 48, Peconic. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent but it was recommended the Board establish a method of delivery and placement on the bluff slope to avoid further erosion of the slope. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however recommends the bluff is terraced. As I said, the Board did go out and looked at this application and it basically consists of a set of boulders at the base of, or the toe of the bluff. Some restoration of the bluff and proposed set of stairs, including some landings on the eastern side of the property. Is there anybody here to speak to behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman, of En-Consultants. This is largely a soft re-nourishment project. You can see the area of the bluff that has been scoured across the middle. Some of that got worse during the course of the end of December. Most of the stone that is on the plan is actually there. That stone was less evident prior to December and when, as you know, the elevation of the beaches throughout this whole area dropped. So there is actually just a very small portion of toe armor that is proposed here, and really all we are doing is proposing to extend the stone from where the existing field stone ends on the east side of the property and extend that to the easterly property line. Particularly because that is where the stairway will be brought down on that side. There is no proposal to terrace. We would like to try get this done without the use of additional structures in that area. Basically we want to get the fill material brought back out to where it was, and actually you can see on the photo, prior to the December storms, this toe basically came out to here, just landward of where the sort of higher storm rack ended up over January. So all of this stone was pretty much buried, and actually there was some pretty big patches of phragmites that were providing some erosion control protection there that just all got completely ripped out. I don't know if you saw it when you went down the stairs, but there is sort of a big peat mat of phragmites roots. So that phragmites will probably and back. I think the question that, I think was it from the LWRP report, was a question of access? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, we had the same question how you were going to access this project. MR. HERMAN: John Hocker is here. We had not quite finalized that at the time that we were putting the application in. We will probably have to cut a path, but we had not nailed down exactly where to do that, so we wanted to use the hearing partially as an opportunity to work that out with you all. So I'll turn it over to John and see if he could share what his thoughts were on it. MR. HOCKER: John Hocker with Latham Slate & Gravel. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, I note we saw some room to the west of Board of Trustees 36 March 23,2011 the house there, but that's a lot of material. MR. HOCKER: Well, it's a lot of material and the whole property is heavily vegetated. Basically we want to access it doing the least amount'of damage possible. My suggestion was the bluff is very high there and obviously it's extremely steep right now. You can make an area where you can dump the material off, you know, a little 15-foot wide, maybe, not have to clear anymore than that, but you need to move it side to side, you need to shape it. You can't just dump it off the top of the bluff. So you need to get a small machine down to the beach. My suggestion was over where we are proposing the stairs, is lower that machine down. It's still too steep to actually drive down. You need to bring in a bigger machine, cable it, carefully lower the machine down. But that would be the least amount of damage you could do to the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, because we noticed the lowest spot to gain access would actually be on the neighbor's property. MR. HOCKER: Yes, and then you need to take out their stairs, and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. HOCKER: But the simple act of building a set of stairs on the bluff will do some detriment to that section anyway, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, thank you. Any other comments from anybody else in the audience on this one? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). This was a really interesting home. This looks like a very old home that has not, I don't know if it's been used in years, there's vines growing over it. MR. HERMAN: He use it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Really. It was really amazing. Only a few of us got up there to see it. It was really an amazing home. MR. HERMAN: Once you found it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, once we found it. If there are no other questions, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Robed Gober as described at 30697 CR-48 as depicted on the plans dated February 28, 2011. It was found consistent under LWRP. MR. HERMAN: Dave, do you want to just stipulate that any currently vegetated areas that need to be cleared -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, I'll include it in the motion. MR. HERMAN: Because that will be within that buffer area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And any area that is disturbed, will be revegetated. Thank you. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). Board of Trustees 37 March 23,201 I All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number nine, is Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO-DUNNING requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair the foundation of the existing single-family dwelling. Located: Stephenson's Road, Orient. The application is considered an exempt action as being a minor repair in nature. And the Conservation Advisory Council suppoded the application with the condition that there is no further clearing of the bank and that runoff which was noted traveling down the bank from the neighboring property be addressed. The Trustees, in viewing this, inspecting the job, I know have felt it was so minor in fact that we might consider an amendment to a prior permit. But in reviewing the file from a prior permit for this site it does not appear that the construction of what was previously approved by the Trustees took place, so that essentially the plan we have now is a different house conformation than at least what the permit history is as I read it from the old file. So it may not be as appropriate as we thought to amend a prior permit, since we have a new set of drawings here for the application. That said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant. I believe the Board went out there last week and met with the contractor Bob Sorensen at the site. It's basically a simple repair of the foundation, which is failing. As you guys know, most of the work will be done by hand. The idea is they'll dig a trench around the perimeter of the house to put a footing as part of the foundation repair and in order support and repair the existing dwelling. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think, speaking as one who was there and also met with the tractor looking at it on another date, it looked pretty straightforward as a means of stabilizing the foundation there, for the sake of safety of the building and the occupants. A quick question. You have, you had to seek Building Department approval, the contractor did. MR. IVAN: I believe the contractor ks here. Bob, you may be able to answer that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just stand by for a minute. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm going over the plans. We didn't do an inspection on the old permit or C of C, so apparently it was a dead file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, it was, it's still open because there is no C of C. So that's why the amendment would be -- but you are correct, it's quite different, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. IVAN: Do you want the question clarified anyway? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, if you could. Board of Trustees 38 March 23,2011 MR. IVAN: Bob just told me, mark went to talk to Mr. Verity and Mr. Verity said basically refer it over to you guys. That's why we are here. There you go. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So then -- TRUSTEE KING: He probably wants to see a permit from us. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the new plan actually ends up being as-built for the change to the house. Here. I wasn't on the Board, some of you may have a recollection of what was approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, they applied for a full permit for the foundation, correct? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are going through now. So there is no C of C on the other one, so we can -- let me just clarify something with Lori. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is what we saw in the field. This was the old plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was what was approved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The date in the permit, the plan, subsequently, it goes on and on, then there was a transfer and an amendment and then the date on this plan reflects -- sorry this plan is the same date as the amendment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Let me just ask Lori something. MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, I'm the architect for the project. We are working on the plans but we are actually waiting for this approval in order to submit to the Building Department, so we reviewed that with Mark Verity weeks ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I have a question. The work that was -- what work was done on the house from the previous permit? MR. IVAN: From the previous permit, the larger house. It was for the permit you guys have up there, for the demolish of the existing dwelling. I don't believe any of that part of that permit was performed at all. MR. SCHWARTZ: As far as I know there was nothing. None of that work was done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All the pictures of the house, they just re-surfaced everything, it looks like. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So there were any extensions given on this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here, the last one year extension, it says the last one year extension was issued on December 21, 2005, and amended June 18, 2008. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So that permit is expired, so this is a full application, and what you plan on doing now is just the foundation, you don't plan on doing anything from the previous permit. MR. IVAN: Yes, just to repair the foundation, that's it. TRUSTEE KING: So that's a dead issue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. So what I'm trying to clarify is the old permit they are not going to do. The only work they are trying to do now is just repair the foundation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, no amendment or attachments to the old permit is possible. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to clarify that they were not Board of Trustees 39 March 23,2011 still planning on doing all the old work, because if they did then they have to re-apply for all that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, sorry for the confusion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make, for this application, I make a motion to approve this application for a Wetland and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit for the repair to the foundation, pursuant to the plans that we have that are dated, surveyed 11/20 2010, and received in the Trustee office March 1, stamped in March 1,2011. And it was exempt under LWRP as a minor action. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just have a question. When we were out in the field, there was talk about the pilings under the house, and I thought it was said they were replaced. MR. IVAN: Bob? MR. SCHWARTZ: I think they were repaired at one time. I didn't do the work. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right. Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, LOUIS & ELIZABETH MASTRO request a Wetland Permit to demolish and reconstruct a new two-story single-family dwelling, non-habitable attic, basement with outside stairs, and front and rear decks. Located: 1595 Bayview Avenue, Southold. The Board was out there, the whole Board was out there and saw this. And as you can see in the photograph, the house was under construction and now the owners are requesting an application, on their application, to demolish this and rebuild. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer, installation of staked hay bales and silt fence maintained throughout construction, and drainage is addressed by regrading the surface area away from the top of the bank. The LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP. And the only question we had while we were in the field was whether or not there was an opportunity to move the house further landward. But we did note that part of the plan was to do that in and of itself because of the removal of the rear stairs or the stairs Board of Trustees 40 March 23, 2011 on the landward side, and the way it was being re-aligned. We did get aerials to make sure, an aerial photograph to make sure everything was in line with the neighboring propedies and in fact what is there now is behind that line between the neighboring houses. If anybody is interested in seeing that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is one, this is the other and the other is tucked right here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is this the house? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't look like it because it's tucked behind the trees. But this is the house here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: September 20, 2010, and it's just covered by the trees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's hard to tell because all the trees -- Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. MASTRO: Louis Mastro. MRS. MASTRO: Elizabeth Mastro. