Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-11/16/2011
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) 765-5641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, November 16, 2011 6:00 PM Present Were: Jill Doherty, President Robed Ghosio, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney JAN 20 2012 ~'~:'~1 CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., December 7, 2011 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., December 14, 2011 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 21,2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Welcome to our November meeting. Happy Thanksgiving, everybody. I can't believe it's next week already. Before we get started, there are some postponements on the agenda that I want to go over. Page two, under Applications, number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RENATO & CARLA STARCIC request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #3926 to extend underground water and electric to the existing dock, install a light at the end of the dock, and install trees between the shoreline and the northern edge of the existing right-of-way. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold, was just postponed by the consultant. Page three, Amendments, number one DONNA WEXLER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5046 to add a 4'X 15' extension to the existing catwalk; add a 4'X 12' dock in an "L" configuration; relocate stairs to southwest side of dock; and add two swim ladders at northeast and southwest ends of "L" section. Located: 1'775 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, has been postponed. And number two, HERNAN OTANO requests an Amendment to Board of Trustees 2 November 16. 2011 Wetland Permit #7400 to replace the existing exterior walls and framing with no expansion to footprint construction of front and rear entry steps. Located: Unit 5 Sage Blvd., Southold, has been postponed. Page five, number six, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOC, requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge to 3' below mean Iow water approx. 82 cubic yards from channel at entrance to Association docking area as needed, within the docking area itself; dredge as necessary in the same areas to maintain width, depth and full accessibility of entrance channel and docking area on a maximum of four additional occasions during the next ten (10) years. Spoil will be removed to an approved upland location for deposition. Located: Main Bayview Rd., Southold, has been postponed. Page six, number nine, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of FRANK & MINDY MARTORANA requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 6'X 16' walkway along the south side of the house connected to the previously approved deck and fixed pier; install a 4'X 44' fixed dock with a set of 4' stairs in the middle; proposed dock to be elevated 2.5' above the wetlands and constructed using an open grate decking; dock to terminate in a "T" shape and have a ladder at the seaward end. Install additional 524 square feet of new buffer areas on the north and south sides of the approved new dwelling. Located: 3450 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck, has been postponed. Number ten, KPC Planning Service, Inc., on behalf of FHV LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'X 39' dock with a 3'X 12' ramp, 6'X 20' floating dock, three (3) two-pile (12" dia.) float securing dolphins and two (2) two-pile (12" dia.) boat securing dolphins. Located: 1500 Mason Dr., Cutchogue, has been postponed. And number eleven, Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of BEE HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 44'X 41' two-story frame dwelling, septic system and associated site improvements; install a 4'X 27' walkway @ 3' above grade on six 8"X 15' piles @ 9' on center, 30"X 15' seasonal ramp and seasonal 5'X 18' floating dock secured to two 8" X 15' anchor piles. Located: 400 Old Cove Blvd., Southold, has been postponed. Those won't be heard tonight. Before we get started, if you have anything to say, please come up to the microphone and introduce yourself for the record. Wayne Galante is here taking the Minutes, so we need to have it said clearly. And please speak five minutes or less so we can get through the agenda. With that, we'll get started. Our next field inspections are Wednesday, December 7, at 8:00 AM. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The next meeting will be December 14, 6:00 PM, with a worksession at 5:30. Board of Trustees 3 November 16~ 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE D©HERTY: Minutes of September 21, did everybody get through those? It was entertaining. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 2011. A check for $11,534.10 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., November 16, 2011, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA. Those are listed as follows: Donna Wexler - SCTM#86-5-9.1 FHV, LLC - SCTM#104-7-9.1 John & Jeanette Collins - SCTM#88-5-60 John P., Eunice P. & Eunice P. Benfield Trust - SCTM#56-7-19 Mill Creek Partners, LLC - SCTM#56-7-2 US Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Disease Center- SCTM#132-1-30 Frank & Mindy Martorana - SCTM#115-17-9&10 Michael McAllister & Barbara Jones - SCTM#51-1-3 Katie Nickolaus - SCTM#51-1-2 James D. Fry - SCTM#118-4-8 Laurel Hill Limited Partnership - SCTM#145-4-18 Grace Properties - SCTM#26-2-6.1 Barbara DeFina - SCTM#26-2-7.1 Ferucio Frankola - SCTM#78-2-35 TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board ol'Trustees 4 November 16, 201 I TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions and Administrative permits, the Board has reviewed the following and to just move things along, these are just simple administrative permits so I'll -- we all inspected them -- I'll make a motion to approve numbers one, two and three as applied for. They are listed as follows: Number one, MURIEL JOHNSON requests an Administrative Permit to cut down a tree located on the bank, with the stump to remain. Located: 1540 Glenn Rd., Southold. Number two, JULIA & ,JOSEPH VERGARI request an Administrative Permit to replace the existing deck in-kind using untreated lumber on the decking and railings and remove existing 6'X 20.7' section. Located: 5855 New Suffolk Ave., Mattituck. Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DOUGAL FRASER requests an Administrative Permit to install a 35'X 8' wooden deck along the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 7555 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, number one, JAMES KING requests a One-Year Extension to Administrative Permit #7214A, as issued on December 16, 2009. Located: 200 & 220 East Mill Rd., Mattituck. TRUSTEE KING: I'm abstaining from this. I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee Doherty, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye). (Trustee King, abstained). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Note that Jim has abstained. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two is postponed. Numbers three, four and five were reviewed by the entire Board and finding no problems with them, I'll make a motion to approve all three of them as applied for. They are listed as follows: Number three, JOSEPH & NICOLE ARETZ request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4851 from Richard Correia to Joseph & Nicole Aretz, as issued on January 28, 1998. Located: 855 Knollwood Lane, Mattituck. Number four, Jason T. Poremba, RA on behalf of DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7247 to revise the previously approved single-family dwelling footprint, decrease the size of the sanitary system, and relocate the shed Board of Trustees 5 November 16, 2011 to a more conforming location, and a One-Year Extension as issued on February 24, 2010. Located: 1854 North Bayview Rd., Southold. And number five, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7594 to reduce the width of the proposed dwelling by 5' thereby increasing the East side yard set back to 10' from the 5' that was previously approved. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS: - OTHER TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Under Resolutions, the following two resolutions were adopted at the September meeting and there has been a more accurate survey submitted, so I would like to make a resolution to rescind the two -- I want to do, I guess we can do them together-- or maybe do them one at a time. I'll do them one at a time. I'll make a resolution to rescind number one, Amend Resolution dated October 19, 2011 granting PHILIP G. MILOT a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 50 linear feet of bulkhead in-place with vinyl sheathing and armored with stone, and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill, with the Condition of a 5' non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead, and all subject to revised plans. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck, and I'll make a motion as follows: A wetland permit to replace existing 50-linear feet bulkhead inplace with vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140 cubic yards clean fill with a condition of installation of five-foot wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead, which is to be maintained and as depicted on the site plan by Philip Milot, received on September 8, 2011, and stamped approved on November 16, 2011. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number two, ~ make a motion to rescind the resolution of the October meeting to Amend Resolution dated October 19, 2011 granting EUGENE & GEORGENE BOZZO a Wetland Permit to replace the existing 52 linear feet of bulkhead in-place with vinyl sheathing and armored with stone, and backfill with 140 cubic yards of clean fill, with the Condition of a 5' non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead, and all subject to revised plans. Located: 4135 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck, and Ill make a motion to approve as follows: Wetland permit to replace existing 52 linear feet bulkhead inplace with vinyl sheathing and backfill with 140 cubic yards clean fill, with the condition of the installation of a five-foot wide non-tuff buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead which is to be maintained and as depicted on the site plan prepared by Eugene and Georgene Bozzo, received Board of Trustees 6 November l 6,2011 November 2, 2011 and stamp approved November 16,2011. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Ill make a motion to go off the regular meeting and on to public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: COASTAL EROSION PERMITS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, Eh-Consultants on behalf of GRACE PROPERTIES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 87 linear feet of 1,500-3,000 pound stone armor, incorporating existing row of previously permitted stone armor; construct immediately landward of stone armor approx. 84 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall; remove portion of existing southerly stone return to allow for continuous structure with adjacent property and rework and fortify with additional stone existing +6X +14 northern stone return; renourish upland area eroded away with approx. 100 cubic yards of sand; establish 8' non-turf buffer on landward side of stone to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center); and remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) existing 4' wide platform and stairs as necessary to allow for stone work. Located: 190 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. MR. HERMAN: Bob, did you want to open Defina as well, since they are adjacent and we would probably discuss them all as one contiguous piece? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suppose that's not a bad idea. They are right next to each other and it is just one continuous piece. Is that okay with the Board? (AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE). We'll also open number two, En-Consultants on behalf of BARBARA DEFINA requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 108 linear feet of 1,500-3,000 pound stone armor, incorporating existing, previously permitted stone armor (a portion of which is to be relocated landward to proposed location of finished structure); construct immediately landward of stone armor approx. 107 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall; renourish upland area eroded away with approx. 200 cubic yards of sand; re-establish previously required 8' non-turf buffer on landward side of stone to be planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center); and construct 4'X 6' wood platform and 4'X 6' wood stairs over stone to beach. Located: 192 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. LWRP has found both of these applications to be consistent with LWRP, and in the case of Grace Properties, the CAC has resolved to support the application to construct the 87 linear feet of fifteen-hundred to three-thousand pound stone armor but not support the construction of the vinyl retaining wall, but does suppod the application to remove the portion of existing southerly stone and the rest of the application's description. This is basically saying the CAC supports the proposed stone armor with the condition that proposed non-tun' buffer is increased to ten foot rather than eight foot. The CAC does not support camouflaging a bulkhead by proposing a retaining wall. No new bulkheads are permitted in accordance with Chapter 275, according to the CAC. Board of Trustees 7 November 16, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The same comments are made from the CAC with regard to the Defina application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, Rob, with all that being said, why don't you give us the lowdown. MR. HERMAN: Sure. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of both applicants. These are both sites that the board has seen and permitted in the past. What you are looking at there is the Grace Properties TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I also want to see if I could get Defina here. MR. HERMAN: Okay. That's the Grace Properties parcel where stone had been put in place just a couple of years ago pursuant to Wetlands and Coastal Erosion permits that had been issued by the Board at that time. From my discussions with the applicants, this was a situation that is not dissimilar to many others that we have run through with the Board in the past year, or almost two years after nor'easters, or in this case Tropical Storm Irene, where at the time, regardless of the Trustees' position, the DEC was of the mindset to try to use these sort of single row of stones or double row of stone as Iow in profile as possible. And what we have seen happen with a lot of these instances is that in a more significant storm they are getting overtopped, and you can see on both the Grace property and Defina next door, and the Defina, I would say the impacts, without similar structure here having been in place, are more extreme, where almost all of the upland right up almost to the foundation of the house were lost during the tropical storm. Mr. Grace contacted me shortly after the storm, and just coincidentally, I was going to be meeting with George Hamarth and Alexa Fournier of the DEC at the couple of properties that we already had pending and it turned into another one of these post-storm inspection type days. And George and Alexa met us down here on very short notice with lan Crowley, who is the contractor. The idea of the retaining wall actually came up during that discussion with the contractor, and really with the support of the DEC, with the idea being that you have the existing stone that is there now, and what they were trying to accomplish was to set up a situation where we could build on the height of that stone, in order to get the proper elevation above beach grade to prevent this type of overtopping from happening again. What the retaining wall allows the contractor to do is to actually end up using a smaller footprint of stone as the crow flies, because instead of having to build up a larger wedge of stone that is up higher and farther landward with even higher grade to get the proper angle, putting what is really kind of a mid-sill retaining wall behind it, allows him to basically slope the stone up against the wall, and it provides sort of a permanent backdrop right behind the stone. It's not too dissimilar from what we did with the Kramer applications on Calves Neck. I think it was Kramer and McKalzy (sic), but here again the wall would be placed immediately behind the stone. With respect to the CAC comments, you know, we start to Board of Trustees 8 November 16, 2011 parse out sometimes retaining wall versus a bulkhead versus a stone. In principal, we are either going to harden the shoreline or we are not. The idea of the stone being selected over a vertically faced bulkhead or retaining wall, historically, is the idea you would get the slope to the stone so the wave energy dissipates up the slope rather than hitting a vertical face where 50% of the energy is reflected immediately downward and scours out the beach. So that's what we are doing here. It's like the situation we have out on The Sound where the Board will approve the retaining wall or bulkhead on the condition it's armored. Here we are kind of working backwards. The armor has already been approved. We are trying to enhance the armor so it's actually effective and then we are putting the wall behind it really as a measure to just kind of minimize the footprint as much as we can. Along those lines, what I had done with this design, and I think Mr. Grace saw you out there when you were there for field inspections, t originally proposed the retaining wall to just kind of follow the exact path of this stone. But as you do that, in order to get back out to the right ending on Defina's side, you had to create a bit of a"V" on an angle in the wall, and on inch to 30 or inch to 40 it didn't look like much, but once is actually got staked by the surveyor you could see it started to create a little too much of a wedge there at the property line. So what we have done, and I've just handed Lauren up the plans, I don't know if this is even perceptible to you looking at the project plan, but what we did is shifted the north side of the Grace wall back about a foot, and the south side seaward about two feet, without changing the footprint of the stone, really, but just to set up a situation so that where the walls connect at the property line you can have nearly a straight line from one corner to the other bulkhead. It might be the most minor angle in it. It's really hard for me to parse that out to the inch. I discussed the design a few days ago with George Hamarth at the DEC and he said based on the site meeting, that they were actually planning to write a condition into the permit to give us a couple feet of tolerance one way or the other in terms of where the walls connect at the property line. But anyway, that's the idea of the project. The Defina property had stone permitted as well. I don't know the full history of it, but as you could see from the Defina site, the stone never got quite put down in the same fashion as it was put down on the Grace property. So some of the stone on Defina will actually be moved landward and you can see that on the plans, so that everything is kind of a straight line and ties into that adjacent bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is essentially giving you more beach there. MR. HERMAN: Exactly. And the Defina side, really, in terms of the beach width, what we are trying to do with Grace is not change it at all, sort of work with the existing toe and work Board of l'rustees 9 November 16, 2011 backwards. And then on Defina, just because of the nature of the way the stone was left, you can see it's, half the properly was left unprotected, and the other is just kind of a giant pile of stone. The DEC had talked about the fact that the stone will probably have to be piled up a little bit higher. It's kind of hard for me to show this in a plan, but as you get to the most landward part of the return, where you get that real angle that the Trustees often talk about when we have these bulkheads that are kind of at odds with each other, they'll probably have stack the stone up against that return a little bit, on the Defina side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How is it going to tie into this bulkhead here? You can see that's raised and a little different. MR. HERMAN: The retaining wall will be quite a bit lower. But it will tie right into the side of that return. It will have the stone armor sloped in front of it. And then, again, as t mentioned, the DEC had talked about once they are actually doing the construction, they may want to actually put some stone behind it in that corner just against the face of the return. Again, some of this stuff is hard to really pinpoint when you are drafting it at this stage, but that would be the idea, um, would be that by the time you get to that side, that Defina would have some nice stone protection just against that vertically faced wall. And then the bulkheading continues for quite a bit of a run. ~ don't know if all of the terrace is bulkheaded as you go out that way, but it's quite a bit of it that is up in that direction. One of the things that Jim Grace, I don't know if he may have spoken to you about this, I don't know when we talked about the non-turf buffer, I had used the eight feet because the eight feet had been included on the prior Defina permit, and so I was carrying that number. But Jim had brought to my attention that that, at that time, the attempt was to completely bury the stone and start the non-turf buffer out from that point. So that even coming back eight feet would be, would take up more of the little bit of yard they have than the original ten-foot buffer. So he wanted me to ask the Board, I know Conservation Advisory Council talked about increasing it to ten feet. He wanted me to ask if we could actually decrease it somewhat. I don't know what the Board's feeling is. But I think the DEC sense is it was probably not worth it to try to bury this stone again because at this point the interaction point here is just such that it will not stay, it's really just going to be an offering to Orient Harbor at some point. But we want to have some sod of sand non-turf area with beach grass, or some other kind of native grasses and/or native grasses behind it. TRUSTEE KING: You are looking for what, eight feet? MR. HERMAN: Well, that's what we had first proposed. Jim was wanting to get it down to five. I don't know if the Board would agree to go somewhere in between there. But I would say the worse case scenario, limit it to the eight, particularly because Board of Trustees 10 November 16, 2011 that would be consistent with what was approved before and I think we would actually end up with a bit of a bigger buffer really than just as far as the landward extent is concerned than what was approved previously. They are obviously starting to work in a pretty narrow band of beach to upland transitions down here. It's a tough spot. And you can see where that scour is, it's getting pretty close to the house there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On Defina, any idea what this pipe is? MR. HERMAN: Barbara Defina is here. MS. DEFINA: Barbara Defina. It was a pipe I used to roll my boat out to the water, because I couldn't move it myself, so I put the pipe under the boat and rolled it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So it's not in the ground? MS. DEFINA: No, no. MR. HERMAN: It's not a drainage pipe, is what they're after. MS. DEFINA: No. MR. HERMAN: We didn't notate it on the plan, but obviously all of the various debris, the concrete, the blocks, would be cleaned up when the project is implemented. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw it coming out of the ground. MS. DEFINA: That's because it 9ot moved around during the storm. It's not where it originally was sittin9. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please come on up to the microphone. MR. HERMAN: I think the bottom line, as we've indicated, it will be removed. MS. DEFINA: It's not attached to anything. It never was. I should have moved it from there to show you, but it's not attached to anything, it never was. MR. HERMAN: It looks like it may have been speared into the side there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of information, I'm a property owner with a beneficial property from my mom and dad who lived just down the land of Orient Harbor. And I got out there after responding to some fire calls with the fire department and I witnessed the latter half of the storm, and it's conceivable that the pipe speared into the -- there were sections of dock and catwalks and all manner of debris workin9 their way to the north and west and it ended up in the yacht club. It's interesting the property I oversee for my mom and dad has an historic concrete retaining wall with a slope to it. And although it's somewhat protected by a neighboring property, the benefits of having a sloped surface was such that they lost no beach. They picked up a few fairly large cobbles and things that got tossed on to the upland side, but with no real damage. So that compods well with what you are asking for, what would work there, and it was just an amazing thing to see such a sustained southerly blast with almost due south, that occurred. MS. DEFINA: This is the third time I'm fixing this, by the way. And each time I had a permit. First time it was just beach grass that they said I could put, standing beach grass, is all they would allow. All washed out. Then they allowed these other Board of Trustees 11 November 16, 2011 rocks, and I just looked and went, washed out again. So it really needs to be done properly this time. MR. HERMAN: The DEC was notably responsive to a more permanent solution here. And that is sometimes just the way it goes with them. They want the homeowners, you know, as does the Board, often, to