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Welt, you are taking down a house that has already started construction, and you are planning on rebuilding it, right? MR. MASTRO: That's correct. MRS. MASTRO: That's correct. MR. MASTRO: Bob, when we got involved with the house it was, the construction of it was not up to standards. I mean, you could see right there in that picture, that 2x4 roof rafters on two-foot centers. That's throughout the whole house. And we didn't know that. But when we got involved in the house we started putting good money into bad, and even the foundation, we would have to underpin, because the house is just sitting on the foundation. It's not even tie-rodded or nothing. Basically what we bought was a big shed. Really. I mean we paid $550,000 for this house. And I'm not kidding you. But we want to upgrade the home. It's in a beautiful location and, but it's like putting good money into bad, to put money into this, and we got a permit to do the electric and plumbing and put a couple windows in. We had a lot of rot. And another picture on the side, there used to be a chimney, on the side. You could see on the corner where it's patched up with plywood. It was leaning over to the point where I just kicked it over, you know, so it's like one thing after another. And we wanted to do, just upgrade it, but, we got to the point and said, you know what, this is -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Well, we appreciate you stopped work and came in and got a permit first. MS. MASTRO: We actually got a permit but we -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Most people would tear it down and continue without coming to us. So we appreciate it. MRS. MASTRO: We had a permit for the upgrade of the house but we discovered it was way over our head, and the money we were putting into the house was not even worth it. We had people come in and look at the house and we spent close to $35,000 just to raise the house up and underpin. It's a no-brainer, really. Board of Trustees 41 March 23,2011 MR. MASTRO: But the windows, we'll save them, whatever. MRS. MASTRO: There is water pouring right now. There is no wall. The green paper right there, there is no wall. That's the only protection so no animals go in there, it's completely rotted. You could just walk in that way. It's gone. I mean, it was all covered by tongue in groove, so when we removed that, it was gone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like you have been to the Zoning Board and they gave you approval. MRS. MASTRO: Yes. And they asked us to move the house 40 feet from the water, actually, and they shrink the house. The house will be 28 feet wide and it will be pushed back, so actually the house will start, or the deck will start where that tank is, I think in that area. That's where the house will start construction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what is reflected on the current plans, right? MRS. MASTRO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). MRS. MASTRO: Maybe the Board wants to buy it. Or anybody here for that matter. 540, it's all yours. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll offer you 250. MRS. MASTRO: Double that and you can have the house. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No further discussion? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the house, make sure it has all the drainage according to town drainage code, including drywells. I also would like to add, I think the staked hay bales and 15-foot non-turf buffer is a good idea here. And we'll draw that in. The hay bales, I suppose, would be -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, are hay bales on the plan? MRS. MASTRO: Yes, it should be on the plan. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay, well, yes, there are two leaching pools up in the front. They call them leaching pools. So we have leaders, gutters and drywells, a line of hay bales somewhere seaward of the construction to contain any erosion or runoff from the construction, and a 15-foot non-turf buffer be created and maintained at the concrete, landward of the concrete block wall. MR. MASTRO: During construction or permanent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be permanent. MR. MASTRO: Why do we need that? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Typically on any of the property on the wetlands here we like to see a ten to 15-foot non-turf buffer. MR. MASTRO: But we are doing the drywells and all that. Isn't that going to be adequate? I mean there will be nothing going down there. We are spending so much money on this place, now we have drywells to put in and everything. The cost is astronomical on this place. Board of Trustees 42 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a policy we have on all these projects. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a non-turf, you don't have to plant it, we just don't want to see grass there. MR. MASTRO: There will be grass right into the sea wall. She puts flowers and everything. So it will be nice. MRS. MASTRO: What can we plant there? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anything you want. You can put stone there, you can put plants. We just don't want grass all the way down to the wall. MR. MASTRO: We never put fertilizer on the grass. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We understand that. But this is our policy. We do this for all applications. MRS. MASTRO: Can I ask you, if you ever want to have a deck that way, we have the stairs going down. If you wanted to move that over toward the south side of the property, are we, would we have to get an application to be able to do that? To even it out? Because it's just a big slope, you know what I'm saying. You've been to the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The public hearing is closed and that doesn't pertain to this, and it's not a time to discuss that. I would be more than welcome to discuss that with you at another time. MRS. MASTRO: All right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second on the motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion from the Board on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Usually we address these non-turf buffers when we replace bulkheads or retaining walls, so. It's your call. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was brought up by the Conservation Advisory Council. TRUSTEE KING: Normally, in other applications we've had worked on houses done and we have not done anything with non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead until bulkhead has been addressed. Usually when they come in for a bulkhead permit, that's when we put the non-turf buffer in. It's a toss up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think in this instance where they are tearing down the whole house and the machinery is going to be in there, they are doing enough work, they might as well. All right, all in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, DOUGLAS GEROWSKI requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dwelling, deck (without shed), inground swimming pool and fence, and to replace the deck and fence around the swimming pool. Located: 5705 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. This was an application that came in last month and they were just requesting a fence, and we had discovered that there was no permit for the other accessory structures. So we asked them to come back to apply for all the accessory structures. So that's what we are here for on this. And everything is existing. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the structures are in violation of Town Code. I believe the structures, most of them were built prior to Board of Trustees 43 March 23,2011 Trustees. And it's inconsistent with LWRP policy 6.3, protect and restore tidal fresh water wetland, comply with statutory regulatory requirements of Southold Town Board, of Trustees Board and regulations board and establishment of lands under their jurisdiction, specifically Trustees regulations and recommendations set forth in Trustee permit conditions. Is there anyone here to speak on this application? (No response). They have shown, they have a survey showing the deck and the pool and the fence. Is there any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jill, I thought, as I recall, because I went out and looked at this originally, there were no drywells on the seaward side of the house. There were gutters and leaders but they were just emptying on to the very small lawn, so I would ask that drywells be included in this. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. We do have that in the notes. Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, I'm sorry, I know you read it very quickly but what's the basis of the inconsistency? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's just to comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations. And I guess because it doesn't fit into our regulations of 275. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the entire, the dwelling, the deck, the pool, the fence, is all inconsistent because it all doesn't, none of it meets our setbacks? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And the lot is not, you know, if this was coming in for a new structure, it would not meet the setbacks anyway because the lot is not wide enough if it was being built today. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You said it was built prior to the existence of the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That what my understanding was, we could not find any -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would be a very old house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before we had Trustees jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You said before Trustees. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I should have said before Trustee jurisdiction. Sorry. I forgot a word. Is there any other comment? (No response). The only other thing I want to note is, which the applicant is not here, which we will, Lauren, if we could make a note to just clarify with the applicant, if he does any repair to the dock he must come in for a permit on that because we couldn't find a permit on the dock as well, but we are not attaching that to this application today. Being no other comments, I'll close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Douglas Gerowski as applied for, and it's asbuilt and has been there, I would say that it's consistent with the LWRP. Do I have a second? Board of Trustees 44 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit to replace or repair, and restoration of the main ferry ramp potentially enlarging the ramp to 22' wide by 30' long in the Silver Eel Cove including the installation of new counterweight support towers, ramp support beams and piles and protective dolphins waterward of the apparent high water line. Located: Silver Eel Cove, Fishers Island. This was found consistent under the LWRP, which is good news. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. I went over and looked at this. It's repairs to the loading platform where the ferry backs in. They plan on widening it, and there's some new bulkhead work. I looked at this with the DEC. The only concern the DEC had, there was one bulkhead being replaced approximately four feet from the existing bulkhead four-feet seaward. Evidently, in talking with one of the engineers, that's only go to be around 18 inches, so it's not a matter of concern. It's pretty straightforward. Like I said, it's reconstruction of existing ferry district landing. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Any Board comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'1} make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Shore Solutions, Inc., on behalf of LAUREL COUNTRY ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC., INC., requests a Wetland Permit to replace inplace 40 linear feet of timber navy bulkhead with a vinyl navy bulkhead and an eight-foot return on the east end; replace existing 4x8' timber landing and 4x27' timber stairway down the bluff, replace 3x14' steps; and replace existing timber fence at the top of bluff where needed. Located: 3850 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This public hearing was opened in February and it was tabled at that time because it had not been properly advertised. Board of Trustees 45 March 23,2011 Since then, it has been properly advedised. So just for review purposes, this was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just to clarify what you just said. It was not properly noted to the neighbors from the applicant. It was properly advertised from our office. I want to clarify that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. Thank you. It was not on the notes here that I read here. And Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the existing bulkhead is removed and the project is consistent with the LWRP and the public trust doctrine. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? If somebody wants to step up to the mic and introduce themselves first. MS. MEYERS: Hi, I'm Donna Meyers from Shore Solutions, I'm here to answer any questions you have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The area behind the bulkhead, I have in the notes here, if there is an opportunity to leave this natural behind the bulkhead? MS. MEYERS: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it had been all naturalized prior to this, it looks like. Except the stairs, obviously. MS. MEYERS: They have to go down the bluff to do the work, replace the stairs and re-plant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MS. MEYERS: With native species plants. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is one of these pieces of property where it's, the property lines are at an angle going down to the bulkhead, so you have your steps ending, looks like almost on the property line. And I notice, you have here I'm looking at, I believe this is the survey. MS. MEYERS: It's replacing what's existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's just the landing down at the bottom of the stairs on this, appears to be on the neighbor's property. The Cardone's property. MS. MEYERS: No, it's not. It's close, but it's because of the way the slope of the bluff is. You can't have it go down the other way because it's just the way it's angled. So it's just replace existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the project plan site, it is exactly as you just stated. I'm looking at the photo sites it appears as though there is something over on their property. But you are absolutely right, on the project plan site, stamped received January 24, 2011, it does have it on the property. MS. MEYERS: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the project includes replacing steps from the bulkhead down to the water. MS. MEYERS: Yes. They were destroyed in a storm. What happened with the mailings, I actually mailed them to the street address. I didn't have a Post Office out here. A postal person. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, everything here in the profile a~so looks fine. Anybody else in the audience wants to speak for or against this application? Board of Trustees 46 March 23,2011 (No response). Any comments from the Board on this application? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Shore Solutions on behalf of Laurel Country Estates Property Owners Association, as described at 3850 Peconic Bay Boulevard, and it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: En-Consultants on behalf of REYDON SHORES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC., INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 308 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; incidentally dredge (to maximum depth of -4'ALW) approximately 45 cubic yards spoil from area up to ten feet off bulkhead to recover lost backfill, and use approximately 45 cubic yards spoil as backfill behind bulkhead. Located: 680 Lake Drive Southold. This project has been deemed consistent under the town's LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports application with the condition that backfill is graded away from the bulkhead. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of thisapplication? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Reydon Shores Property Owners Association. It is a very straightforward maintenance project. If the Board has any questions, I'm here to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board looked at it. It's straightforward. I'm not speaking for the whole Board, but for myself I had the impression it was straightforward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I agree. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment with respect to this application? (No response). Make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make a motion to approve this application. It is consistent with the town's LWRP and with the condition that backfill is graded away from the bulkhead so we don't have any runoff over, although it's greatly sandy material, it's just a wise practice. I move with that condition. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). Board of Trustees 47 March 23,2011 And it's consistent with LWRP. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine. Patricia Moore on behalf of RONALD & THERESA FURMAN requests a Wetland Permit to install an inground swimming pool and spa, surrounding patio and pool fence. Located: 1455 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. The Board all saw this. The only question we had on the Board was the C and R's and in particular pertaining to a right-of-way or paper dirt road that maybe goes through or near the property. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, and it is consistent with LWRP. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening, Patricia Moore, and I also have Mr. Furman with me. He's here today as well. Tonight. I just want to clarify on your description, I want to make sure that it incorporates both the survey as well as natural images landscape plan. My application did include that. It's in your file. I just want to be sure that ultimately our landscape plan as well as the construction that is showing on the surveys are -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the fence? MS. MOORE: The fence is showing at the edge of the landscaping. The landscaping is on the landward side of the fence. The area on the seaward side of the fence remains natural. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Where is the paper mad? MS. MOORE: You didn't read the letter and the exhibits I gave you. That's all right. I have, in your file -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We got it yesterday. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was going to say, I didn't see a letter. If we got it yesterday, that explains it. MS. MOORE: I'll paraphrase, very quickly. It looks like back in '93 or '95 the old survey showed that as a mad that maybe the developers used it just as a dirt path showing of the properties. We had the survey updated in December and it was definitely not showing. It had been eliminated by the time the house was built. Them is no dirt road. I actually sent you in your file a copy of the Planning Board C and R's as well as the subdivision map, and my client, I have with me and I could put in your file, my client's title policy that attaches the same exhibits. There is no road. The only road is the common subdivision road, so. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, the reason it was brought up, I know we had a lot of problems further to the north, that road was used as a limit of a non-disturbance area, if I remember right. That's why it was brought up. I don't know if it was ever put in covenants and restrictions, I don't know. MS. MOORE: I specifically looked in the Planning Board covenants and there was nothing regarding the road or anything or even discussion of setbacks. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was the previous Board of Trustees did Board of Trustees 48 March 23,2011 that then, before the houses were built. MS. MOORE: Well, this house was built without the Trustees because we are 75 feet from the wetlands, so it was outside the Trustees jurisdiction, at the time. There are other homes in that subdivision that are very close to the water. So those are very possibly -- yes, our house is significantly -- well, it was outside the jurisdiction at the time it was built, and it's showing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jim, I agree, while I was on the Board, there was an application for, I believe, a pool, just a couple properties to the north and there was a paper road on their survey. And, well, about four years ago. And it created issues at that time. MS. MOORE: Sometimes surveyors, if it's a pathway that is showing up, they'll show it to protect their liability, because it would show an as an encroachment. But there is no recorded easement or roadway. That's all I have. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm just taking a look at the C and R's here MS. MOORE: Go right ahead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This makes mention of right-of-way for egress and ingress by vehicles or on foot in through, over, under and across the street, roads. MS. MOORE: That's the center subdivision. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anybody else want to take a look at this? I'm not really seeing anything. MS. MOORE: I even looked through the Planning Board documents, and there were like five-hundred documents, looking through to see if there was anything in there, and there was nothing, so. It would have shown, if there was, if that road existed it would have had to show on the subdivision map. And it doesn't. TRUSTEE KING: So there is actually no Trustee permit for this house, then. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. Because it was out of our jurisdiction at the time. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, it's a pretty straightforward project. IT looks like it will be real nice when it's finished MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any further comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, I don't remember if they had the drywells for backwash from the pool on the survey. MS. MOORE: You can just put that as a condition, if it's not on there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not showing on the plan. It's something we would just have as a normal course of action, anyway. MS. MOORE: Yes. I think the Building Department might look for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can say with associated drywells. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay. If there is no other questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for, for the pool, with the addition of a drywell to Board of Trustees 49 March 23, 2011 contain any of the backwash from the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number ten, Patricia Moore on behalf of NICOLAS & IRENE ANDREADIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a set of stairs down the bank to access the existing dock. Located: 700 North Drive, Mattituck. This is consistent with the LWRP and Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. I inspected this and it was pretty straightforward. It was staked. It's stairs on the existing path that they are using, so I don't have any questions. Is there anyone here to speak to this? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, if there are any questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Anybody have any questions on this? (No response). There is a note, a letter in the file from the neighbors regarding the proposed dock at 700 North Drive, Mattituck, Andreadis. I'll read it into the record. As the next door neighbor directly affected by this construction of steps to the boat dock on the property above, I strongly object to the construction as described. These proposed steps close to my property is intrusive and unnecessary in the proposed location. Currently the access to their dock is a path they have used on the north side of the property, indirect line with their dock used for the entire time they have owned and lived at the house. Any damage to the buffer protected land is already done and was clearly chosen by them. Mr. Andreadis has verbally and by his actions been determined to cut more trees in that buffer zone to destroy existing foliage to enhance his view. During the original construction, there were landscapers employed by Andreadis examining the protected zone with the intention of cutting trees expanding his view. This would have been done had I not reminded the landscaper it was protected by law. This neighbor is intrusive and uncaring about the environment and regulations that protect the existing green on or near his property. He clear cut his own property, downing and clearing every single tree, bush and shrub on the property, and replaced no trees of significance, especially none on my property line, even though town ordinance required him to do so. I was compelled for my own privacy to replace trees along our mutual property line, trees he destroyed, at significant cost to me. His request is not in the best interest of the town, his neighbors and the environment. He has a path. It has been used since the Andreadis family has lived at 700. They clearly determined the access to their dock. That path in existence will cause the least damage and be the least intrusive to neighbors. The proposed path is close to my property. My experience with Andreadis is to expect more noise and intrusive behavior by users of any proposed steps that close to my property. Andreadis Board of Trustees 50 March 23,2011 should complete his obligation to repair and replace the trees he removed during construction before any other permits ar at the least considered or issued him. I strongly object to the request and the petition should be denied. That's the letter and there are accompanying signatures. Are there any other comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (Trustee Dohedy, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye)(Trustee King, recused). TRUSTEE KING: For the record, I'll recuse myself from this vote. My sister and brother-in-law own the property on the north side of this parcel. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP, requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 8x132' Thru Flow boardwalk in the area of Grey Gulls; and construct an 8x300' Thru Flow boardwalk supported by helical anchors and elevated 18" above grade in the area of Badeyfield Cove. As mitigation, construct]create an area of freshwater wetlands adjacent to the 1st and 18th holes of the Fishers Island Club golf course. Excavate the area down to elevation three feet and remove approximately 1,920 cubic yards of material and stockpiling it. At proposed elevation three feet, create approximately 9,650 square feet of open water wetlands and in that area between elevation three feet and elevation four feet create approximately 26,450 square feet of vegetated wetlands. Regrade portion of the fairway located to the south of the proposed wetlands to control rainwater runoff by stripping sod off the fairway and stockpiling it. Approximately 1,050 cubic yards of fill shall be placed in the exposed area to raise the elevation of the fairway to elevation 7'. Area shall be replanted with the stockpiled sod. Located: P/O East End Road, Fishers Island. The LWRP found this consistent and recommends the Board establish a survival rates for vegetation planted within the created wetland. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. If there are any questions from the Board or the public. I did bring some additional photos we took on our trip up to the site last month, if the Board would like to see them. Board of Trustees 51 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. JUST: This first set is at the, east end of the island at Barleyfield Cove where we had permission to build a four foot by I think 300' long boardwalk. We are trying to get permission to build 8x300' boardwalk. And the second set of photographs was taken on the same day, shows the existing four by, I think 180' walk that Mr. King has pictures of the originals of at Grey Gulls. And just to make it clear for the Board, that existing four-foot walkway, they want to expand it to eight foot in width but it would be expanded between the road and the existing walk. It would not go further out into the wetlands, I guess for lack of a better term, on the seaward side of the existing walk. TRUSTEE KING: Did you get any shots of that area where it would be the other wetland restoration area there? MR. JUST: Yes, these are the photographs that we took on the day that we were there. Unfortunately it was around the hole it was messy. But I found some older photographs in my file from last November when I was at the site. And I also found some photographs of the area where they want to create the wetland at the golf course that were taken last August. And what I would like to point out is part of the restoration plan, is an existing pond about 200 feet away from the area between the wetland and we matched the types of vegetation, the elevations, we feel that what is growing there now, that's what we propose to grow, this is like marsh mallows. This is another picture of the marsh mallows. Again, this is what we are trying to create. Again, we matched the soil types, the elevations. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I remember seeing that last summer. It was very nice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. JUST: When we were there last month with Mr. Chang and three or four people from the DEC, that was the suggestion to try to match up the types of vegetation that were there, instead of bringing in things that might not work out. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any issues with anything, of the work there. MR. JUST: They've given out over three-thousand passes to actually use the path this year, so it's been quite -- TRUSTEE GHOSI©: Three-thousand? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's amazing. MR. JUST: So it's quite well used. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had one. I enjoyed it. It was a great trip. MR. JUST: It was quite the success. I wanted to point that out TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I have in my notes, I would like to be consistent with the DEC, that they have an 85% survival of plantings for two growing periods. They make that part of their permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who is that? DEC? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That will be on their permit. MR. JUST: It's five years, 85%. I think Jim could attest when we were there, the plantings they did do, you can't even tell, the Board of Trustees 52 March 23,2011 natural stuff looks fantastic. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When I was there last summer, the stuff I saw was amazing. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody else? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I like what they did there. TRUSTEE KING: Board? Anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Make a motion to approve the application and part of that will be an 85% survival rate for the plantings for a period of two growing periods. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of OTTO SClqMID requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct inplace +/-118' of timber bulkhead and two 25' returns utilizing vinyl sheathing and to backfill structure with +/- cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 2975 Wells Avenue, Southold. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be exempt. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a 30-foot non-turf buffer and a drainage plan which includes drywells. The Board did go out and looked at this. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, again. When we met on site I didn't think we had any problem with the buffer zone, but I thought we had discussed, I think it was ten-foot buffer zone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I was reading the CAC recommendation of a 30-foot non-turf buffer. But yes, when we met on site we talked about an opportunity of, if there was an opportunity to raise the bulkhead a little bit to reduce the grade, also either a ten-foot non-turf buffer or there was a brief discussion on a second retaining wall, the opportunity for a second retaining wall, landward of the bulkhead and so that you could create a nice buffer in there, between the retaining walt and the bulkhead. I don't know if you had a chance to talk to your client about that at all. MR. JUST: It seems to be a little costly for the applicant but he's more than happy to do the buffer and what we are talking about just yesterday, was, again, what you had said about raising the height of the bulkhead, putting like stone, almost a splash shield behind that that will absorb all the runoff and discharge it back down into the soil. Including it with the plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to recall, I don't know if anybody else can, if raising it would bring it up to the level of the Board of Trustees 53 March 23,2011 adjoining bulkheads or if this would create a situation where the bulkhead would be above the adjoining bulkheads. MR. JUST: The one at the right, looking at the water, I can't recall if it's north or south, they currently have a permit to re construct their bulkhead that would be a little higher in elevation than the applicant's. We could, though, raise the height of this one another six or eight inches. That would not be a problem at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like to the north. If you stand on the dock looking landward, and you said to the right, that would be to the nodh. MR. JUST: I'm talking to the left, though. Looking at the dock, to my right, sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, standing on the dock looking at the dock to your right, correct? MR. ,JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's to the south. So you are talking about the opportunity to raise it to the same height as the property owner to the south. MR. JUST: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. JUST: And that's why we are here today because the property owner to the south had a permit to re-construct their bulkhead last year and it turned out it could not be done without this one being reconstructed because it was just in bad shape. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Question, Audrey. Drainage plan which includes drywells. Can you help me out there? Were they talking about drywells from the house or drywells down above the bulkhead, or? MS. HORTON: I think what happened is there is quite a slope and we were concerned, we looked at a few like this with the grass goes right up there, and there is no drainage. And right before we had gone there we looked at some other houses that seemed to have these, and I don't know what they are, they have these drainage things built into the ground, these drainage pipes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe French drains? MS. HORTON: Yes, but not around the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Probably a drywell. MS. HORTON: Yes, and we were looking at that thinking it might help so the fertilizers and everything else didn't go directly into the water. And I don't know what it's called. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What you seem to be describing is a French drain and what we are just talking about up here is the non-turf buffer really will do the same thing. If it's porous. If it remains porous enough, it will do the same thing. MS. HORTON: Just to get away from the idea, there are several that slope right into the water and one of them actually put concrete to keep it from going into the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. Were there any other comments from anybody in the audience on this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? Board of Trustees 54 March 23,2011 (No response). All right. As I stated, it was exempt under the LWRP, so I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of JMO Consulting on behalf of Otto Schmid at 2975 Wells Avenue, with the condition that the bulkhead will be raised to the same level as the property to the south, that we'll have a new set of plans that depict that as well as the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the length of the property. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Subject to receipt of new plans, Glenn. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number 14, JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAMES MARTIN requests a Wetland Permit to legalize and modify an existing docking facility which consists of a 3x7' landward ramp leading to a 3x27' catwalk, 2.5x8' ramp and a 4xl 1' float secured by two batter piles. The proposed modification is to remove the 3x7' landward ramp and to construct 3x3' steps leading to a 4x20' landward extension to the catwalk utilizing open grate decking, to replace the 2.5x8' ramp with 3x20' ramp and to replace the 4xl 1' float with a 6x20 float to be secured by two batter piles and one tie-off pile. Located: 2740 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: If I could interrupt you, that 3x27 catwalk is actually 3x50'. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Yes, I was just going to bring that up. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the mowing of the Wetlands is stopped. When the Board was out there and we were taking our measurements, we did note that the description as applied for was for 3x27' catwalk, that was a mistake. It's actually a 3x50' catwalk. So we'll have to make that change when we do the motion tonight. There is a change as we discussed out in the field as I believe we angled it fudher away from the property line, I do have those drawings here. That was because there was, the way the property line approached as it entered into the waterway, it got too close to the dock. So that change has been made. LWRP has found this to be inconsistent with LWRP, for a variety of reasons. And I'll just go through them briefly. The dock was originally constructed without a 275 Wetland Permit. The applicant fails to approve the action meet the requirements under construction and operation standards. They have not proved it won't impair navigation. It does not mention, the application does not mention the dimension of the vessel. And there is no assessment to whether the expansion is consistent with the existing dock line, so that Board of Trustees 55 March 23, 2011 assessment cannot be made. I think upon, when we were out there in the field, we did address that, and it didn't look to us as if it was going to be interfering with navigation. It also didn't look to be further than one-third across, so it met the one-third rule, which you can also see the aerials that the LWRP coordinator has provided. Are there any questions or any comments from anybody in the audience on this? (No response). Anybody like to address this? MR. JUST: I just want to go back, the original permit was permit number 120. According to the records that I found on April 27 of 1983, Trustee permit #120, issued to James and Ruth Barr for a 2.8x50' foot elevated walk and a 3x22.5' semi-floating dock. So that's pad of the application we are trying to bring in to legalize and to modify the existing structure. There were some errors made in the original survey, and some of my original measurements, and the dock that is there now is actually a 4x50' catwalk, not a 2.8x50. That was permitted. The 3x22.6' semi-floating dock does not exist. There is an existing 6x16' float and an existing 4xl 1' ramp that were not originally approved either. So after meeting with the Trustees on site and with the 15-foot setback of the property line, we've come up with a completely different configuration. If you just want to look at it briefly, tonight. What I have shown, I only brought three copies. I've shown in the broken lines the existing structure and given that the new measurements and the depth that we took, this past Saturday, at 6:00 PM, with the full moon, we went out there and actually did the depths at the lowest possible tides and that's the new configuration we've come up with, with those tides and the depths. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So that's even slightly different than the modification on the one from the first. MR. JUST: Yes, it would be. Unless there is something you want me to re-stake for next month's meetings, I can definitely do that. I don't think we'll lose the stakes like the last time with the ice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does the Board want to table this and see it again? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was just saying, yes, I think I would like to see that staked so I could see where the end of the dock is, adding a typical, say 20, 21 foot vessel on there and see if that's going to be safe for navigation in that channel. MR. JUST: We were able to go out on Saturday evening and we did find the edge of that channel there, it falls off rather abruptly there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: How far away is it from the channel. MR. JUST: About 30 feet seaward from the end of the existing float dock that is there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From the existing float dock. MR. JUST: Yes, the existing float is 32 feet seaward of that Board of Trustees 56 March 23,2011 from where the channel starts. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I would like to see it staked. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, if you are willing to stake it -- MR. JUST: No problem. I brought this up to par after the meeting with you folks on site. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So in the interest of making sure we have all our i's dotted and t's crossed, why don't we table this and take another look at it next month. TRUSTEE KING: Just stake the two outer corners of the float, maybe a stake with the tie up pile is going, too. MR. JUST: I could do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to table this until next month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). At this time I would like to take a short break, less than five minutes, please. (After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are back on the record. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: ©kay, the next one, number 15, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SOUTH BROWN LIMITED LIABILITY CO., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4xl 10' fixed catwalk with a 4x10' seasonal ramp onto three 8x30' seasonal floating docks secured by 6-8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 8070 Narrow River Road, Orient. The LWRP, we have a letter issued today, that they need more information to assess the proposed action, specifically the proposed use. The use was not indicated in the submitted materials. There is a letter to the Trustees dated today, says concernin9 the South Brown Limited Liability application, Narrow River Road. Dear Trustees, given the Conservation Advisory Council's resolution to not support this application because it is inconsistent with the Wetland Code and the fact that there is as yet no determination by the New York State DOT, New York State DOS and the Army Corps of Engineers, and given that Narrow River Road is a sensitive environment as welt as significant beauty spot or sacred place for local residents, I respectively request you reserve decision until a response is received from other agencies involved. I also urge you to determine what uses are expected of these docks, what kind of posts will be involved, and whether there is any dredging anticipated for the use, which obviously would raise more significant environmental issues. Thank you, Frederico Waschberger, former president of the Orient Association. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the proposed dock is inconsistent with the Wetland Code. The Board last month transferred an old permit to the South Brown LLC just to bring those of you up to date who are not aware, but we denied amendments to that last month, and Board of Trustees 57 March 23,2011 in the file are copies of negotiated instruments, land purchase agreements between members of the Tuthill family and the DEC concerning the acquiring of certain wetlands in Orient, and this land purchase agreement makes specific reference to docks therein. I'm not entirely familiar with these documents and exactly this size docks, but maybe that would be information we can get discussing the matter at the hearing and looking at the record. Anyone here wish to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. I would like to point out that Rich Tuthill is here, also. If there are any questions about the history of the dock. The reason the dock came up is because the Tuthill's turned over their environmentally sensitive land to the state. The state therefore let them have this half-acre parcel to have a more substantial dock for multiple families, and now that the family is getting bigger and bigger and they are all coming of age, they are looking to access the water for the family, and I know you guys know the history of this. They gave up a lot of land, all the waterfront. There is no other dock that can go in there because now the state owns it all. And that was the Tuthill's cooperating as far as preserving this land. Um, so I'm just here to answer any questions about that. I mean, I don't know how you guys feel about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jack, what year did this take place, again? MR. COSTELLO: 1989. And they received a DEC permit for this and the size and the scope of the dock is based on what the DEC stated at the time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: At that time. But it's not what you are asking for now. What you are asking for now is different than what the DEC gave? MR. COSTELLO: Just the location is slightly moved, because of the siltation there. We actually, we can actually move the dock over and back some. I had a hydrographic done, what you asked me to do. Bob Fox brought it in today, and the overall scope of the dock is actually exactly the same, we just shifted it over and back. And I have new plans indicating that. So the actual structure is less over the water, less intrusive over the waterway, but I kept as to the verbiage in the application, I kept it the same. We just shifted it back a little further above high water. So, theoretically, the dock could be shortened a little bit, but considering there is marsh there, we figured keep the verbiage the same as the DEC had, but the float is now in two-and-a-half feet of water. So we kind of cocked the float and shifted it over a little bit and shifted it in, so the whole floating dock is in two-and-a-half feet of water. So I don't fear this will be a issue for the DEC, because they approved it once, and the float is in two-and-a-half feet of water, I mean. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. Did you guys hear that? What I asked him was what he's applying for now is that what was approved in 1989 from the DEC. He was saying, yes, he's just describing it's a little shifted over, which makes it less coverage over the Board of Trustees 58 March 23,2011 water, but it's basically the same as what the Tuthill's got from the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have anything in the file from -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know what we have from the DEC. This is the old file. We have the permits from the Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The permits from the Trustees show two 6x20's. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The permit from the Trustees, back when I was in the Board in a previous age was two 6x40 foot of float, 20x4 catwalk and 8x2.5 of ramp. So it was, the total length, 40 feet of float, six foot wide. So there may have been a slight different history over what was granted and then what was -- MR. COSTELLO: I think at the time it was a cost issue with the owner. He backed away from what the DEC gave him just because of the sheer cost of the job. And at that point, you know, the family was not that big. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's just of a reference point for this Board because we did transfer the permit at a previous meeting and as far as what this Board had previously approved, it gives us a point of reference for the discussions going forward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it was basically 6x40, two 20-footers, so 6x40 is what was approved and is it now applying for three 8x30s. MR. COSTELLO: And that's what the DEC approved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just for the record, this has not been reviewed under the LWRP yet, so we are not going to be able to act on it tonight. MR. COSTELLO: The conversation with Mark was just that he would have written a favorable letter if we said it was for commercial aquaculture. I didn't really want to go that route, just because it's not really, it's not going to be bustling marine port there. Mr. Tuthill has an oyster business on the other side of the village. John, the son, you know, has a commercial fishing license, has the stripe bass tags and does that. I just didn't want to give the Board the idea this was going to be a bustling commercial fishing port, because it's not. And I didn't want to give Mark that. It's certainly going to be used -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, because under aquaculture -- MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it's just, for Mark's sake it would have been saying, what do you want here. Is it going to be used for oystering? Yes. Is it going to be used for clamming? Yes. But is it going to be solely aquaculture. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I had a conversation with Mark, yes. MR. COSTELLO: I didn't want to get into that. It's more for dockage for the family. There will be a commercial aspect of this, but I didn't want it to become -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure, it's not a commercial business. MR. COSTELLO: It's people that gave up their land and they gave Up their rights to the waterway and now everyone wants to use this. Now I think this one access makes more sense than having 20 access points. That's why they cooperated and gave the sensitive area up to the government. And that's why this whole Board of Trustees 59 March 23, 2011 thing happened. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is another consideration. You know, Trustees have to regulate mooring fields and offshore/onshore stakes down there and I spent a good deal of time talking with Lisa Talbach today of the DEC shellfisheries unit in relation to how they regulate shellfish lands under the national shellfish sanitation conference of which the DEC and FDA regulate things, and the Trustees have to be very mindful before they allow expansion of marine facilities that are going to have boats on them that would have heads, because when you start having ten or more boats, and this also relates to what we do on our lands in the adjacent area where we have free swinging moorings at anchor as well as the onshore/offshore stakes, the DEC will start having regulatory closures when we stad to increase the number of boats with heads. So I don't know if -- MR. COSTELLO: There are no boats with heads. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm bringing it up because if the Tuthill's are in a position to take restrictions on no boats with heads, I know the boats I've seen down there didn't have heads. I know they have had gratis had one or more baymen keeping boats there. But it's an important situation I want to bring forward because I know we are trying to come to grips with mooring issues in the town and we really would not want to risk losing valuable shellfish lands, obviously Rich Tuthill is well aware of the shellfish industry and not trying to lose lands but I just bring it up because it's pertinent and that's a restriction the Board would be willing to consider and you would be willing to accept, it would be an area here to understand, you know, that the docks were made of, the ability to build the docks, and in such a fairly large configuration was a direct result of compromise that saved a lot of valuable wetlands, we would not want to be acting inconsistent with those land preservation goals going forward. MS. HULSE: Do we have any documentation with that, as to the agreement with the DEC? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The copy of the agreement is in here, the land purchase agreement. TRUSTEE KING: Jack, wilt you have to go to the DEC with this proposal? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Absolutely. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's what he was saying, he feels the DEC, since they approved it in '89, they would approve it again. MR. COSTELLO: And it follows their regulations, too. I mean, the boat is in 2.5 feet of water and it is entirely in 2.5 feet of water. Urn, I have been, in approaching this, I thought you guys were more going to take a different view on it. That's why we started here and didn't even approach the DEC yet because, like I said, as far as their regulations go, I mean, they don't care how long the dock is. It could be five-hundred feet long, they wouldn't care. It's just a matter if the Board understands the dynamic of this particular dock and how much this family did do to save open space. Board of Trustees 60 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think, given the history here, I'm willing to approve more than the current code allows. But I don't know if I'm willing to go that much further on the floats. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to agree. I mean, previously, as a member of this Board previously, we went through a sequence of permits that resulted ultimately in a 6x40 feet of float. And given the fact that we have, you know, public letters in the record and the current standards only permit one 6x20 float, that would actually be twice the current standard. And we could basically reconfigure in allowing to get a suitable depth so there is less stress on the marine environment, which obviously the DEC will want the two-and-a-half feet. But since this Board has already had a permit history and went even a little bit above and beyond by transferring the permit when some of the floats and structures out there had gotten in disrepair and were not exactly in conformity, that what we have done in the past, and it would seem we would want to carry that sort of action through to the future, with allowances for better thinking, you know, getting a little more additional depth. I just, the amount of floats that are requested here seems a little bit too much for the site, and I'm concerned about how much vessels would be there. It's, there again, it's not a suitable place for a marina, there is no parking, particularly there, available off street, so it's the kind thing that has to be kept a little bit, you know, in some relation to the site. I mean, I might think even differently if it came back from the DEC, and the DEC says, yes, we have done this previously, and they would go with the larger size, I would have to give it a real, long, hard look, but my own -- MR. COSTELLO: The thought being about the large dock is to have one larger dock rather than keeping all that land and have ten little docks. That's why the land was turned over and agreed upon and turned over to the state was the fact of the matter they'll give us up all this water front. They gave up all the waterfront from the proposed dock all the way to the back of the creek, everything. With the understanding they would get the boat slips for their family. It's just at the time the grandfather didn't have the foresight to go ahead and do it because it just didn't makes sense at that time. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What did the Board approve before, again? Sorry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two 6x20's and 20x4 catwalk. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we can't act on this month anyway, and I would like to get more insight into this agreement. MR. COSTELLO: Why can't we act on it this month? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: LWRP. MR. COSTELLO: You can't act without Mark's -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: After 30 days. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He had insufficient information. 30 days has not run. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. Board of Trustees 61 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what Bob said. I would like to have legal counsel look over the agreement that is in the file. Maybe there is some language in there that wil~ assist us here in trying to make a fair decision as far as number of floats or footage of floats. Because I tend to agree with what Jay said, with the two 6x20's, which is doubling what is currently in the code, so taking into consideration exactly what has been stated tonight would be allowing twice as much as what is in the code. MR. COSTELLO: Understood. Like I said, the sheer magnitude of what they gave up, and it has nothing to do with the Trustees. I understand that. But when they turned over the land to the state, there was certainly a misunderstanding there, because they thought they were going to get these three 30x80 foot floats that they were promised, to give up all the land. So there was a little gray area there for misunderstanding. The state comes in and says, hey, you know what, give us all this land, we'll give you this float. There it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that in the agreement? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we have that. MR. COS,TELLO: Right, you can look it over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we can look it over, and it will help us out. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And we have to keep in mind, Jack mentioned before, this would be the only structure in the area. There will never be any other structure in the area because the whole area is state property. So it's not like a neighbor will come in and say I want that. At this end there will be no other structure. MR. COSTELLO: Because the Tuthill's owned the whole thing and gave it to the state. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much did you give to the state? MR. TUTHILL: 28 acres. TRUSTEE KING: You gave it to them? MR. TUTHILL: (Inaudible). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, Audrey? MS. HORTON: I think what this family tried to do is very commendable and I think it's unfortunate that we on the Conservation Advisory Council didn't have that full picture when we evaluated it. And I think if it comes up for another evaluation, it sounds like it will be postponed, I think an important way of addressing that night be how many individual lots could have been there and how many members, how many family members, individuals, not people, but individual families, are part of this group that are being met. Because that sets an understanding of why something might want to be a lot larger than the code, when you have all this, on all the sides, you just put it into a spot, which is we have done, when you look at commercial locations, you change all the rules because you have a whole bunch of people just putting it in one little spot that is easier to deal with. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a unique situation, for sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And we would try to address that in residential Board of Trustees 62 March 23,2011 applications as well, try to get a couple of folks to get together and try to just have one facility rather than two, things like that, so. MS. HORTON: Like Broadwaters Cove where I live, does. MR. COSTELLO: I know the Board is worried about setting a precedent of this big of a float but I think it's a poor precedent to not work with a family who has given so much away and gotten really nothing in return. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I, personally, am not worried about precedent because it is so unique in this area compared to anything else. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not worried about precedent. Individually, I'm concerned about shellfisheries, I'm concerned amongst a number of issues. But this is such a unique situation, well stated, it's almost a hardship to not give them as much as we can. That's why we want to take a look at it. MR. COSTELLO: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table the application for fudher research on the land purchase agreements and to allow the LWRP to have the time run so that the full 30 days goes on the LWRP review. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS requests a Wetland Permit to install 20 helix screw anchors to reinforce existing bulkheads; backfill void areas with approximately 40 cubic yards of clean trucked in sand; and revegetate any disturbed areas. Located: 2790 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. This was found to be exempt from the LWRP. It's a minor action. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, with no other comments. I went out and looked at this. This is an older bulkhead that it's starting to show its age. Kind of like me, falling apad. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I kept my mouth shut. I was trying to, anyway. TRUSTEE KING: And they'll install some helical anchors to straighten the bulkhead and pull it back in place a little bit and fill in some of the voids and get up behind there and replant. It's pretty straightforward and simple. Is there anybody here to comment on the application? MS. HARPER: My name is Catherine Harper. My husband Robert could not be here tonight because he's working. We live right next door to Moe Malita and in a local landmark home, and as preservationists, you know, we have respected and appreciated all that Susan has done to her building. She uses historically correct materials in her restorations, she tends her properties so well, she really adds to the streetscape that New Suffolk Avenue is. She has proven herself to be an impeccable steward of the Norris estate. And we just would like to add our voice to her appeal for what she needs to ensure the integrity of her bulkhead, because we know, to use a Martha Stewartism, it's a good thing. Thank you. Board of Trustees 63 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, here to answer any questions about it. Like you said, it's very straightforward, simple, just going to shore up the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any questions. I thought it was very simple. Anybody else? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: III make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALI AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any other comments on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next consultant requests that we skip to number 20, Port of Egypt. Dave, did if you can take that one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 20. Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of PORT OF EGYPT, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge (1 O-year maintenance) various underwater areas within the marina to a navigable depth of -6.0'+/- (at Iow tide). Approximately 4,500 cubic yards of dredge spoil is anticipated to result from the proposed maintenance dredge, to be transferred to onshore trucks and deposited within an approved upland location; excavate a triangular-shaped area of asphalt and gravel along the marina shoreline (along west side of the boat basin within Lot 6.1 ) measuring 1,550 square foot in area, inclusive of existing fill below to a depth of elevation 1.0'+/-. Approximately 275 cubic yards of resultant fill will be removed from this area and transported to an appreved-for upland location; existing bulkhead measuring 80' in length along the southwestern side of the area will be removed and replaced with a proposed Iow-sill bulkhead inplace (top elevation @ 1'+/-; a proposed retaining wall measuring 55' is to be installed to the northwestern side of the proposed wetlands area, to separate this area from the parking area; a proposed ramp extension 4x20' will be installed to connect the existing ramp to the parking area; the resultant area will be graded and prepped for planting of Saltmarsh Cordgrass nine inches on center, extend and/or replace the existing floating docks (finger docks) measuring 3x20' with new floating docks to measure 4x30'; approx. 149 floating docks within the marina will be extended seaward; proposed pilings are to be installed at the seaward end of each floating dock; additionally, where requested, floating docks are to be moveable/removable when needed in order to accommodate different sized vessels. Located: 62300 Main Road, Southold. This is a very large project and involves both dredging and increasing dock space at Port of Egypt. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. It is -- I'm reading from LWRP coordinator's comment. It's unclear which floating docks Board of Trustees 64 March 23,2011 will be extended seaward. It is recommended that the Board clarify which docks will be extended and assess the navigability between the end of the floating docks and opposite floating docks and the barrier island located south of the marina facilities. The CAC supports the application with the condition the storm water runoff issue along the pedestrian passageway north of the ramp is addressed. This is a multi-faceted project. And so, first off, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVAN: Yes, Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant and Bill Leiblein is here as well. Lauren was kind enough to let me know there was a concern about the distance of the, actually the width of the waterway between the marina and the island, so I put together a little aerial, which shows what is going on there. The little purple, I kind of, I did my best in terms of rendering for the extension of the dock. The little purple end is about 30 feet at the extension of the docks. And from what I could figure you are, it's about 135 at the minimum, to that island. And with regard to the one-third rule, if you did the calculations in the right-hand column, it's, it probably would be nonconforming with one-third if we were in a waterway with a width of 105 feet, which luckily, we are not. Then again, as you said, it's like a three-part project; we have the dredging going on, which we'll try to do to a navigable depth of six feet at Iow tide. We calculated about 4,500 cubic yards of dredge spoil will be a result of this dredging. We are also going to do a wetlands restoration in one section that measures about 1,500 square feet. This is a condition of the DEC. So you see on the plan we'll plant it up with Spartina. And last but not least we are going to do the proposed docks extensions, about 149 floating docks will be extended to a maximum of 30 feet. Some of these docks may be just an extension of a foot or two. Some may be a little bit more. And I'm here, as well as Bill, to answer any and also questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Where are you with regard to the DEC for the permit for dredging? Just the dredging. MR. IVAN: Just for the dredging, right now we saw on the computer, they are actually sending out notice of incomplete application. So they are reviewing it. We expect that in the mail. We didn't seem to have too much of a problem with Albertson's next door with the DEC, so we are anticipating the same thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just bring that up because of the six-foot depth, I know from doing dredging through Southold, the DEC has really cut back on depth. We have not been able to get any inter faces dredged to six foot. So -- MR. IVAN: We are hoping, again, right now, just looking at the computer, they sent out the notice yesterday, so we'll find out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, Mr. Lieblein, just introduce yourself for the record. MR. LIEBLEIN: I'm Bill Lieblein, Pod of Egypt. Since we were Board of Trustees 65 March 23, 2011 doing, since we were going to go for an application, we don't plan to do any dredging in the next year or two but we figured we might as well get the maintenance dredging. There is a couple of spots a little shallow, we might want to clean out one of the canals or something. But at some point we may go, when business improves, we want to make sure it's the same depth. If it's approved at six feet, we might go to 6'4". If it's approved to five, we'll go to five. That's why that's in this application. The thing about the little triangular piece of land, I think you were down and saw Katy and she pointed out where it was. That was a Chuck Hamilton requirement. He wanted us to cut down the concrete bulkhead in front of the restaurant and he said can't we do something somewhere else and we volunteered that spot. He said okay. So we figured put a Iow bulkhead in, plant the Spartina grass and set our catwalk out to get to the docks. And once that is in place then we'll have met all the requirements for the violation we got, about six or seven years ago already, I kind of lost track. We have taken care of everything else but that. Paid the fine and all. And the last thing is, actually, as you were reading it, increasing dockage, we are actually decreasing dockage. What we are looking to do is have the flexibility as the boats get bigger, like there is one spot, we are thinking of taking three fingers, we have four slips, taking out three middle pilings and adjusting the fingers so we can have three larger boats, because we are getting applicants with bigger boats now and the smaller slips go vacant. So if you take out an eight-foot slip and take that eight feet and spread it out, you wind up with less boats but you have a space someone can use. And all the boats that are out there, in the outside area where the picture shows, the distance to the sand bar, there is not a boat out there under 30 -- well, there is a couple of boats. Most of them are 30-feet long. There's a 30-foot Grady White that has a three-foot bow pulpit and engine sticks out three feet. So they are all sticking out more than 30 feet now. The thing is, the people that tie up out there, they like to pull out bow first because when they go on the boat and sit there, they got a million-dollar view. They're looking at the birds, the Ospreys, they are looking at green lawns and so on. So by putting a 30-foot finger in, it makes it easier for them to walk far enough back so they can get into the cockpit without climbing over the retail. So adding ten feet, most of these docks are 20 feet long, some are already 25 feet, making them all 30 feet or every other one 30 feet, as time permits, is not going to effect the waterway in any way, shape or form, as far as navigability. It will just make it easier for our customers. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you said there are mostly 30 foot and longer boats there already. MR. LIEBLEIN: Right. So there, the finger will still not reach the back of the boat. So the finger isn't the problem, it's the boat. And there is never a problem of navigability in there. So Board of Trustees 66 March 23,2011 when I talk to Chuck Hamilton about this when he was still involved six years, when we had the violation, we walked around saying this was what we wanted to do, we talked about going to them with a blanket permit to cover the envelope of where our docks are now, just give us, without - every time we want to move a dock you have to get a permit. As long as we stay within our envelope and don't make any more slips, what we'll do is reduce them, he said it seemed to make sense to him. He's not there anymore to have it makes sense to. But hopefully someone is there who will agree with that and hopefully you'll agree with it. TRUSTEE KING: I always wanted to see an envelope for the marina. Whatever you want to do inside the envelope, fine. You want ten floats, 30 floats, 20-foot floats, what difference does it make. Those things change, people get bigger boats, they get smaller boats and you need to be flexible. I don't have a problem with that concept at all. Envelope, you are in the envelope, do what you want. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. What my concern was the one-third rule. Number one. And with this aerial that answers that question. It answers that concern. I also know -- MR. LIEBLEIN: What was the thing about the walkway, you read in there? Someone had the walkway behind the ramp? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll get that. My other concern was that we were not going to be creating a situation where we are extending docks into the navigable channel that is maintained by the county. Because the county, you know, that happened, in their opinion, once before, and we had to rectify that situation and if they, so I just didn't want to see us creating the same problem or challenge all over again. But from what I see here, don't think that, you know, I'm looking at the two spots that are 135 feet across, in other words, the most minimal width, and I don't foresee a problem there with the county, with dredging through there. Now, getting back to that triangle area, what the CAC had stated at the launching -- where it's right adjacent to that launching ramp or, not launching ramp, I'm sorry, I guess it's a travel lift, that has the concrete pad, I believe, Audrey, that is what they were referring to here. MS. HORTON: I'm trying to look through my notes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because they wanted something to address the storm runoff issue along the pedestrian passageway north of the ramp. I don't know if it's that concrete path there or if they are talking about over where the launching ramp is. I just need a little clarification, if I can, from Audrey on that. MR. LIEBLIEN: This is where the triangle is going. MS. HORTON: Right. I saw that. MR. LIEBLIEN: And we'll just close it off here and have a little walkway. Right now there is an access ramp where the bow of this boat is. So we'll have the same access ramp but now there will be 20 feet of Spartina down there. So you just need posts, like you put over any marsh with a cross piece, so you have you have a walkway to get to that one section. Board of Trustees 67 March 23, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just wanted to see if we are talking about the same area. MR. LIEBLIEN: Because the trellis at the other end of this should not be any affect on it at all. In this picture that you have here on the triangle, the four boats that won't be there anymore because that space won't be available. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. Audrey? MS. HORTON: I think I have written "fine" on my notes. And so I'm trying to remember what they had said that changed it, and I actually, you know, I hate to comment for somebody else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, no problem. And I had a chance when I was in there, to notice the nice work that was done around the new restaurant, because I know that was part of the restoration in there was to restore around there and do some plantings to take care of the runoff there. That looks very nice. I want to compliment you on the work you did there. MR. LIEBLEIN: I have to give a lot of credit to my daughter Katy. She has the green thumb. And I now work for her, but anyway. My daughter Katy, my niece, my other daughter Amy, and my sister. All women. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were there any other comments from anybody else in the audience with regard to this application? (No response). Okay, any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, I just, it will be interesting, I would be interested in hearing what the DEC does with regard to dredging. It would be very interesting. I'm ail in favor, I hope they give you the six feet, but I just don't know what will happen with them with that, with the death. MR. LIEBLEIN: I'm not concerned with that right now because that won't happen for a while. The economy has to get a little better before we do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think with this clarification of this picture, it answers all our questions. It was very clear. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given that, I11 make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Port of Egypt, as described, at 62300 Main Road, Southold. And this was found to be consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. LIEBLEIN: I thank you. This way I'll actually catch the ten o'clock and I won't have to worry about catching the last boat. If I could take one minute, if you look at the picture, I suspect this photograph was taken this Fall. I think it was Board of Trustees 68 March 23,2011 taken right after the dredging was done and if you look at the end of the docks in front of the fish market. By the way, we did take those docks back. That permit went back to when Mike Morris was still alive, he put the docks in. That's the length of the docks. And at that time, this island didn't go like this, it went like this, and in 1946 the building was here and in '65 when the county dredged, they filled it in, and from '65 until it started eroding away, it was the second largest tern nest on the east coast after Gull Island. And now there is very few gulls there because all this stuff, it's now like a crescent. If you look right now, this sand bar is about where it was before they did the dredging last Fall. It just comes right back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I noticed that. MR. LEIBLEIN: And the reason I asked to speak for just a moment here, because I'm probably the last one down there old enough to remember this. And all this hook came about a because a barge and now I can't think of the name of the party boat that sank there, but these, and the eddy around there started hooking this and after that it got worse and worse. And a couple of times Albertson and Port of Egypt paid to put a crane on the island and dig it back and it just, if somebody would just realize that if you got an excavator on there and straightened it out, so that the hook started, because as soon as they pump, they pump it all in, and it runs into the bay here, the current flows around and just carries the sand both ways and every time you do it, it gets a little worse. If they put big excavator on there instead of this section dredge, and pile the stuff a little higher, then the birds would come back. They don't come now because it's not enough area. There are some terns, but there were thousands of terns there when I got out of the service 42 years ago. And it's down to hardly any. But that's future reference, and I would be glad to work with anybody -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do, if you are willing, is make an appointment with you, myself and Bob Whelan who works for Suffolk County DPW, an engineer, and have a conversation with him about this to see if Suffolk County, since they maintain the permits, would be willing to file to amend the permits somehow. I don't know whether it's possible. We have to start someplace. MR. LIEBLEIN: You realize the island is privately owned. Some of you probably met with the owners of the island when they come up here. They live in Maryland now, if they are still alive. They are way older than I am. But if you put it back where it's supposed to be, where it was, it will probably take every four or five years dredging instead of every year and then two months later it's back to where it was. Thank you for listening. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll coordinate and set up an appointment. MR. LIEBLEIN: I would be happy to meet at any time. Thank you, again. Have a good evening and God bless you for the work you have to do here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Bill. Board of Trustees 69 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 1,736 square foot two-story, single-family dwelling; 464 square foot attached rear deck; 95' ~ong retaining wall along the southwestern corner of the property; gravel driveway; sanitary system; and connect to public water. Located: 100 Bay Road, Greenport. The LWRP has deemed this project to be consistent. The CAC does not support the application because there is not enough information regarding elevations with respect to the area of wetlands and the flood zones. They have concerns with hydrology of the property and what impact the proposed project will have on the neighboring property. Trustees went and viewed the site. It's my understanding that a previous Board had reviewed a similar proposal. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan on behalf of Suffolk Environmental for the applicant. I'll pass out more aerials to hopefully make your lives easier. This project was approved, as you guys know, back in 2002. Unfortunately the property owner just didn't implement the project, so obviously the permit lapsed and now we are back before your Board. Again, it's virtually identical to what was approved back in 2002, I believe, except the only thing that was different, I think we are putting in a retaining wail surrounding the sanitary system. And I'm here to answer, hopefully, any and all questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question that rose to my mind, when I was looking at the set of plans. The retaining wall cross section on your John Ehlers land survey, dated October 15, 2010, it shows the top of the retaining wall at elevation 15. Is that possible? MR. IVAN: I have to believe that's a mistake. You know what, I believe I have a revision in for that, because before we went to Health Department I did notice that. So I can supply you with a correct elevation on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was raising questions concerning how it was going. Now, is that cross section, is that the grade elevation, as I'm looking at the diagram, to the right, that shows three-foot minimum, that setting, the footings will be three-feet below grade, I presume? MR. IVAN: That, I believe that's accurate. I believe the cross section of the retaining wall is way off. That would be like a nine foot wall, which would not be happening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would create some of the issues that the Conservation Advisory Council was concerned with. MR. IVAN: Yes, but again, I'm hoping John will have those revisions for me very shortly, so I'll provide the Board with those revised surveys to clarify that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very sandy soils, but I don't think I'm seeing any provisions for French drain or drywells on the plan, on this plan that I'm looking at. I was just wondering - MR. IVAN: Yes, I don't think the applicant would have a problem Board of Trustees 70 March 23, 2011 with that, whatsoever. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just as a suggestion, in some other areas there have been, where homes have been constructed in a similar, on a beach, French drains have been used to contain the road runoff off the sides of the houses and they worked very well. It's just a suggestion rather than drywells. MR. IVAN: He would be amenable to that, I'm sure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any comments from the Board, or questions? TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have is the road drain pipe goes on to the property. MR. IVAN: Yes, that is proposed to be removed. TRUSTEE KING: That was an issue the first go around, when the first permit was issued for this. The owner was supposed to contact the Highway Department and work something out on the removal of that pipe. I don't think it was ever done. So I'~1 recommend the same thing again, the owner contact the Highway Department, and we'll need something in writing this time how they'll do this. Because if they just yank the pipe out, we'll have problems with the highway, the road will flood, and there will be a lot of unnecessary aggravation. So, like I said, we'll need something in writing to verify they have an agreement on how they'll take care of that road drain. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just wondering, Jim, when you say they need, that the property owner and the Highway Department have to come to an agreement, why the owner of the property? In other words, the drain pipe is the responsibility of the town. The drainage on Bay Road is the responsibility of the town. I don't know why we are putting any type of onus on the property owner on that. TRUSTEE KING: Right now it's going on his property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm saying he has the right to cut that off and it's now the town's issue. TRUSTEE KING: Then it just causes aggravation that I don't think the town need. I've seen other pipes removed at the owner's request, the town has been forced to remove them because there is no easement, then the road floods and in one particular case it blows the side of the road out and it all goes to the same place anyway. So we need to get the proper drainage in or it will be a continuing problem there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think at the very least we should forward whatever we approve to the Highway Department, to make them aware this is happening, so they have time to plan and put a catch basin or drainage, somehow, whatever they have to do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to -- this application has been deemed consistent, has been given thorough review by Board of Trustees 71 March 23,2011 the Board, and it is behind the established wetland line. I'll make a motion to approve this application subject to revised plans showing the cross section of the retaining wall for the sanitary system and the installation of French drain or drywells to contain onsite runoff from roofs and hard structure, and include as a condition of the permit the applicant notifying the Highway Department of the needs for removing an existing drain pipe that lies in the vicinity of the proposed project. TRUSTEE KING: I just have one more question. Is that driveway going to be pervious? MR. IVAN: I believe that will be pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can make that gravel. TRUSTEE KING: Make that part of the permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll have to submit new plans, just -- it says gravel driveway in the description. MR. IVAN: Yes, I'll get John to do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 18, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CARLA STARClC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a second-story deck measuring 401 square feet. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. This was a pretty straightforward, small, little project, nothing more than adding a deck off of a, basically off a second floor. The CAC supports the application with the condition that there is adequate drainage for the deck. I didn't see that as an issue when I was there. LWRP found it to be consistent with LWRP. Again, nothing more than a small deck off the second floor of an existing house. I saw no impact at all. It doesn't push any further than the neighbor. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. IVAN: Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant. Real quick, as you can see, we did try to conform as much as possible with the wetland setback. We truncated the northwestern corner of the deck. It's elevated. In terms of runoff, I don't think that will be an issue, based on the size of the deck. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a right-of-way between that deck and the wetlands. It's 75 feet from the high water mark. It's simple. Nothing else to say about it. Anybody on the Board have any questions or comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as Board of Trustees 72 March 23, 2011 submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number 19, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of BARRETT KATZ requests a Wetland Permit to construct a docking facility comprised of a 4x72' fixed elevated catwalk, 3x15' hinged ramp, and 6x20' floating dock offthe northern shoreline of the property. Located: 625 Wood Lane, Peconic. The CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. The length of the dock is appropriate for the setting. There is public access provided for up and over the dock and runoff is contained from the dwelling. The LWRP finds it inconsistent. It's a lengthy report. It says it's in the fish and wildlife habitat area, and basically policy six, 6.3, net loss of public use of waterways. Again, New York State Department of Fish and Wildlife area, criticat environmental area, Peconic estuary, all the normal associations with 6.3. Also 9.3, preserve the public interest and use of lands and waterways held in public trust by the state and the Town of Southold. Grant leases, and goes on to explain. The Board did have one question. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVAN: Yes. Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The Board was out there and we were looking at the placement, the location on the property of the dock. We didn't have a problem with the length, we felt it was adequate and, you know, didn't go out further than the others. We were just wondering why you didn't go further in the center of the property, then the structure would be shorter, you would still get to the same point out to where the float is. MR. IVAN: I think the homeowner, we discussed that. Bruce talked to him quite a bit. I'm kind of filling in for Bruce tonight, so I apologize if I don't have all the answers. But the applicant was hoping, for him it was visual, although for me, again, you'll still see the dock in the same spot, one way or the other, but it was also he's got the wood deck out there, he's got the wood steps, I think for him it was just easier access. That's the way it came across to me. And the reason it's kind of tilted is we are trying to maintain the setback off the extended side yard. If you want, again, I know I'm killing you with paper here, but I staked out the seaward end of the dock and I said, oh, my God, Bruce, this looks pretty long, but I did the aerial and I scaled these, I scale them out pretty accurately, but from what I could tell, it's actually not too bad. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It didn't look like, comparing it to the other structures we could see out there. MR. IVAN: But again, this makes it a little clearer for everybody. And again, right now we were pending approval by DEC, Army Corps and New York State Department of State. And again, the minimum width of the waterway directly, if you drew a straight line across, it's about 520 feet to the other side. The nearest minimum width of a waterway is about 420 feet, and I'm figuring we have to have a width of 173 to be a non-nonconformity with the one-third rule. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, when I looked at this, again, just like Jill just stated, if the entrance to the dock was more toward the middle of the property, it will be a lot shorter dock, it will be over less wetland area, um, probably it will cost them a tot less. It just seems like there are so many advantages, and you could do a couple of steps down, bring it down to grade, because I know we'll still have to address the Board of Trustees 73 March 23, 2011 inconsistencies here, and if we bring it down to grade and they use open-grating out there, to help address the inconsistencies, it covers less wetland area and open grating between the two of those things, it's a shod structure and that will address the inconsistencies under the LWRP. MR. IVAN: The DEC, I know right off the bat, will request open-grate over the wetlands. That's definitely not a problem. I'll have to obviously go back to the homeowner and just tell him, you know, that it does make sense to just shoot off more perpendicular off that bulkhead. And I think the most important thing about saving money, I think that will probably really strike a chord with him. So, yes, I'll go back to the homeowner and check. To be honest, Bruce and I staked it out probably exactly where you guys thought it should be. You know, but again, we tend to have the homeowner's interest in mind, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The dimensions will be different, now. Should we table it for him to redraw it and get the dimensions? Because if we approve it tonight, we really have nothing we can approve, because it's not like it's just a slight move. It will be quite different. TRUSTEE KING: We can go out and look at it and see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It gives you the opportunity to go back to the homeowner and see if he'll go for that. And again, he probably doesn't understand the LWRP, probably doesn't even know what LWRP is, but at least, you know, with the inconsistencies and talking that over with him he might go for this new location. MR. IVAN: I have an idea, honestly, we'll get the response from the other agencies, too, you know, why don't you go centrally. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have to consider that, if the properly was out, the property goes pretty much in there. TRUSTEE KING: This is shod. Look how short the dock is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are just looking at the line drawn between the docks. You cover it with paper, your proposed dock sticks out a lot further, but I was saying to Jim you have to take into consideration, the land goes in a lot, as it goes in there. MR. IVAN: Sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have the plans that show the depth? TRUSTEE KING: It shows three feet outside. Out here. What we have here, I don't know. Maybe there is the opportunity to pull it in a little to two-and-a-half feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could have a better hydrographics on there going out the length of the dock we could see if there is any way to pull the dock in a little bit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We'll have to do it because if it will be in a different spot once they move it over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The end of it is proposed in the very same location now. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see sounding here, like landward end of the float, take a sounding, see what's there. MR. IVAN: The DEC recommended that we do, now, beside they want certified survey depth, they want a grid pattern at ten feet all around the floating dock. So we are getting that done. In the Board of Trustees 74 March 23, 2011 meantime we'll get you depths going along where the catwalk is, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be great. TRUSTEE DOFIERTY: All right, I'll make a motion to table this to be restaked in a new location and more soundings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 21, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of BARRY ROOT requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct various sections of existing 53 linear feet timber-sheathed bulkhead and returns with new vinyl-sheathed bulkhead and returns along the northern section of property; remove various sections of 110 linear feet existing timber-sheathed bulkhead and returns along the northern section of property; install various sections of 113 linear feet new vinyl-sheathed bulkhead and returns along the northern section of property; remove existing 100 square foot concrete/stone ramp within the northeastern section of property; establish an area of beach and native beach plantings (1,350 square feet) backed with a single-row of rip-rap (200-500 pound rock at 50' length) within northeastern section of property; install a single-row of rip-rap (200-500 pound rock at seven foot length) off southern terminus of bulkhead return within the northwestern section of property; and install a docking facility off the northwestern section of property consisting of a 4x104' fixed elevated catwalk, 3x15' hinged ramp, 6x20' floating dock and two (2) eight-inch diameter tie-off pilings. Located: 6315 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This was found consistent with LWRP. (Perusing). Proposed 138 foot dock. It's been found consistent. I'm just trying to figure out how we got the overall length of 138 feet. It's 104, 15-foot ramp, and 6x20 float, probably goes straight out. It's 138 overall. MR. IVAN: I'll pass these out now and get this over with. Again, hopefully this will make it easier. TRUSTEE KING: The CAC has resolved to support the application with the condition the length of the dock is consistent with the pier line and the installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and proper drainage for the house. I believe in our field notes we talked about a 15 to 20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to comment on this application? MR. IVAN: Matt Ivan, Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant. As you could see, it's a little bit of a complicated project. As you can see, we are removing bulkhead, straightening out bulkhead, we are expanding, well, we removing the whole concrete ramp, which is like a death trap, and hopefully proposing an area of beach planted up with Cape American beach grass. I guess when you guys went out to the site I staked out where the new bulkhead was going to shoot across. So we are basically going to remove a section of land as well as bulkhead in, it's the northwestern section. And we are also, as you can tell, proposing a catwalk, floating dock and hinged-ramp dock structure off that nodhwestem corner. I'm here to answer any and all questions. Board of Trustees 75 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No water depth in this? TRUSTEE KING: Two-and-a-half feet. I don't think we have any real problems with this. Like you said, it's kind of a complicated thing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This might actually create a marsh along the way between the Cape American beach grass and the bulkhead. It might create Spartina. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's actually increasing the habitat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's a nice project. MR. IVAN: The measurement of the dock to the east and west is the one we talked about, that reach to the east on the aerial, about 130 foot long, although it doesn't extend that far into the waterway, then you have the one to the west is about 128 feet. And again, I'm getting a minimum width of the waterway about 420 feet from that shoreline. So again, I can't see that posing too much of a navigable hazard. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking at, the proposed length of the dock, there is not really a pier line. There is one dock that is really adjacent to the west, northwest, and this is extending well beyond it, so I was just wondering if we can make that a "T," the floating dock, rather than straight out, to bring it in a little bit, if the depth is there, obviously. MR. IVAN: Yes, you should have the depth because the DEC wants you to have the floating dock in two-and-a-half feet of water, no matter what. But I think that's fine. You reduce it 14 feet if you do a "T" or an "L." I'm worried about why everybody else is doing it straight out. I don't know the prevailing wind. We have three piles right now for the floating dock, so, but, I think that's doable. I can revise the plans to show that. That's not a big deal. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to approve the application with the one change of making the float at the end of the dock either a "T" or an "L" configuration rather than straight out, and that will shorten the structure two feet and bring it a little more inline. Other than that, I think it's a nice project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Is there any further discussion on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any buffers, or is that on there? TRUSTEE KING: That's right, the Conservation Advisory Council wanted ten feet. We talked about 15 to 20. How about we do a 15-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead. MR. IVAN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That's more than what the Conservation Advisory Council wanted but less than what we talked about before, so it's a good compromise on the buffer. Board of Trustees 76 March 23,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Re s p ~ c.tf u ,1~.~ U b.~itte d by,. Jill ~l~oherty, Pr~ Board of Trustees RECEIVED ~-~¢ APR 2 1 2011 wn (~lerk