try these sort of smaller steps to see what the minimum response can be that will work. But this was a pretty telling post storm condition here. So, if the Board will act favorably tonight, which is of course what we are hoping, George Hamarth has indicated they will probably process it through Marine Habitat Protection pretty quickly at this point so they could get moving on the project. That's the hope anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could add on to what the applicant just stated, I think it's frustrating when the applicant, and this Board has looked at this previously and to see previous attempts that they were asked to do failed, and all those cost money, I think there has been every attempt made to try to minimize the hardening of the shoreline here, yet being realistic in trying to protect the property owner. I appreciate what they have done here. I also appreciate the fact that some of that stone on Defina is being pulled back a little bit, so that will in essence create a passable a~-ea at high tide so that people can transverse the beach for public access, so there is no public access issue there. The only question I have, from an engineering perspective, I notice there is batter piles being used to support this retaining wall rather than deadmen or helical screws. I'm just hoping those batter piles will be sufficient to hold this wall up against some of the storms like we have had. Because I would hate to see the applicants, their retaining walls get blown out by a bad storm. MR. HERMAN: That was lan's approach to this is that the two were actually punishing against each other in the same spot. So you have the batter piles actually working from behind to sort of force the retaining wall from behind up against the stone, which is forcing itself back against the wall. So you really have almost both sides of the retaining wall working to keep that, whereas otherwise we would almost be relying on just the fill behind it. Because a lot of times you are trying to keep the retaining wall from falling seaward. Here you are trying to keep it from pushing back. That's the reason for his doing it the opposite way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And I'm also concerned that, God forbid, another really bad storm, where the water gets up above even this retaining wall, but again, the retaining wall will hold so afterwards maybe the repair can be as simple as trucking in some fill to put in what's been scoured out rather than a whole retaining wall going down and starting from scratch. MR. HERMAN: That's the whole idea. This wall will have pretty significant subsoil penetration relative to how much of that Board of Trustees 12 November 16, 2011 will really be exposed. That's one of the things we were talking about with the height of the wall. You know, you are talking about something that is a few feet above grade, you know, with ten-foot sheathing. So, you'll have more than a two to one ratio in terms of what is below grade versus what is above. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And with that, if there is no other questions from the Board? (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 both the applications for the Grace Properties and Barbara Defina, as applied for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's consistent with LWRP. Is there any other comment on the motion? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: You are staying with the eight foot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, with the condition of the eight foot -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I figure they want five, we want ten, so eight is in the middle. TRUSTEE KING: They have eight on the plans, too. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, all in favor. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of KATIE NICKOLAIJS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 300 linear feet of stone revetment along eroding toe of bluff with westerly angled return; restore bluff face with terrace retaining walls, approx. 2,400 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment, and native plantings; establish vegetated 15' non-turf buffer with berm on landward side of bluff crest; remove existing swimming pool and patio; relocate existing sanitary system located near bluff more than 100' from bluff crest; and install drainage system at least 100' from bluff. Located: 17555 Soundview Ave. This is found consistent with LWRP. One of the recommendations recommended that the Board require survival and maintenance terms for all revegetated areas. It is fudher recommended that the non-turf buffer be extended to the landward limit of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area west of the parcel. The CAC supports application with the condition of well engineered remediation of the erosion problems be measured against best management practices for bluff stabilization. There is a concern with the stability of the top of the bluff as well as concern with the clay drainage pipe on the bluff. The project should include a provision for public access. Is there anyone here to comment for or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants, and Jeff Butler of Butler Engineering is here, as Jeff did the plan design. This is a site that I had been looking at for a couple of years. It was Board ol'Trustees 13 November 16, 2011 all together with the adjacent McAIlister property, which is the next on the Board's agenda. And this is a site that, as indicated by the comments that Jim was just reading, have a lot of issues to contend with. And I have actually had a couple of meetings here with various folks from the DEC ranging from Dominic Reynolds, Alexa Fournier, Karen Grolick, George Hamarth and Eric Start, the department's coastal erosion group. I don't know, Jim, did you and I, I think you and I looked at this one after the blizzard from 2010. TRUSTEE KING: We might have been out there, yes. MR. HERMAN: When we went up and down Soundview. This is a property that has development which by consequence of the landward transgression of the bluff, got much closer to the bluff than it ever was. The McAllister site next door has already gone through a Trustee and Zoning Board and Building permit process where there was some retreat of the structures that used to be there in the way of a re-constructed dwelling and pool. On the Nicholas site here, the house that is there, the pool that is there, are much, much older structures, pre-existing structures. One of the suggestions that the DEC had, even though part of, you know, the work that is landward of the top of the bluff is really out of their jurisdiction, one of the things that the DEC had impressed upon us was the idea of doing like a comprehensive remediation plan here, that would include some landward retreat of the structures up above, dealing with the sanitary system, drainage features, in addition to the proposal to stabilize the toe of the bluff and then try and renourish and revegetate and restore it. So that is the approach that we have taken, and with that I'll ask Jeff to go over the plan, because he's put together a very comprehensive plan for how to address not only the toe stabilization and the bluff re-nourishment, but also some of the issues Jim just alluded to relating to the top of the bluff, the non-turf buffer, the plantings, the removal of the swimming pool and also the removal and relocation of the sanitary system and some of those drainage features. So, Jeff, if you want to just give a brief overview and try to cover all those topics and see if the Board has questions. MR. BUTLER: Jeffrey T. Butler, Professional Engineer. As Rob pointed out, we took a hard look at this property pause of some of the soil conditions we found up at the top, the top 20 feet of the bluff, which we found some clay ledges and, um, as was pointed out, some pipes sticking out of the bluff face. Then we took a look at the site drainage and sanitary systems and realized probably all of the runoff from the roof and also any leaching in the sanitary systems was going down to one of those clay ledges and then blowing out the bluff face. And we saw some evidence of that, um, early in the spring. So what we did is we are going to abandon the existing sanitary systems which are up close to the bluff and on the east side of the house, and also we are going to push them back to Board of Trustees 14 November 16,2011 100 foot, as you see on the plan. We'll also, the applicant has to also now put in a new well to do that because he interferes with his existing well. We'll also provide roof drainage and again push those drywells back to 100 feet, and in the process of installing both of the new sanitary system and the roof drainage, we want to make sure we punch through those clay ledges, if we find them that far landward, so we have communication down to decent sand rather than again seeing this migrate out to the bluff face. As Robed pointed out, part of this is also to remove the existing inground pool, and the patio around it, which is a hard surface, which will help with the runoff as well. And then we are providing a 15-foot non-turf buffer up at the top. From the top on down, we are going to be terracing and filling this with clean sand to get a slope that is manageable for some plantings that are shown on the plan. And then also at the bottom we'll be armoring the base, which you can see on the cross-section, on sheet two, and at the base we are trying to stay with the, put the armor stone basically where the bluff toe head bends, so that we have distance between high water and the toe of the bluff. And that dimension varies with the property as we did a couple of different cross-sections. But what I show there is probably the worst case condition in terms of high tide and the toe of the bluff. So that is basically it. And I'm here for questions. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like you have done a lot of work here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nice set of plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How will access be gained for all the material that will come in? MR. BUTLER: Well, we had spoken to John Costello who may or may not be doing the work, but he said that he can, with the pool being removed, he can access through the top. Um, he as a contractor would also have the added advantage of barging in things, you know, the armor stone and things like that. But he said he could do it from the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: I think they've done a good job. That's my personal feeling. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, we've also seen when you do this kind of terracing and replanting, based on some of the photos we saw from the aerial video, it really works out pretty well. TRUSTEE KING: I have no more questions. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Nor do I. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Sir? MR. BOOTH: Good evening. My name's Ed Booth, I live next door. A couple of things. Could you put a stake in where you are actually going to -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sir, if you could direct your question to the Board. MR. BOOTH: Sorry. I was hoping they would put a stake in to show how far out this revetment would go. I mean, I go to this beach every day and I've watched it for seven years. I watch erosion. It used to be one foot a year, now it's picked up speed. Anyway, since I'm just to the west, I'm sort of concerned Board of Trustees 15 November 16, 2011 about how far out this revetment will project into the beach. So could you answer that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have that information? MR. BUTLER: Um, the armor stone will be basically where the toe is now, on the west side. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I thought. MR. BOOTH: There is no toe. That toe disappeared about two years ago. There is a cliff there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The bottom of the cliff is the toe. MR. BOOTH: That's what you call that. I'm sorry, I thought you meant the old toe that was first there. Okay, so it will be close. It will be apparently just projectin9 out what, five or ten feet from the toe? TRUSTEE KING: Not even that. Not accordin§ to the plans. MR. HERMAN: Not even that. The idea, sir, is to build the revetment so there is no seaward encroachment on the existin9 beach. MR. BOOTH: Cool. Sounds 9ood. Now, on the westernmost side of this, I notice that the revetment bends in a little bit. And if you assume that you have say two foot a year erosion, what happens after say 20 or 30 years there, at that point? tt will -- I know what happens. It 9oes around. And that will be your problem eventually. I don't care, but the people who live there might. MR. HERMAN: I mean, the §entleman raises a valid point and that's a normal coastal process with a toe stabilization both on The Sound and on the ocean. Eventually if you have enough landward movement, it will eventually make its way around the return and you'll typically see, and that process usually see one of three things happen: Either the neighborin9 parcel will try to armor or the subject, the permittee will have to propose to lengthen the return. But the return has to be put in, it has to be put in at an angle. You don't want to have a right-angle return. So unfortunately there is really no more of a sophisticated design you can come up with, at the end points of the property boundaries, which are just artificially created boundaries relative to a natural shoreline. And that's what you have. But there is really no way around that. You have to return it and you have to put in an angled return, and you can only 9o so far back into the bluff, based on the current condition, because you don't want to artificially undermine the adjacent property. MR. BOOTH: The littoral flow is to the east, right? The movement of sand is from west to east. You can see it up at Mill Road, for example. And what that presumably means is that as this erosion 9oes on over the years, there will be actually sand movin9 in the right direction, in my point of view, to build up my beach. That's 9rear. Well, okay, lots of luck. I don't have any further questions. Sorry I opposed the McAIlister's putting in a revetment five years ago when he put his house there and I called him up about two years later and I said, hey, I know, let's do it now. And he said forget it. So anyway, I hope it Board of Trustees 16 November 16, 20l 1 works. I'm for it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from anybody else? (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 as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). It was found consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to add any sort of survival for the revegetated areas? MR. HERMAN: I have no objection to it. That's the idea. TRUSTEE GHOStO: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Two growing seasons. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: I'll add that to the resolution of approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL MCALLISTER & BARBARA JONES requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approx. 150 linear feet of stone revetment along eroding toe of bluff with easterly angled return; restore bluff face with terrace retaining walls, approx. 1,000 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment, and native plantings; and establish vegetated 15' non-turf buffer with berm on landward side of bluff crest. Located: 17665 Soundview Ave., Southold. This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they support it with the condition of well-engineered remediation of erosion problem to be measured against best management practices for bluff stabilization; concern with the stability of the top of the bluff; and the project should include provisions for public access. The Board went out and looked at this properly. It is immediately adjacent to the Katie Nicholaus property that we just looked at. And is there anybody theory speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the McAIlister's. And again, Jeff Butler of Butler Engineering is here as well. Again, we made some references to this site during the prior hearing on Nicholaus. This is a slightly similar version. Nicholaus, the overall elevation of the bluff is not as high, and about ten years ago or so the McAIlister's went through a process of reconstructing their home and their swimming pool, and as part of a process what the Zoning Board and Building Department have already relocated those structures farther landward. They had been approved by this Board at that Board of Trustees 17 November 16. 2011 time to install the revetment that Mr. Booth had alluded to, he objected to. And from speaking to Mrs. McAIlister I think the sense was there was some objections, I don't know what exactly panned out through DEC at the time, and I think they were hoping that the erosional trend there would be ephemeral, or at least cyclical, to the extent they would not have to do another project. Now they have continued to lose bluff, and it has continued to get steeper at its heel and its lost virtually all its vegetation. Again, I have been following this site for probably a year-and-a-half as we have been going through this with both homeowners and with Jeff Butler. And even this year's lawn at the top that was coming in in the Spring was later sloughing down during the summer. So it is a dynamic erosion process that is occurring here. The stairway that had been there was completely lost and so what the McAIlister's are now seeking to do is basically a continuation of the Nicholaus project to the west, and basically what they had gotten a permit from the Board to do years ago but never did. Again, here there is some additional engineering work up at the top relating to the recessed steps that are there, the proposal of the same 15-foot buffer with a small berm rolled on to the landward side to try reduce the velocity of toe of steep toe runoff coming from the top toward the bluff, and again a fairly complex terracing plan to stabilize the soils as much as possible and revegetate. We didn't really mention during the Nicholaus hearings, and the same concept that would apply here is with a face that has gone this steep, I think what -- and Jeff, you can correct me if I'm wrong -- I think what Jeff tried to do here is really just try to work with the bluff as much as you can. Because to really cut back this kind of a bluff to a more natural angle of repose, I mean you would be moving half the bluff, a very, very substantial distance landward. And so the goal here is to try retain the soils with the terraces, get the renourishment material in and get it stabilized with the combination of those terraces and the vegetation. And the idea is to keep the revetment at the existing toe, and then work backward from there. Basically it's the same part and parcel with the Nicholaus project but a few less difficulties up top. If the Board has any questions relating to this design specific to this site, again, I'll just ask Jeff to come back up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, one question, as with the previous property, access, for this project, will access be gained from below, above, a combination of both? MR. HERMAN: Again, what is noted on the plan is that the proposed location is actually going to come from Nicholaus. Again, I think we would be in a situation where if the access was going to change substantially, if they to get access from up along another beach access point, particularly a town landing, we would have to come back before the Board to get approval for that. But I do know, and I have met with John Costello on this site, too. I asked John to come out, probably at some point Board of Trustees 18 November 16, 2011 within the past year, and that was one of the practical benefits of relocating the pool on the Nicholaus site, was it did give John a place to work. So I think his idea would be to also access McAIlister from the same point, because if Costello Marine ends up doing the job, obviously they would do both sites as one continuous project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I noticed on these plans there is no set of stairs to the beach. Is that something the applicant wants to wait so see how this project works and then come back after? MR. HERMAN: I think so. Because think it's come to the point where the access stairs have become secondary and I think we would like to see how the entire project sets, and if it seems stable, come in and propose a stairway based on how the condition has established itself, rather than guessing, you know, where the most sensible location would be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that makes sense. And also just to address a couple of concerns of the CAC. With that berm up on the top of the bluff, and the additional stabilization, hopefully that will address that concern, and on the, just to reiterate what the applicant has already stated on the plans, it shows there is room between normal high tide, seasonal high tide and the revetment for public access. MR. HERMAN: And that condition should improve marginally if that beach would ever get some time just for some natural recovery. I mean we all saw that down on the Leeton Drive properties after the blizzard where it was not quite what it was, but there was some natural recovery. The problem was here, this beach never really had a chance for proper summer beach recovery because you had the storm surge. I mean The Sound was mostly spared during Irene but you still had storm surge pushing up on these beaches and really creating a difficult situation just to have two really landmark storms within about nine months of each other. So, we are actually hoping by the time this is all said and done you actually have even more dry beach down there just through some natural recovery, if it gets a chance to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would the applicant feel about a condition of, similar to the one that was just put on the previous application, of survival of two years for the vegetation and any vegetation that has died to be replaced. MR. HERMAN: There is no objection to it. Again, that's the entire idea behind the project and that way that can also be worked into the coastal erosion management permit maintenance agreement, so that if they did have loss they could simply just let the Trustees know they are working out there and go back out and renourish and revegetate. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Beside that, this looks good to me. Any other questions from anybody in the audience pertaining to this project? (No response). Any questions from the Board? Board of Trustees 19 November 16, 2011 (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the wetland permit and coastal erosion permit of McAllister and Jones as described with the condition that they will be reviewed for survival of the plantings after two years and those plantings, they will be able to revegetate any plantings that had not survived. And this was found consistent under LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland Permits is number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC request a Wetland Permit to legalize the existing wood decking and steps located off the eastern side of the existing restaurant, containing 1,050 sr.; legalize the existing stone paver patio and steps located off the southeastern corner of the existing restaurant, containing 475 sr.; legalize/reconstruct the existing wood decking and steps located between the southern side of the existing restaurant and the boat basin, containing 690 sr.; reconstruct the existing bulkheading located along the north side of the boat basin measuring 153 linear feet, relocate 3' further south and elevate to match the existing surrounding grade; clarify/legalize all existing 50 slips, main floating dock 6'X 98'; secondary floating docks, 24 total, 4'-5'X 15'; wood walkways 685'X 5'; and various wood ramps/platforms, all within the existing boat basin. Located: 64300 Main Rd., Southold. I would just like to try to make this a little more user friendly for both the Board and comments. I would like to note there are basically three components to this project that the Trustees have already reviewed, and it ended up being three component parts to the LWRP review: They are basically things deck, things bulkhead on the north side and things pertaining to the basin and the docks and slips. The CAC supports this application, and I will go over the LWRP consistency review. But what the Board needs to do is, is there, I guess, a rescission of the prior -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. A rescission of the prior determination of the Board that was at the September meeting. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The resolution in the September meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The resolution from the September meeting, Board of Trustees 20 November 16, 2011 and to enter into a new public hearing and then discuss what we have before us. Now, for the sake of orderliness, I don't know if our attorney or the Chair, do we want to do those resolutions after the hearing? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can do the resolution to rescind right now. So we have a motion. Do we have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Now you can bring into the record the new information we have since that meeting and why we are re-opening it again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are reopening the hearing at this time. We have the LWRP reports that we have a portion of the project was not reviewed under the consistency review, and that is those items that I said they were basically dealing with the basin and the boat dock. And that still has to go through a Planning Department review. There is the bulkhead on the north side which is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP for its reconstruction, and the various, the decks and the decking, are viewed to be inconsistent under LWRP for the fact that they exist but don't have a currently valid Southold Town Trustee permit. I think that is clear now. Is there anything else to add? I didn't have the benefit of this month's worksession. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The survey they submitted reflects the accurate plans that we need to adopt TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The survey that is the survey of Nancy Steelman which was received the in the Trustees office, excuse me, which is dated October 25, and received in the Trustees office on October 26, reflects the current proposal and currently what is out there. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. It sounds like the process is self explanatory. We have, as I understand it, we have CAC support with the prior decision, although rescinded. We have a narrowed scope of what we'll be dealing with tonight. And the inconsistency relative to the decking is resolved by issuance of the permit. Now, just to add two things to the record. Number one, the bulkhead that was constructed by the prior owner was constructed incorrectly. It was installed incorrectly. It was installed backwards. The foundation that was installed by the prior owner was not installed properly. It is cracking. Those are evident, would have been evident in your field inspection. I don't think there is any debate about this. The project that is before you seeks to remedy those poorly constructed structures. That's really what it's all about. And it requires, it was prudent to raise the elevation of the bulkhead and it was prudent to set it off the foundation wall by some distance. And so the plans reflect that. Board of Trustees 21 November 16, 2011 The final part is that you should know that the applicant holds fee title to the underwater land here, and this is a constructed boat base in. And that is important because it separates from a lot of other scenarios I know you all deal with. As you know, I'm a big supporter of the Trustees and the Trustees own those underwater lands, in trust to the people. But this is not an ownership type situation. Finally, there will be other improvements proposed here. We intend and have consulted, the applicant has consulted with the Planning Department and will make the appropriate applications. We'll go to whatever agency they have to go to. But you can expect additional applications to be filed on this project, and that will give you a chance to see how various decking and improvements are progressing. So I think this is something where we'll be working together on for at least another year. But we would like to resolve, what we have asked, what we would like to get approved today, what we are asking, because it enables us to -- we really are operating on a building permit that was already issued that is still there, it enables us to basically clean up a problem inherited by the previous property owner. I understand they went bankrupt on this property. We want to rehabilitate this site and I think at the end of the day everyone will be pleased with the way this facility is upgraded. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Bruce from what I understand, the conversation from the Minutes from September, you said you would take out the portion for the existing 50 slips from the description here tonight. MR. ANDERSON: We are happy to leave that be, because there is a parking issue associated with those slips and I think that's what has caused the rub here. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I just wanted to clarify that for the record, because we have not gotten that in writing. MR. ANDERSON: I'll clarify for the record we are not here to act upon that tonight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good, that was going to be my next question, otherwise we are headlong and coming up against the LWRP because they were not able to review that because of the pending Planning Department review. So that clarifies that issue. TRUSTEE KING: So the 50 slips, the main float and all that is being withdrawn from the application. MR. ANDERSON: From this application. But be advised it is our intention to come back. TRUSTEE KING: Sure, we understand that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's all the questions I have. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's all I have. MS. HULSE: Just as a matter of housekeeping, could you, in this resolution, remove the language in the second, third and fifth lines that say "legalize." That should not be part of the resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: You mean legalize the slips; is that what you are referring to? Board of Trustees 22 November 16, 2011 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Use the word "permit," instead of legalize, wherever it appears, is what the attorney is saying. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. The other thing, we would like to see the plans that you are looking at to make sure they are the same plans we are looking at. If I may. We'll hand it right back to you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: October 25. That's the one we went over in our worksession. MR. ANDERSON: Oh, I see. Okay, that's fine. We have the same plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the same plan you are looking at. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments with respect to the hearing? (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application as submitted on the Nancy Steelman plan revision dated October 25, received in the Trustees office October 26, 2011, noting that the applicant has voluntarily withdrawn the language concerning the word "legalize" where it exists in the project description, and has voluntarily withdrawn for further consideration by the Town Planning Department that section that reads to clarify all existing 50 slips and the main float and those items that refer to the activities of boat slips and docks in the marina basin. And that the project has been noted to be consistent with the LWRP for the construction of the bulkhead on the north side. And that the Board, in considering this motion, it does grant a permit -- MR. ANDERSON: Sorry, bulkhead on the south side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: North side of the basin. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Board, in consideration of this motion, if passed, will address the inconsistency with respect to the lack of permitting for some of the prior deck construction, construction associated with the deck. So I would move that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Wetland Permits, number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of US DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit to restore the east face of the central wharf by replacing the existing anchor/tie-back system for the southerly 100 linear feet and installing steel sheet piling behind the existing bulkhead for the northerly 120 linear Board of Trustees 23 November 16, 2011 feet with a new tie-back system; existing fill (approx. 3,000 cy.) Will be removed to make way for new anchor system and replaced upon completion of the anchors; and scour walls will be approx. 20 linear feet each and installed immediately in front of the two ramps used by Plum Island. Located: Ferry terminal at Plum Island. LWRP finds this to be exempt from LWRP. CAC has no comment because they did not make an inspection. And in fact this is really pretty much nothing more than a housekeeping event here. The folks over at Plumb Island need a bulkhead. We reviewed the file. As I recall, there were not any changes that we were suggesting. I have the plans right here. Is there anybody in the audience here to address this application? (No response). Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: No, we figured it was pretty straightforward, and it's the federal government, just maintaining their property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES D. FRY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 101 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; construct +/-10' and +/-7' vinyl returns in place of existing returns; remove existing deck; construct 3' extension to existing 3'X 22' stairway (to be replaced as necessary); construct 4'X 7' steps to beach; and backfill with approx. 20 cubic yards clean sand from an upland source. Located: 8045 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. LWRP finds this consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. CAC recommends the returns are extended landward and the destroyed groin is removed. The Board went out and looked at this and we did have a couple of questions. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I thought you would like this one. There is a big deck down below and there was at one point a shed, which I think is gradually disappearing. So the deck and the shed, both of which are pre-existing or nonconforming. We are not seeking to replace them. They will just be removed. And the bulkhead will be removed inplace. That's really it. Board of Trustees 24 November 16, 2011 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, do you plan on adding stairs from the bulkhead to the beach? Do you want to add that to your description? MR. HERMAN: They are on the plan. Are they not in the description? 4x7 steps from the bulkhead to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: They are in the description. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just reading our notes from the field inspection. I guess it's not on the plan, that's what it is. MR. HERMAN: It is on the plan. You might be thinking of Gannon. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you see steps from the bulkhead to the beach here? From the bulkhead to the beach, not from the -- I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: You're looking at the wrong plans. MR. HERMAN: (Indicating). Right here TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, I have the wrong plans in front of me. So let me look at these notes. Okay, I had the wrong file in front of me. Okay, this makes more sense. Did you want to add any of the retaining walls that are on there? There is some dilapidated retaining walls with this bluff. MR. HERMAN: No. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay, and we assume you'll be cleaning up all the debris? MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you have any intention of doing any plantings in there once all that debris is raked up and cleaned up? MR. HERMAN: Well, the planted slope, anything that is disturbed there will have to be replanted, but most of the disturbance should really be in the flat area immediately behind the bulkhead. That's where the deck and shed were now, so we were just going to leave that as it is. That should be pretty typical for that situation. But the slope will remain vegetated, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. MR. HERMAN: I think the pictures that you may have with the application, the shed was still standing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a picture that shows the groins up front that the CAC asked about? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me read the Conservation Advisory Council. That was the other one. This is consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. MR. HERMAN: That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Which we just cleared up, we talked about, will stay sand. All right, are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as applied for Board of Trustees 25 November 16,2011 with the condition that the area behind the bulkhead stays as a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And it's consistent with LWRP. Any further discussion on the motion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The area behind the bulkhead being ten feet. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of LAUREL HILL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 73 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing timber bulkhead; construct +/-9' vinyl return in place of existin9 northeasterly return; construct +/-12' vinyl return alon9 southwesterly property line; and backfill with up to 10 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; and establish a 5' non-turf buffer behind bulkhead. Located: 350 MacDonald's Crossing, Laurel. This is found to be exempt from LWRP. It's a minor action. The CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-tuff buffer alon9 the landward side of the bulkhead. CAC recommends returns are extended landward and the destroyed groin is removed. MR. HERMAN: The destroyed groin actually doesn't front the subject parcel. It's just to the nodheast. It's just to the -- that there, it's actually, if you look at the plans, it's just on the other parcel. The one that is here is functional. I had talked to Pe99Y Gannon, who is here, I had talked to Mrs. Gannon about possibly replacing, we talked about the possibility of replacing the groin. But she had mentioned that this whole beach would be renourished again shortly, so we were not sure what the situation would be in terms of the beach condition. If the Trustees don't have any problem with us adding the replacement of the groin to the permit, and she keeps the permit active, if it turns out that the groin is exposed within the next four years, she can do it, but we had just discussed the fact if it's about to be buried with renourishment sand, they are not 9oin9 to dig up the beach to replace the groin. TRUSTEE KING: It's basically actin9 like a Iow profile groin now. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If there is no permit for it, we should just add it to the description. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. HERMAN: There is a couple of spots that probably need just some basic repair. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So a permit that she can repair as needed. MR. HERMAN: Why don't we just do that, Peggy. And if she wants to come in to actually pull the whole thing out and rebuild it as a Iow profile vinyl groin, we would have to come back in. MS. GANNON: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any questions with this, to speak of. Board of Trustees 26 November 16, 201 I MR. HERMAN: Does that sound okay, Peggy? MS. GANNON: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: We had written in there consider adding Iow profile groin to replace existing groin and add steps to the beach. MR. HERMAN: The steps, I would just have to give you revised plan to show the steps. TRUSTEE KING: Was there a flagpole someplace? We have a flagpole marked down here. MR. HERMAN: There is a flagpole. So I can give you, I could give you a revised plan that would show the flagpole and a set of beach steps. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the one, the beach steps. MR. HERMAN: Yes, I thought you were talking about this property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. I read the one description and I looked in the file. Any questions, any comments from anybody else? MR. HERMAN: One second. Peggy, do you understand what they are asking with the non-turf buffer? MS. GANNON: Yes, is it five foot or ten foot? MR. HERMAN: It's -- I mean, it's not -- MS. HULSE: Is this conversation on the record or just your conversation with her? She has to be recognized or it's not on the record. MR. HERMAN: It's on the record. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out, there is not much yard area there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You have a six foot. MS. GANNON: The vegetation that is there is voluntary. There was the beach roses and the bayberry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How about back to the flagpole? MS. GANNON: What was that? Sorry. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: A non-turf buffer back to the flagpole. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's about five feet. MR. HERMAN: Do you want to just call it five feet, flagpole or not? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we were just looking at what the CAC comment was. They wanted ten. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The front yard is not that big, though. TRUSTEE KING: There is not much of a yard here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, there isn't. MR. HERMAN: You would put back at least five foot of vegetation anyway, right? MS. GANNON: Sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The whole property back there is kind of naturalized. MS. GANNON: Yes, it would be the same. TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor? Board of Trustees 27 November 16, 2011 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And I'll make a motion to approve the application, and we want to see new plans JndJcatJng steps to the beach, the flagpole, and we'll also approve rebuikJing that, the existing groJn can be rebuilt as a Iow profile groin. MR. HERMAN: So you want me to show that on the plans? TRUSTEE KING: I would show that on the plans, too. MR. HERMAN: Okay. And the five-foot, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: Five-foot non-tuff buffer. And the flagpole. That's it. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of FERUClO FRANKOLA requests a Wetland Permit to replace in-place existing wood bulkhead 118' with new wood bulkhead 6" higher than existing bulkhead, to include fender piles, sheathing, wales, tie-rods, backer piles and lay logs. Excavate as necessary to add a total of 244' of vinyl sheathing on the landward side of the existing wood bulkhead; repair, replace or add anchor structures as necessary. Provide 10' non-turf buffers behind each bulkhead. Dredge as necessary within 10' seaward of bulkheads to recover spillage from construction. Located: 1900 Glenn Rd., Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, but it was noted in its consistency review that there is a storm drainpipe associated with the catch basin that flows into the water, and he's recommending that this be addressed with this application. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition that the wood bulkhead is actually replaced with a vinyl bulkhead, and there is installation of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the entire length of the bulkhead. And they also asked to address the storm water runoff from the driveway on Glenn Road. So, the Board did go out and looked at this application, and we do have several questions for the applicant. Is there anybody to speak on behalf of the application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. James Fitzgerald for Mr. Frankola. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, just taking this one step at a time, is there a reason why the applicant applied for a wood bulkhead rather than vinyl? MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure there is but I couldn't tell you what it was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant have any objection to that being vinyl? MR. FITZGERALD: Probably not. Especially if you were to make it a condition of the approval of the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Now, we also had asked to see, because we did research in the office and couldn't find any permits for all the floating docks here, and couldn't find any permits for the Board of Trustees 28 November i6, 2011 davits that we saw along one side of this project. And I was wondering if the applicant had any proof of previous permits for these, any of these floats, or the davits. MR. FITZGERALD: The background, Dave, is the existence of the boat basin started with a finding by the 1966 ZBA which allowed for and found for a variance. The regulations at that time permitted a boat basin in the "A" residential area, which is what this was at that time. And it said of up to six non-commercial boats. So the owners at that time applied for a variance to allow for more than six non-commercial boats. Not specifying any upper limit. And you may have seen in the Minutes of that meeting, and there was discussion of, I would say casual discussion of the number of boats, and at one point the owner said, well, there could be up to 50 boats. And one of the members of the Board said, well, you couldn't get 50 boats in there. And that was the end of the discussion about the number of boats. I was not, as you were not able to find, any specific application for a permit for floats to service six boats or 50 boats. But -- and the reason I mention it is that it should be apparent that if it's unlimited -- MS. HULSE: Mr. Fitzgerald, would you mind just taking the microphone and holding it close so we can get it recorded properly. Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: Obviously, if they are going to get 50 or 40 or 30 boats in there, there'll have to be floats. And this, the birth of this thing, I think, took place before the birth of the Trustees. Is that correct? When did the Trustees, when were the Trustees born? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 1700's? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 1676. October 31, to be precise. TRUSTEE KING: I think in the 1950's is when they started issuing permits. MR. FITZGERALD: Okay, anyhow, another interesting, I thought, aspect of it, with regard to the davits was that the Board, Henry Smith was president at that time, wrote a memo to the Town Board saying that they, the Board of Trustees, had denied an application for davits, and requested that the Town Board notify the applicant Mr. Frankola of that fact. The thing that is interesting about it is that Henry's letter specified application number 185 and the letter that was written to Mr. Frankola telling him that his application was denied specified application number 175. So he probably thought that meant something else and that there was probably a feature in the code at that time that said if an application was not addressed in some certain length of time, it would be automatically approved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know about that. I don't think so. Good try, though MR. FITZGERALD: Anyway, it's a feature that might have some bearing on this. So the short answer to your question is that I am not aware and the owner is not aware of there ever having been any permits issued for either the davits or the floats, as Board of Trustees 29 November 16, 2011 they are currently set up. And that's part of the reason why I'm here tonight instead of having postponed this until we got more information to see what the Board's feeling is going to be about the future of the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You mentioned quite eloquently Minutes from meetings in the past, going back to the '60s. Would you be able to produce any of those Minutes for us? MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, they are in the -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are not in the file here. MR. FITZGERALD: They are on the computer. And I printed them out and I'll be happy to give you a copy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of helpful information, because I was on the Henry Smith Board at that time, I believe that the Trustees were only advisory to the Town Board, which made final determination under the Town Wetland Ordinance, much like the Conservation Advisory Council is presently. So that there may be Town Board Minutes reflecting the granting of permits for docks or not, or davits or boat lifts or not. And my recollection is not clear on the discussion, on the Trustee Board discussion at the time concerning the davits. But 1 thought ultimately there may be, if my recollection is at all accurate, and it's not necessarily, that the Town Board did not grant, there may be some confusion, but one of the other boards, I don't believe there ever was a granting at that time, of the davits. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The only thing I found in the research was a denial for the davits. MR. FITZGERALD: As I said, the Trustee asked the Town Board -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My recollection may be off. It's neither here nor there. But it was not approved. MR. FITZGERALD: The Trustees asked the Town Board to notify him that it was denied. They just used the wrong number. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That was the process back then. The Town Board didn't give that authority to the Trustees at the time. So that's why it went through that process. But it was a denial for the davits. And the davits were built -- I'll let Dave finish up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think one concern is that we need to obtain these records that we have talked, that have been discussed here, to try to clarify exactly what was done in the past. Because again, we don't have any of that here tonight. Before I get to what I would consider an important issue here, also regarding the non-turf buffer that had been suggested by the CAC, would the applicant have any objection to a 15-foot, non-turf buffer around, as a condition to this permit? MR. FITZGERALD: You mean increasing the size of it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: To 15 foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is none. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because there is none. We didn't see any on the plans here. It's -- MR. FITZGERALD: Sure there is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not depicted on the plan here, unless I'm missing it. Board of Trustees 30 November 16, 201 I MR. FITZGERALD: Dave, the red crosshatched area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, that's listed -- ten foot non-turf buffer. You're right, Jim. I apologize. I looked at the word "excavation." Would there be any objection to increasing that from ten to 15 feet? MR. FITZGERALD: I don't know. And the reason I say that is I don't know what it would look like on the ground. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It's something to discuss. MR. FITZGERALD: It's probably not a problem. But I would want to check on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then also, we would, I feel, as a condition, require this, we would not allow that drainage pipe to be reconnected or to go through that bulkhead. That's my own feeling. MR. FITZGERALD: I don't think that's Mr. Frankola's drainage pipe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just saying for myself, I would not be in favor of allowing that to be put back in. MR. FITZGERALD: Nor would I. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now I think also a major concern is whether or not this project as described meets our definition of marina. And if it does meet the definition of marina, then we also have some planning issues regarding parking, access. There is also the question of a pump out station. Because if we -- I believe in the code it states if we are doing work in a marina or approving additional work at a marina that doesn't have a pump out station, that has to be included also. And that be could be a portable one. It doesn't have to be a permanent one. So, for myself, I think we need to table this application until we can address, get the information that we have talked about here and address the issue of this being a working marina, and then being subjected to all the requirements a working marina would have in the Town of Southold. Which would require planning approval. MR. FITZGERALD: Is that something you have done in all the situations where communities have facilities, tike Broadwaters Cove, for instance, which has docks down at the end of the road? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, all we are addressing here is this application, tonight. Again, I'm not going to address other sites and other marinas. MR. FITZGERALD: It's not a marina, Dave. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we are getting at, it has to be determined if it fits under the marina definition or not. And if it does, then there are other rules and regulations to follow. Right now the application is for the bulkheads. But you have other structures that don't have permits. You know, one way around all that is if, and I'm sure you would have to talk to the applicant, is if he removes all the unpermitted structures. And then we would just have the bulkheads, and we don't have all the other issues, then it's not a maria and then it might not fit under the marina code. Or you can go ahead with the procedure that you have to, if it's determined that it's a marina. So I think it needs to be tabled. Board of Trustees 31 November 16~ 201 I MR. FITZGERALD: Do marinas have davits? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Commercial properties are different than residential properties. And this is residential. So it's a lot of questions, you know, that we have to -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is rent paid by any of these boat owners to stay in this basin? MR. FITZGERALD: They, the initial concept, presumably -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, go ahead. MR. FITZGERALD: In the site plan for the subdivision, it was intended and is intended, as far as I know, to be for the people of that subdivision. A boat basin. It's on all the maps and all the discussions throughout all of this history, it's been referred to as a boat basin. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think Dave is right, we need to table this to 9et more information on the application. MR. FITZGERALD: Sure, I expected no less. Is there anything else we should be thinking about in the meantime? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only thing I might suggest in your historical review, again, my recollections may not be accurate, but I thought there was a reversal at a subsequent date on the davit. So you might look to see if there is a subsequent permitting for the davits. Because I recall at the time there was a divergence of opinion on the appropriateness off the davits. Some people thought they were ugly, some people thought they were beautiful. And I think I heard a flip at subsequent point in time, but I'm not sure of that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We couldn't find it in our history and I would ask Mr. Fitzgerald to ask the applicant if he had that. If he comes up with it, then, you know. But that's something that has to be addressed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience that had any comments with regard to this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to table the application of Proper-T Permits on behalf of Mr. Frankola at 1900 Glenn Road, Southold. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearin9, number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ,JOHN P., EUNICE P. & EUNICE P. BENFIELD TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove upper retaining wall, existin9 stairs and remains of wood deck; remove remains of 135' of existing bulkhead and existing stairs to beach; remove and relocate lower portion of existing drain line and install new catch basin; construct 147' of new bulkhead in-place of existing; backfill with 190 cubic yards of clean fill; and construct 8'X 111' wood deck and new stairway to beach. Located 50 Blue Marlin Dr., Southold. The project has been determined to be both consistent and inconsistent. With respect to the replacement, excuse me, with respect to the bulkhead replacement it is consistent but it's Board of Trustees 32 November 16, 2011 found to be inconsistent with respect to the 8xl 1 1 foot deck, insofar as it's a large area adjacent to the wetland and it doesn't preserve the functions and values of adjacent areas near tidal wetlands. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application on the condition of a 15-foot, non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. The deck was put in there because you guys came to the site and felt it was all right to put it back the way it was. That's an existing structure. That's the reason we put it back in the application. And I want to give you the proof of mailings. So the application was submitted based on the meeting with the Trustees. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had a pre-submission out there. That said, true to our meeting out there, the Conservation Advisory Council is also looking for 1 5-foot, non-turf buffer. So presumably that would be additional, and landward of the deck, then, because the deck stretches largely along the front of the property. That would be quite a commitment of property to both deck and non-turf buffer. Is there -- MR. COSTELLO: Could the deck be considered part of the non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a question, I guess. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think when we spoke about that out in the field, about the pre-submission inspection, didn't we say if you, I had mentioned rotating the boards on the, on that deck, so it would actually drain better than going in a perpendicular fashion toward the water. And if it did that, then I didn't have a problem with it necessarily. Because the water would all drain down to the sand below. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would essentially address an inconsistency because of the fact -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would actually be acting like a French drain. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, if it's a non-turf surface. MR. COSTELLO: That's how it's drawn in the plans, running parallel with the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I just wanted to state that for the record. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think what Bob was saying, have the boards parallel. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Parallel rather than perpendicular, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were looking at the plans on page four, shows it running perpendicular; page five, parallel. So that was our confusion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have different dates? Are those dated plans we could refer to? The revision? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else who wishes to speak with respect to this application? Board of Trustees 33 November 16,2011 (No response). Not hearing further comment, I'll close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim has something TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hold on. Jim? TRUSTEE KING: This bulkhead will be replaced in place of the existing bulkhead, am I correct? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. The confusion on page four is just showing what is there existing. I understand what the confusion with the decking is. The other shows how it's going to be. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Okay, I think I got it now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOS~O: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, conditioned on a set of plans showing that the decking, the eight foot -- excuse me, 8xl 11 foot decking, that the boards run parallel to the bulkhead as on page four of the plan, be the method of construction, and this would address the inconsistency on the LWRP -- sorry, page five. Sorry, page five. On page five, of the sheet numbered page five of page eight, which shows the decking running parallel to the bulkhead being the operant construction. This would address the LWRP concerns in that it would be a functional non-tuff buffer and protect the adjacent area to Shelter Island Sound. Otherwise the application as submitted. So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we do not need revised plans? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would not need revised plans. It's just that the plans, the permit is conditioned on the use of that page five where the c~nstruction is parallel. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any fur[her comment on this resolution? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it makes it consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It makes it consistent with LWRP because we do have a non-vegetated, we have a buffer that will not discharge water over the face of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHEF~TY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to number eight, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOHN & JEANETTE COLLINS requests a Wetland Permit to excavate a 60' area landward of existing bulkhead; re-align face of 60' of existing bulkhead and install new backing system; replace excavated material and re-vegetate disturbed area to match existing. Located: 515 Waters Edge Way, Southold This has been found to be consistent with the LWRP, with the suggestion that a landscape buffer landward of the bulkhead for the entire width of the parcel. The CAC supports the Board of Trustees 34 November 16, 2011 application with a condition of 15-foot vegetated, non-turf buffer. And further recommends that the jetty is removed. Our field notes show when we went out to look at it, we were also suggesting a 1 5-foot non-turf buffer and suggesting that a stairs be built over the groin, so we have access up and over the groin. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of the applicant. The stairs are not necessarily an issue. I'm sure the applicant would not be against that. The non-turf buffer is going to be the issue. In this particular case, the backing system let go. They are not replacing the bulkhead. I know there will be some disturbance there, but the non-turf buffer in the situation will be the issue, because they want to do the least amount of damage to their property as possible. I understand you guys want non-turf buffers, I never had a problem with that. But you can see it's inconsistent with what is going on down there. Um, they want it to go back to the way it was and they actually took the high road by coming in for the permitting for the backing, rather than digging up the yard and just doing it. They wanted to take the high road and do the right thing. You know, I'm asking the Board to maybe overlook or maybe decrease the side size of the non-turf buffer. Considering the bulkhead is so old -- it's a money thin9 -- the bulkhead is so old, but it cannot financially be replaced at this time. It will be just pulled back, new backing system, and I don't think, it's not a permitted structure, it's not like we are building a 50-year vinyl bulkhead. We are puttin9 in a new backing system and we'll be lucky enough to 9et another ten years out of this thing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that lawn essentially obliterated by Irene? I'm trying to remember, wasn't that a brown out area, pretty much burned up? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it was. Well, you could see it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You could see it's all burned up along here. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we have the disturbed areas revegetated and the rest no mow zone, 15-foot, just leave it alone rather than mow right down to the bulkhead? MR. COSTELLO: That's the issue. The house is right there. To be consistent with the neighbors and everything, it was, when I undertook this job, I knew the non-turf buffer would be a major sticking point of it. Like I said, we are not putting in a 50-year structure. We are repairing a 30-year old structure. Just because, you know, to have the burden of puttin9 in a large non-turf buffer -- and it's not much backyard there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the opportunity that we take to put these buffers in, as you know. MR. COSTELLO: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a lot more space there than there was on a lot of the other projects today. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would be willin9 to 90 with a ten-foot Board of Trustees 35 November 16, 201 I non-turf buffer there. I definitely think we need a non-tuff buffer there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. And I'm looking at the plan here in the cross section, shows there is a 15-foot area of disturbance going all the way along there. So, I'm sorry, but I don't see what the hardship would be of making that a non-tuff buffer, that 15 foot. Because it will be disturbed and torn up anyhow, and I imagine backfilled where necessary here. So I don't see where it's a hardship to require a 15-foot, non-tuff buffer there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, I concur, I think with the selection of the right type of Iow fertilizer requiring kind of a lawn, like a rescue, something like that, that they let grow out, that is not maintained. It would not grow so tall as to affect their view, so if this is an area that is left as a non-maintained tuff area with a Iow fertilized, particularly any type of fescue varieties, let it grow out and they would not have the place overgrown, disturbing what is presumably there, with the idea of having a view, and that would be essentially a non-maintained, non-fertilized, essentially non-tuff buffer, because it would be sort of naturalized. I don't see why they couldn't do it. MR. COSTELLO: 15 feet just seems excessive. It is a backyard and the whole discussion was the grandchildren stay there, and the ticks, I ran the gamut with these people. I mean, I could tell them -- does ten foot seem reasonable? Because, you know, we might not be doing anything there, because if they are forced to put in a non-turf buffer, they would rather let the bulkhead fall on the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's their prerogative. MR. COSTELLO: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is plenty of room back there. MR. COSTELLO: If you could see where the house is in relation to the bulkhead, I mean, I explained this to them. Like I said, we are not putting in a permanent structure. We are fixing a 30-year old decrepit structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That argument, I don't think goes with us with the buffer. Because you know -- MR. COSTELLO: I even think 15 feet is a little excessive. I don't think there is any need to have 15 feet of room there to stop nitrates from going in the water TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What if at the ten foot they put a landscaping buffer as a delimiter so you don't have the buffer diminishing, in other words have something to clearly demark it and have ten foot. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have been pretty consistent with the 15 feet on backyards having this kind of space. We have an eight foot buffer we put on something that didn't even have this much room. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's true. MR. COSTELLO: Would it be fair -- the property is 100 feet wide. We are only disturbing 60 feet of it. Is possible to take the non-turf buffer all the way across the entire property, given the extra square footage? Like I said, it only failed 60 feet. Board of Trustees 36 November 16, 2011 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE all? TRUSTEE TRUSTEE It's 100 feet of property. If we take that non-tuff buffer all the way across the property ten feet? I mean, that's giving you another four-hundred feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we were looking at doing it across the whole entire property, not just the -- MR. COSTELLO: Not just the disturbance area? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, at this time. You know what, I think this discussion has gone on too long. This is something that we always say a buffer, so I think we need to, you know -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We just scaled it off. It's approximately 80 feet between the top of the bulkhead and the home. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So let's move from with this discussion and make a decision. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, any other questions or comments? TRUSTEE KING: No, just the stairs and the groin. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the addition of adding stairs up and over the existing groin to allow continual access along the shore, and also to add a 15-foot, non-tuff buffer along the length of the property directly behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. The stairs over the groin does not say that's okay to have the groin. It's not a permitted structure, I don't believe, it's been repaired not too long ago, evidently, but I don't think it's a permitted structure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So should we go back on to the public hearing to have this discussion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are in the middle of a motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we are having a discussion -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a motion on the floor right now. MS. HULSE: Does anyone want to withdraw the motion to have discussion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll withdraw the motion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So Jim, you are saying -- TRUSTEE KING: The only point, putting the stairs over, I don't want that to legitimize the groin. It's not a permitted structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a real catch 22. TRUSTEE KING: It's not part of this application, but there it is. GHOSIO: Do we want to make it part of the application? KING: No, I don't. BERGEN: Not at that height. DOHERTY: So why don't we -- so why do we address it at GHOSIO: Because you can't traverse the shore. BERGEN: We are trying to address public access. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. What I'm saying, if it's not even part of our -- Board of Trustees 37 Novembcr 16, 2011 TRUSTEE KING: Lori, we want stairs over that so people can walk up and over it. Does that legitimize the groin? MS. HULSE: I'm at a loss to ask why you are not addressing the groin now. Because it's not pad of the application? tt should be a violation issue. I mean that's part of your not recognizing it if you say there is a violation that's been issued for it. Now as it stands, no one has addressed it. But there has been repair work to it, right? TRUSTEE KING: Evidently, looking at it. We don't know when or where. MS. HULSE: You are not legitimizing it in fact, but -- TRUSTEE KING: See that one section has been replaced at some time. It's kind of a catch 22. MS. HULSE: You are not legitimizing it legally, however, obviously, for your purposes you are. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is not even part of the application, so I don't know why we would be making them put stairs here. Because it's not part of the application. It should be addressed when that groin is applied for and addressed. It's just like when we say, okay, you'll put an addition on to a house so now you have to put a buffer 80 feet away. MS. HULSE: The only difference is now you are addressing the fact there is no public access, and you have the right to do that regardless of what they apply for. That's the only difference with this particular one. So I would say there is a difference there. But if you see that as a way to remedy the situation for, specifically for the lack of public access, you can do that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All right, that's what 1 wanted to make clear. Because it's really not part of the application at all. And the other thing that, um, is, sorry, we did -- did we have discussion of the stairs going down from the bulkhead to the beach? Because that's not in the description. Is it on the plans? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on the plans. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we just need to add that to the description. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now let's get back to the groin. If we are going to put stairs over the groin and we want to address the groin, then why don't we. Do we want further repair being done to a groin that has no permit and have him continually be in violation or do we want to say if there is anything to be done with the groin that we can give him a permit for a Iow profile groin? Otherwise every time he puts a nail in it, he is technically in violation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is apparently -- not apparently. There is a violation currently there. I mean, counsel has already told us that there is a violation there that needs to be addressed by way of a violation being issued for that repair that was done on that bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How can we -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Groin, not bulkhead. Board of Trustees 38 November 16, 2011 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think the easiest solution is to add the groin to the description and, um, then we can put the condition of access stairs and that when it needs to be replaced that this becomes Iow profile. MS. HULSE: The applicant has to request that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I hear a request coming. MR. COSTELLO: I'll request that. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You request that we add that to this description? MR. COSTELLO: If it's going to expedite the whole process, I would think that's fair. I mean the customer has no bad intentions, they just want to move forward. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: But you might as well add it to the description so if you do need to do repairs, you can. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If cost of the stairs is an issue and the practicality of up and over, I don't know where the property line is, would it be possible they could just make a cut out to allow passing of the groin. In other words a foot-and-a-half. MR. COSTELLO: You could probably crawl through that hole in it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm thinking of the interface up at the bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: However you want to address it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not trying to complicate things. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think he has a problem with the stairs up and over. He already said that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If you are requesting to add a description of the groin to this application -- MR. COSTELLO: Yes, please. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So we have to close the public hearing again. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other ideas, comments, concerns? (No response). Ill 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 with the addition of a 1 5-foot, non-turf buffer along the entire length of the bulkhead, knowing that there, in the description we'll add the stairs to the beach. We are going to also add stairs up and over the groin, the existing groin, and we'll add the condition that should any further repair work need to be done to this groin, that it will become a Iow profile groin. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You'll approve the groin with the condition that it, when it needs to be replaced it will be Iow profile and do we want to shorten it? TRUSTEE KING: It can't be repaired as is, it's too high. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And when a repair needs to be done, it needs to be made a Iow profile groin. And again, this is consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: What about the groin, do you want that to meet Board ot'Trustees 39 November 16, 2011 the regulations of the Iow tide? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it would be brought -- TRUSTEE KING: If it's brought into Iow profile, it can't exceed Iow tide and can't be over 12 -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We are having a discussion again in the middle of a motion. Should we table this to get drawings of this? MS. HULSE: Yes, that's advisable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is getting too complicated. Why don't we table it to get the drawing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll withdraw the motion. That's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second on withdrawing the motion? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, Jay. I'll make a motipn to table this application to get other information. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, JBi I~ g~t oD~Th reur tsYt; eP? s i d e n V