Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-06/20/2012 James F. King, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Michael J. Domino Town Hail Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, June 20, 2012 6:00 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Bob Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: July 11, 2012, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: July 18, 2012, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 21, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Good evening welcome to our June meeting. Just a few housekeeping things. We have Wayne Galante here, he takes the Minutes of the meetings. If you have any comments during the public hearings, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. We have Audrey Horton sitting over there from the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and look at many of the applications we have and give us their input. We have some cancellations tonight I would like to go over before we forget them. Page five, number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to install a sub-surface sewage disposal system; existing leaching pool to be pumped out and filled with sand; new 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 500 gallon pump station tank to be installed; and new tank and leaching field. Located: Central Ave., Fishers Island, has 2 Board of Trustees June 20, 2012 been postponed. Page six, number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM MURPHY & KIMBERLY REECE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (within footprint and approx. 1' higher) existing one-story portion and two-story dwelling in place); install a drainage system of roof drywells, leaders and gutters; construct a 14'X 24' screened porch in place of and within footprint of existing deck and a 15'X 26' on-grade masonry terrace in place of existing 10'X 22' brick terrace; construct various on-grade stone/masonry walkways in place of and/or in addition to existing walkways; replace existing timber steps to dock path and construct new timber steps; construct new stoop in place of existing stoop; remove existing driveway and install new pervious gravel driveway; construct 18'X 38' swimming pool, 7'X 7' spa and 480 square foot on-grade masonry pool patio; install pool fencing, pool equipment, pool drywell, and plantings to screen pool; maintain approx. 9,448 square foot area of natural vegetation adjacent to wetlands as non-disturbance buffer; and establish approx. 3,440 square foot area adjacent to non-disturbance buffer as variable width non-turf buffer. Located: 1652 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SIMEON & ELLEN WOOTEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a covered walkway (wood or stone) and provide a handicap access to the new front door. Located: Old Mallory Rd., Fishers Island, is postponed. Page seven, number sixteen, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NORA FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to remove 100' of existing bulkhead and 360 square feet of existing wood decking; construct 100' of new bulkhead and 360 square feet of decking in-place; remove approx. 20 cubic yards of sediment from immediately in front of bulkhead and place as backfill landward of bulkhead; and repair frame shed (boathouse) foundation as needed. Located: 1480 Bayberry Rd., Cutchogue, has been postponed. And number seventeen, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' wide pile and timber pier and install an 8'X 20' floating dock with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladder. The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. We'll set the date for next field inspection, Wednesday July 11, at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting is Wednesday, July 18, at 6:00 3 Board of Trustees June 20,2012 PM, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of March 21, 20127 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make the motion to approve the Minutes of March 21, 2012. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 2012. A check for $9,726.22 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., June 20, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are liSted as follo~vs: Alexander D. Norden - SCTM#44-1-20 Michelle & Tim McManus - SCTM#118-4-5 Michael Hirschhorn & Jimena Martinez - SCTM#67-1-7 Doug & Kathleen Folts- SCTM#136-1-54 Susan Farrell & Edward D. Fusco - SCTM#49-1-22 Brewer Sterling Harbor - SCTM#36-1-1 Helen & Robert Keith - SCTM#123-10-2 Nicholas Yuelys - SCTM#44-1-19 Pebble Beach Farms Lot Owners Assoc. - SCTM#21-5-10 William Murphy & Kimberly Reece - SCTM#118-1-4.1 Elyse James - SCTM#81-3-1.4 Simeon & Ellen Wooten - SCTM#7-6-11 Elizabeth Gardner- SCTM#47-2-30 John S. White - SCTM#113-9-10.2 Kendall Todd - SCTM#37-5-3 Nora Flotteron - SCTM#118-2-13 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? 4 Board of Trustees June 20, 2012 (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, to try and move things along, we group them together if they are simple and there are no problems, and I would like to group together number one, two, three, four and five, and approve those in one shot. They are listed as follows: Number one, THEODORE PETIKAS requests an Administrative Permit to install 74 linear feet of PVC fence along the existing 50' bulkhead and two (2) 12' bulkhead returns. Located: 52755 Rt. 48, Southold. Number two, CATHERINE HEARST requests an Administrative Permit for the as-built 3.5' fence and 5' fence along both sides of the property lines to the bulkhead. Located: 1195 Shore Dr., Greenport. Number three, THOMAS CASSIDY requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 140 sf. Extension to the existing patio and resurface with on-grade concrete pavers; add a roof with solar panels and open sides; install a 16' roll-up awning to be mounted on northern roof line over the patio; replace two concrete pads that abut the wood ramp and eastern fence line; and for the existing fence and sheds. Located: 280 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. - Number four, BARBARA FITZGERALD requests an Administrative/Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed. Located: 8915 Soundview Ave., Southold. Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ERIC KLODNICKI requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing sanitary system located less than 100' from wetlands (in favor of an upgraded system to be located more than 100' from wetlands); construct a pervious gravel driveway extension; replace portion of existing asphalt driveway/parking area with pervious gravel; and install fencing to enclose proposed swimming pool located more than 100' from wetlands. Located: 165 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE GHQSIQ: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And I would also like to put together number eight and number nine and approve those, too. Number eight is ANITA LANG KNOWLTON requests an Administrative Permit to install a 3' high and 90' long split rail fence along the property line. Located: 505 Wood Lane, Peconic. Number nine, Barbara A. Reiter on behalf of KATHLEEN MILNE requests an Administrative Permit to replace the existing fence with new 4' high fence located 15' from the wetlands landward. Located: 3875 Wickham Ave., Mattituck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And number six, JOHN BOYLE requests an Administrative Permit to provide access to a right-of-way by removing trees and planting grass. Located: 24435 Route 25, Orient. This is found inconsistent. The action was conducted without the benefit of a permit. I guess that's the primary Board of Trustees 5 June 20,2012 reason. CAC didn't get down there. We all went down and looked at it. It's a long right-of-way down to The Sound, the beach and The Sound. The only stipulation we would like to put on this, we'll approve it, but the last 50 feet of it, they had like a little turnaround right down near the wetlands. We would like to see the last 50 feet of this right-of-way left in an undisturbed condition. Let it naturalize. Other than that I don't think anybody had an issue. So I would make that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, CHRISTINE RIVERA requests an Administrative Permit to place 12"X 12" signs on the existing split-rail fence. Located: 250 Sound Beach Dr., Mattituck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Only one sign is to be posted per hundred linear feet. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And it can't be more than 12x12, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. 12x12, only on split-rail fence. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So just to be clear, the code says we can have it on the fence and it has to be more than 100 feet between the signs. TRUSTEE KING: So I believe she has a sign down at the end. She could have another sign 100 feet landward of the existing sign. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would you like to make that motion? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, I'll make that motion to approve number seven, Administrative Permit to place 12"x12" signs on the existing split-rail fence. This is our famous fence on the west side of the Mattituck Inlet. There has been a lot of controversy about it because it goes down on to the beach. By code we can allow a fence to within ten feet of the ordinary high water mark. This fence meets those specifications. And we can also allow a sign, or more than one sign if they are 100 feet apart. And I believe there is a sign at the seaward end of this fence, so this means she can put another sign 100 feet landward of that. And I believe the reason was she wants to post it because there are cameras and it's under surveillance now. So I would make that motion to approve as long as it's at least 100 feet landward of the existing sign. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETER COSOLA requests an Administrative Permit to trim the vegetation landward of the bulkhead; plant evergreens along the property lines; as-built patio and walkways; and 4'X 5' outdoor shower enclosure. Located: 430 West Shore Dr., Southold. We just have some questions on this. It was found inconsistent because the as-built does not conform to 275-6. It's a patio that doesn't need an engineer certificate, so. MS. MOORE: Are we talking about the stone patio? MS. HULSE: Pat, this is not a public hearing. MS. MOORE: No, no, I'm just trying to get an understanding -- MS. HULSE: I know, but there is no opportunity for comment. Board of Trustees 6 June 20,2012 MS. MOORE: If he has a question, don't you want me to answer it? MS. HULSE: Not until they recognize you and ask you. MS. MOORE: All right. MS. HULSE: If they need to ask you, I suppose they would. MS. MOORE: I thought he was. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I see it. MS. MOORE: Did you answer your question? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I interpret it, the inconsistency is with the part of the application to trim vegetation landward of the bulkhead. In other words, on the bluff. That he's finding that action as inconsistent. And I know we've had questions before when people had said we'll trim the vegetation and then -- TRUSTEE KING: What does trim mean. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And then come back and sometimes people just do a couple of weeds or plants and some people clearcut the bluff saying that they trimmed it. So I think we have to clarify that and we need to bring it into consistency. Or eliminate that part of the application and bring it into consistency. MS. MOORE: Would you prefer I just have him give you a letter explaining what he plans to do? Because I think he's landscaping in there, trimming, to make it denser -- MS. HULSE: Pat, if this turns into a public hearing, for your own client's protection, it will have to be noticed. So if you turn this into a public hearing, it will have to be adjourned and re-noticed. MS. MOORE: No, I'm trying to answer a question. MS. HULSE: They are not asking you a question. Let them ask you a question otherwise you'll go into the danger zone with this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just pointing out on the picture here, he's trimming vegetation on the bluff. He's going to be removing the dead tree stump from the tree which he already removed, from the tree which was a few feet from the edge of the bluff. That's on this diagram. A lot of this work is already done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since the code allows for normal horticultural activity, I would myself feel more comfodable if we just take that pad out, trim vegetation landward of the bulkhead, and the rest of it proceed forward under Administrative Permit. That would bring it into consistency under the LWRP, and if they want to do more extensive clearing or something else later on, come on back. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There were no wetland indicators within that area behind the bulkhead, it was all domestic vegetation? TRUSTEE KING: Typical bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And they are not showing a ten-foot or any non-turf buffer at all. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we recommend in our field notes is to establish a ten-foot, non-turf buffer, which would help address the inconsistency. MS. MOORE: Can you clarify where you want the non-turf buffer? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, from the top of the bluff landward, ten feet. MS. MOORE: On the sides of the deck? 7 Board of Trustees June 20,2012 TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. MOORE: I'm just trying to visualize what's there, so. You have a picture of it in the back. Yes, I mean, if that doesn't make -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't go very far landward at all. In fact he puts it here. It's two-and-a-half feet from the edge of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: So we want a ten-foot buffer along the top of the bluff. It would be in front of this about six-and-a-half, seven feet. Because the deck extends partially up on to the lawn. MS. MOORE: So you want them to landscape on this side of the deck, the landward side? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Put a buffer in, yes. Non-turf buffer. MS. MOORE: Okay, fine. So it will be up to him. Okay, fine. TRUSTEE KING: So what I would like to do is move this along. I'll make a motion to approve number ten, Patricia Moore on behalf of Peter Cosola. We'll remove the statement "to trim vegetation." That will be taken out of this. There is to be no trimming of the vegetation on the bluff unless he comes in to us at a later date with some sort of plan showing us what he wants to do. The as-built patio and walkway we'll approve, and outdoor shower is fine. And we'll stipulate this to be a ten-foot, non-turf buffer established along the top of the bluff, for this to be approved. And we would like to see that shown on the drawing. And that should take care of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: And that would bring it into consistency. We removed that and we added a non-turf buffer. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, once again, if they are simple and not controversial, we can group them together. I would like to group together one, two, three, four, five and six and make a motion to approve those. They are listed as follows: Number one, ARTHUR R. TORELL requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit ¢7143 as issued on July 22, 2009 and Amended on May 21, 2010. Located: 365 Westwood Lane, Greenport. Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SHEILA PATEL requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit ¢7351 and Coastal Erosion Permit ¢7351C, as issued on July 21, 2010. Located: 19965 Soundview Ave., Southold. Number three, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of MARTIN & ELIZABETH O'REILLY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit ¢7383, as issued on August 18, 2010. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion. Board of Trustees June 20,2012 Number four, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of MARTIN & ELIZABETH O'REILLY requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7382, as issued on August 18, 2010, and an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7382 to relocate the proposed garage to the north side of the dwelling, reducin9 the area required for driveway and parking; add steps to grade from the deck on the west side of the dwelling, which will project 3' beyond the original footprint; add steps to grade and a bilco entry door to the basement on the east side of the dwelling, which will project beyond the original footprint; and to construct a 14'X 20' 9arden shed off the southeast corner of the dwelling. Located: 1420 Truman's Path, East Marion. Number five, LARS TORKELSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #2093 to include the existing 9'X 15' platform attached to the existing permitted dock. Located: 1130 Glenn Rd., Southold. And number six, SCOTT AMBROSIO requests an Amendment to Administrative Permit #7705A to include the installation of a gravel driveway/storage area. Located: 1940 Mason Dr., Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, OLD ORCHARD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. Requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7464 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7464C to include the beach seatin9 on the deck, install barrier and terrace to stop erosion, and provide for small boat storage. Located: 550 South Lane, East Marion. I think we postponed this just to 9et some more information last month, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yup. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Board has been out there and we have taken a look at it. I think by virtue of the fact that there is room and placement in front of the bulkhead that's there, to put kayak racks, was the Board's feeling we don't really want to allow kayaks up on that planted area there, or any other kind of storage. Aside from that, the only other notes I have here is the Board really didn't have a problem with the beach seating on the deck but we did note there was quite a bit of erosion on the side by the stairs and we would like to see that get addressed at some point. Aside from that I think we are ready to move on this, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I would like to make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: And the boat storage is to be on the bulkhead or the seaward side of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. And the boat storage is to be on the bulkhead or on the seaward side of the bulkhead. So we'll remove that from this. And not allow for the boat storage on top. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees June 20,2012 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FLANAGAN: I'm Ed Flanagan, the president of the association. The erosion that was described was the aftermath of the bulkhead, putting in the staircase and the loose soil. At the last meeting it was described as don't do anything until you get out and looked at it. It's a dangerous situation in that the erosion at the head of the stairs, and people have to sort of, if they want to go on the beach, go around that area. We would like to refilt the area, which is part of the original construction. Do we have to permission to do that? TRUSTEE KING: We don't have an issue with that. I think what you really need is a drywell somewhere in the right-of-way to contain that runoff. MR. FLANAGAN: We are prepared to do that, but when we were told don't do anything, we just sat on our hands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Because we really noticed that runoff starts on the road and coming all the way down the road. So as Jim said, we would really encourage you to come in with a plan to put drywells in or something to help catch that water, prevent it from getting down there and causing all the damage. MR. FLANAGAN: We have a contractor providing all the information for us to go ahead and do that. But again, we held up on everything. TRUSTEE KING: The easiest thing for you might be, we can go ahead and tell you go ahead and fill in that danger spot around the stairs but if you want to put a drywell in say a hundred feet landward, then it would be out of our jurisdiction and you don't need any permits for that. MR. FLANAGAN: I think we maybe need it in two places. I think where it comes off the road and then in the vicinity of the stairways, because the downhill -- TRUSTEE KING: So it's within our jurisdiction and we would give you an Administrative Permit to do that. MR. FLANAGAN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome MR. JONES: Excuse me, I'm Jack Jones -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have already closed this. We finished that. We already voted on it. MR. JONES: I couldn't jump up any faster than I did. MS. HULSE: The Board has already made a decision on this and this is not the subject of a public hearing. So these comments are not part of this application or accepted as part of the hearing. MR. JONES: Is there any appeal process we can pursue? MS. HULSE: Sorry? MR. JONES: Is there an appeal process? MS. HULSE: Yes, you can appeal to the Town Board or you can retain an attorney and file an Article 78 against the Board of Trustees of the Town. MR. FLANAGAN: You mentioned an Administrative Permit -- MS. NULSE: Sir, the hearing is closed. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude, but none of this is getting on the Minutes or getting 10 Board of Trustees June 20,2012 into the application. MR. FLANAGAN: You mentioned an Administrative Permit, I don't know what process -- MS. HULSE: There is no public hearing so really this testimony is after, it's already been closed, so it's not made part of this record. MS. MOORE: They just want to add the drywell -- MS. HULSE: Pat, seriously? I'm trying to assist because this is not helpful to their cause. This is not made part of the record, sir. MR. FLANAGAN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, DEBORAH PENNEY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7643 to install a generator and three (3) air conditioner units along in the sides of the dwelling; solar panels onto the roof of the dwelling; patio with walkways; driveway; and a 5' non-turf buffer instead of the required 20' non-turf buffer. Located: 160 Sailor's Needle Rd., Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this. We had no problem with the request for installing a generator and three air-conditioning units alongside the building, and the solar panels on the roof. We have no problems with the patio, walkway and driveway. We did not agree with a five-foot, non-turf buffer instead of 20-foot, non-turf buffer because this is, the lot coverage on this lot from this structure between the house and patio and everything else is very, very large and so we feel it's even more reason to maintain a 20-foot, non-turf buffer. So with this particular application I would make a motion to -- TRUSTEE KING: I hate to interrupt you but the 20-foot non-turf buffer was 9 requirement from ZBA for approval of this lot for the changes from the size of the house and everything. So we can't go and change that. That was imposed by ZBA as part of the process for getting approval through the ZBA. So that's a done deal. We can't change that anyway. We would not, even if we wanted to, but we can't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So with that I'll make a motion to approve Deborah Penney's request for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7643 to install generator and three outside air-conditioning units along the sides of the dwelling, solar panels on the roof of the dwelling, patio with walkways and driveway. And deny the requested increase in the size of the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we have a number of requests for moorings. Most of them are stakes. I don't think there is an issue with any ever them. There are seven listed here. They are listed as follows: Number one, JAMES MICHTA requests a Mooring Permit in Narrow River for a 11 Board of Trustees June 20, 2012 20' boat, replacing Mooring #HB-10. Access: Public. Number two, JOHN McLINSKEY requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 14' boat, replacing Stake #9. Access: Public. Number three, WALTER J. STROHMEYER, JR., requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 9' boat, replacing Stake #31. Access: Public. Number four, DENA ZEMSKY requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 12' boat, replacing Stake #26. Access: Public. Number five, WILLIAM VVYSOCKI requests a Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 16' boat, replacing Stake #24. Access: Public. Number six, JEFFREY WlLKE requests a Mooring Permit in Jockey Creek for a 26' boat, replacing Mooring #JC-20. Access: Private. And number seven, MARK SZYNAKA requests a Mooring Permit in Town Creek for a 19' boat, replacing Mooring #970. Access: Public. I'll make a motion to approve one through seven under Moorings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to go off our regular meeting and on to our public hearings section. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. CASSIDY: Can I ask a question? I was approved -- Thomas Cassidy. I'm wondering what the time limit is on getting the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just contact the office tomorrow and they can give you an idea approximately when they might have it ready for you. MR. CASSIDY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You're welcome. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under public hearings, amendments, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SUSAN FARRELL & EDWARD D. FUSCO requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #289 from Diana Tendler to Susan Farrell & Edward d. Fusco, as issued on April 24, 1986, and to Amend Wetland Permit #289 to include the as-built +/- 50 square foot kayak shed along landward side of bulkhead; remove two (2) fallen trees and backfill uprooted area against landward side of bulkhead with clean sand +/- 1 cubic feet; remove +/- four (4) hollowed out trees; and remove brush, poison ivy and dead branches along east side of property. Located: 1750 9th St., Greenport. This has been found inconsistent by LWRP because the dimensions of the kayak shed are unclear; the plan lacks a vegetative buffer. And that's pretty much it. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. We have gone out into the field and we saw some of the issues here, as you can see in the picture. We have issues with trees that are falling down, presumably since the hurricane, being supported as best they can. There have been trees there that are dead. They are doing some removal of some trees, hollowed out trees. In general, we didn't really have an issue with anything that was on here. Aside from that, stipulating a ten-foot, non-turf buffer certainly would not be out of the realm of what we should do there, although there is some buffering there already. As 12 Board of Trustees June 20,2012 you can see there is some natural vegetation right there. Once this is repaired you could put a buffer here to continue what is already here. That would be a good idea. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have an issue with a kayak shed there. That's very small. Nothing to be concerned about in my mind. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? (No response). Any comments or further questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think the buffer is a good idea. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition and stipulation of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer along the bulkhead, and in doing so it would bring this into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion, number one, Jeff A. Zahn, Architect on behalf of ALEXANDER D. NORDEN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct an armor stone wall around an existing dwelling consisting of (2) rows of 1-3 ton stone and the installation of ten (10) concrete piers below the dwelling in place of failing Locust posts. Located: 56055 Rt. 48, Southold. The LWRP indicates that this project as proposed is inconsistent with LWRP standards and therefore is inconsistent with the LWRP. The principal structure is a residential and not water dependent. It's recommended the Board require relocation of the principal structure landward of the coastal erosion hazard area. The residential structure does not require a coastal location, the residential use of the property is not water dependent as discussed and it is recommended the Board require the structure be located landward of the coastal erosion hazard area. The proposed design of the stone wall would deflect and funnel away energy from the unarmored property to the west and potentially decrease flooding and erosion on that property. It is recommended the design of the stone wall be re-evaluated to reduce adverse impacts to the adjacent properties. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this application or against this application? MR. ZAHN: Good evening. Jeff Zahn, I'm the architect. TRUSTEE KING: What was the Conservation Advisory Council comments on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council moved not to support the application, does not support the application because the proposed activities are not in the Iongterm interest of the community and abutting property owners and requires an engineered plan. MR. ZAHN: Sorry, what was that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because the proposed activities are not in the Iongterm interest of the community and abutting property Board of Trustees 13 June 20, 2012 owners, and requires an engineered plan. MR. ZAHN: In what way does that adversely affect the property owners adjacent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The suggestion was, in his review, that the construction of the rock wall as proposed might harm the adjacent property owners. That's what he's suggesting in his review. MR. ZAHN: In continuing the armor stone from the property to the east, and we are continuing that armor stone wall around the subject property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Audrey, can you help us out a little bit with where the Conservation Advisory Council was going with their recommendations? MS. HORTON: Doug is very concerned about this. It's costing all these individual homeowners, they are making a little spot, um, a lot of money. Where if everyone got together and got one plan that helped the whole thing. But it's like putting your hand in, your finger in one hole of the dike and it's going to leak in another spot. And it's his opinion that as things are getting worse and worse there on The Sound, that if we keep doing these little spot things we are just kind of throwing money away, Because it's not enough to hold the whole thing. So he keeps pushing for a plan that will help everybody. MR. ZAHN: I understand that to a degree, but as you can see in this photo, I mean this house is severely in jeopardy of another storm coming in and possibly washing this away. TRUSTEE KING: That would be great to get one plan for everybody and have everybody chip in and pay for it. That doesn't happen in reality. The reality is this person wants to protect their property and if they are willing to invest the money in it, I myself can't see holding this up. MS. HORTON: His plan is, if he just keeps pushing to advertise it, if everyone can get together we can really get something that works; that it's only temporary what people are doing and people are selling them stuff that doesn't work. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'm also, in the LWRP review, was the suggestion that the house could be moved back landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. But I don't know how you could do that, given the proximity that it is to the road. MR. LARSEN: Craig Larsen, from Larsen Marine Construction. I'm the contractor looking to propose installing the stone. TRUSTEE KING: Can you speak up a little bit? MR. LARSEN: Jim, when I looked at the project here, basically we put together an armoring stone system similar to the property eastward, and we were going to follow that along Alex Norden's property and run the armoring stone in on the west side, on a slight angle to his property line. But I've seen in the past, even with bulkheads, sometimes they armor the return to defuse the waves before it gets to the cliff base and destroy it. This is just a complete armoring stone system across the front of the property. His footings in the front section of this home, in the few spots, are inches from failing. This house will drop and fall down and needs to be protected. TRUSTEE KING: I know. We are very well aware of the problem. MR. LARSEN: At one point, Jim, on the corner of the house, where Board of Trustees 14 June 20,2012 the entrance door is, there is a section where the existing gas main running in is exposed. I mean it needs to be protected. And this is the only way we see fit. When I approached the DEC and talked to them about installing some sort of a solid wall, they said, no, they would not have it. But if we put stone, which is more of a natural substance, they would be okay with it. TRUSTEE KING: I see. MR. LARSEN: And we were just following the plan to the east, thinking it was a good idea. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I think amongst a range of alternatives to this, if you were to let's say compel moving behind the coastal erosion hazard area line, that would not compel the construction of the construction of the necessary coastal fortification, which if anything will knock down wave energy, and it certainly is not as hard as existing sheer bulkhead faces, and the circular design will eat a lot of the incident wave energy. I think the design itself incorporates wave energy dissipation to the extent that it's an unusual design and I think it has that valuable feature itself really addresses the inconsistency. It's not a straight bulkhead line and it's not even a conventional revetment. MR. LARSEN: No. And we've got it as close to the toe of the house as construction will allow, you know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the extensive review of the Department of Environmental Conservation and their restrictions and the fact the structure itself is a unique design feature which incorporates wave dissipation along the front of the project, that in fact the project meets the coastal consistency requirements because it applies the best available control technology that we have to date. So I would move the application as submitted noting that the various inter-agency, the various agency requirements put this in good stead with respect to coastal protection. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ZAHN: Should I just drop off the notice of mailings? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Anthony Vivona on behalf of PEBBLE BEACH FARMS LOT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the deteriorated wood tie retaining wall approx. 115' long with a boulder wall and replace existing wood tie steps from the top of bluff with stone steps. Located: 5065 The Long Way, East Marion. Board of Trustees 15 June 20,2012 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this permit application with the condition that there would be adequate treatment of and interception of road water runoff. The Trustees during the field inspection discussed a possible clarification of the dead tree removal. Most of the project was pretty straightforward. We saw one or two dead trees and we were concerned that that point should be clarified. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. VIVONA: My name is Anthony Vivona, presently the President of the Pebble Beach Lot Owners Association. From the picture you see the steps have deteriorated and the wall is deteriorated and we just ask permission to almost replace inkind, except with stone steps and natural boulder wall. Two tiers. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We had the plans for this in the field and we were comfortable with the application as we saw it. We just, there were several, there was existing trees along the easterly side of the stone walkway and we were concerned they remain in place, that only the dead ones be removed. MR. VlVONA: I believe we wanted to remove the trees but not the root system; just to take it down to ground level, if possible. That's what we had done with the other dead pine trees that were along there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's only the dead ones, right? MR. VlVONA: Yes, but the few that are alive, they all have bores in them and it's only a matter of time before they die. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have the bores, the Japanese black pines, all of them? MR. VIVONA: Yes, they are all infected. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any additional comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem taking those trees down. Chances are they were planted by someone. They were not there naturally anyway. It's a possibility they planted them. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If there are no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. VIVONA: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MICHAEL HIRSCHHORN & JIMENA MARTINEZ requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 525.25 square foot second-story addition atop the existing single-family dwelling; reconstruct railing to the attached rear Board of Trustees 16 June 20,2012 deck; remove 2,260 square feet of concrete padding surrounding the dwelling and replace with native plantings; and install a 320 square foot wood walkway from the parking area along the southwestern side of the dwelling to the existing wood walk around the perimeter of the rear attached deck. Located: 280 Soundview Ave., Peconic. The Board went out and took a look at this and it's not in our jurisdiction. So I believe that we are going to make a resolution here to send them a letter of non-jurisdiction. And what do we want to do as far as refunding the application fee? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could refund the fees. TRUSTEE KING: We could return part of it. I don't think we could return the whole thing, because we did go through the process of advertising and everything. Send them back a hundred; is that okay? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was five-hundred, because it was Wetland and Coastal Erosion, so -- TRUSTEE KING: Send back half. Because we did go through the process on it. We went out and looked at it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion we issue a letter of non-jurisdiction on number three for Hirschhorn and Martinez and issue a refund of half of the application fee for both the Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion permit. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number one, JOHN S. WHITE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4'X 56' fixed wood dock; construct a 4'X 6' landward extension; new 4' X 96' fixed dock extension using Thru-Flow decking; and a 3'X 14' hinged ramp attached to a 6'X 20' floating dock. Located: 4324 Westphalia Rd., Mattituck. Under the LWRP this was found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the abandoned floating dock is removed and the walkway is constructed using grated materials. Open-grate. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this application? MR. WHITE: Good evening. John White. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing we noticed, we have a rule of thumb here, a policy we pretty aggressively try to keep in place, is that we try and maintain pier line. And your plans show, if you draw a line between your neighboring docks, you are a little seaward of it. We would like to pull you back a little bit to put you in line with those two docks. In looking at the draft, you still have plenty of water there. It's not like you'll be restricted water depth wise. MR. WHITE: It looks like you had it right up the channel line. TRUSTEE KING: It's actually right across the channel line. We would like it brought back in. I could scale it off for you. Board of Trustees 17 June 20, 2012 It will need to be pulled in about eight feet. MR. WHITE: Both of my neighbors are a little bit beyond the channel line. TRUSTEE KING: They are shown in the channel is a varying line. Like I say, we try and keep that. And I think it's important, for navigation purposes. MR. WHITE: So that would be an 88 or 90 foot catwalk as opposed to the 96? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. As a matter of fact it would be so close at 90 feet, so we'll reduce the length of the catwalk to 90. And the suggestion was made from the Conservation Advisory Council to use the open-grate decking, which we have used in a lot of applications. MR. WHITE: I think that's his intention is to use that, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically, I just pulled this up as an illustration for you. The pier line he's talking about is from this to this. To the two neighboring docks. This is that catwalk you have there now, which was in the other picture. MR. WHITE: I think a piece of that in the northern end over the past 30 years has washed away. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Are there any other comments from the audience? Board comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve a 90-foot catwalk versus the 96-foot catwalk. So we are shortening the catwalk by six feet. And it's to be open-grate. Other than that, I think it's fine. I would make a motion to approve with that stipulation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. WHITE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, Terry Contracting & Materials, Inc., on behalf of LEE KRUTER requests a Wetland Permit to replace approx. 248 linear feet of an existing timber bulkhead with a new epoxy coated cantilevered steel sheet pile bulkhead; interstitial space between the abandoned existing and new bulkhead to be filled with approx. 75 cubic yards of clean sand; and remove and replace existing retractable access stairs. Located: 9475 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For the record, I'm recusing myself from this hearing because I'm the adjoining neighbor. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The project has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application provided that, with the recommendation that the new bulkhead is constructed inplace and best management or engineering practices be used. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of or against this application? Board of Trustees 18 June 20,2012 MR. TERRY: I'm Bob Terry from Terry Contracting. I'm just here if you have a question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question. The term "cantilever," is that a term referring to the actual angular sections of it or is that the actual method of construction? MR. TERRY: Cantilevered sheet piles means it's deep enough, the sheets are so long they don't require a tie-back system. So they are just driven in the ground far enough so you don't have to go back and disturb -- as you know, there is a building behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The cantilevering -- okay. MR. TERRY: "Cantilever" means it's in far enough on its own that it will stay up on its own without deadmen, tie roads, helicals. We don't really have room to do that because of everything that is behind it. So if you just go with long enough sheets, it works that way. And I have a PE has done the design of the sheets to make sure it will work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the expected -- this sort of bulkhead construction -- what's the expected life of the epoxy-coated bulkhead material? TRUSTEE KING: Longer than me. MR. TERRY: A lot longer than any of us, yes. Uncoated steel is more than 50 years. TRUSTEE KING: I have seen uncoated steel like in Mattituck Inlet probably 50-years old. MR. TERRY: Right, I mean, we cut a bunch of it off in the DEC boat ramp and some of it, at least half of it was still there. And that's more than 50-years old. And that was not coated. So this should be a final, and certainly -- certainly my time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know there was some concern about trying to replace and remove the existing structure. But how close do you propose and how close can you get this to the existing? MR. TERRY: The sheets, I believe, are about 5/8th inches thick. The inside portion of the face of it will be lagged right to the bulkhead. So the only part that will come ought is, you know, it's a Z-sheet. So we are going to drive it right up against the bulkhead. There is a few spots where the bulkhead has failed and it's bowed out and what we'll try to do is dig out behind it and get it back so we can give him a straight line. To the best we can, we'll try and pull it back and give him a straight line. Obviously I can't do that where the house is. But that's pretty straight right there. We will, occasionally, have to pull one of those piles and move it back into the bucket of the line of sheets because we are not going to go out over where there is pilings, soldier remember piles on the face of the existing bulkhead, we'll go around them. So if we have to pull one out to be close to the sheathing, to the wale, that's what we'll do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It actually will fit in then, essentially. MR. TERRY: Right. So if we can fit the piling back in in the bucket area, we'll do it. If we can't, we'll leave it out. It's Board of Trustees 19 June 20, 2012 not needed, it will just give it more life. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because typically a new bulkhead construction will be on the order of well over two-and-a-half, three feet when you try to put it along the bulkhead face, but this is going to be substantially less, in any case. MR. TERRY: Right, because there will be no wale on the outside of it or anything like that. It's basically a cantilevered sheet pile -- there shouldn't be. You have the plans, there is no wale on it, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is no wale on it. MR. TERRY: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just out of curiosity, how deep do you have to go for the cantilever effect? MR. TERRY: It's on the plan. Are they 30-footers? 26-footers? The general rule is two-thirds in, one-third out. It's kind of a general rule that you can go by. In this case, because we didn't know exactly what's behind it, it's a little more than that. In the ground. But I mean they are not 50-foot sheets. They are, it's on there. I just don't remember, sorry. TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever put any in on a slight angle off the plumb? MR. TERRY: Not on purpose. TRUSTEE KING: I mean put a plumb and tip it out, if you start with it tipped in a little bit, it's a lot stronger. MR. TERRY: What happens, as you drive it in, occasionally we hit a big rock down below, instead of driving through the rock or moving the rock, sometimes it moves the sheet. And that's a hassle; you have to pull it up and drive it again. Sometimes we'll have a chisel beam and we'll drive that down in advance to break up the obstruction and get it in straight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did show 25 feet. Essentially eight feet at or above the base. MR. TERRY: So that's the one-third, two-thirds, roughly. That was designed by RACE Engineering, Roberge Associates Coastal Engineers out of Connecticut. They eventually will be giving a stamped drawing to the owner because he's spending a lot of money on this, so. He doesn't want to do it again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, Aye, Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye). (Trustee Bergen, recused). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Melrose Marine Service, Inc., on behalf of AUDREY ROTFIMAN requests a Wetland Permit for the inkind/inplace replacement of existing deteriorated fixed pier Board of Trustees 2O June 20, 2012 with an extension of the pier seaward 12' to reach greater water depth and removal of 112' of existing catwalk. Located: 3995 Wells Ave., Southold. The Board went out and looked at this back in May. We had a concern about the seaward extension of the dock, so we tabled it to this month. MS. ROTHMAN: Sorry, I can't hear you. It concerns me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Board went out and looked at this in May and had a concern about the dock. So we tabled it and then had the opportunity go out and looked at this this past month. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application because the proposed seaward extension of the dock was not staked. And that was true back in May. But again, it was staked for our review in June. Did the Conservation Advisory Council get an opportunity to go out and look at it? MS. HORTON: It was not on our list so we gave all the input that we had last month, so that everything can move faster. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. ROTHMAN: I'm here if you want have anything you want answered. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we were in the field and we were satisfied, once we saw the seaward end staked. Our concern was if the seaward end was going to extend far enough to impede navigation into the neighbor's dock and we could see when we went out there this month, the seaward extension is right around the ends of those piles that will be pulled out, so we have no objection to it. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. MS. ROTHMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Melrose Marine on behalf the Audrey Rothman, as described at 3995 Wells Avenue and it is deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN F. WI-IELAN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock consisting of a 3'X 24' fixed timber catwalk, 3' X 11.5' hinged ramp and a 5'X 20' floating dock. Located: 1645 Bungalow Lane, Mattituck. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent with the LWRP policy standards regarding protection of the tidal wetlands. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the Board of Trustees 21 June 20,2012 application based on the following observations: The dock should be elevated off the wetlands and concerns for possible use of treated materials, and they noted an erosion condition on the front of the property. They also suggested a ten to 15-foot non-turf buffer landward. The Trustees, during their evaluation, recommended open-grate decking if the structure were ever rebuilt. No other notes. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En~Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This hearing had been opened last month, at which time I had argued that the application should be exempt from waterfront consistency review because it does not fall within a categorized definition of an action under Chapter 268. It was the Board's position, however, that we file an LWRP application so that that determination could be made. We submitted a letter to the LWRP coordinator on May 21, reiterating our position that there are no activities here proposed and therefore there is nothing here that constitutes a reviewable action under Chapter 268. But nonetheless followed the Board's suggestion and submitted an application with that letter. This property has been improved with the docks since the late 1960s. I think from speakin9 to Jim a while ago he's familiar with the shoreline and he's familiar with the fact the dock has been here for a long time, and all we are really trying to accomplish here is in the event there had to be a minor repair or something made to the dock, that it would be legalized, and so at a minimum, for safety reasons, it could be repaired legally. We do understand, the owner understands, that if an application was ever made to rebuild the dock, obviously a full review under Chapter 275 would be required and that the Board would likely require that the structure be brought up to code to the extent that at least at a minimum that untreated decking would be required as just mentioned by Mike. So I don't have anything to add that I didn't present last month. Again, even if we were proposing repairs at this point, ordinary repairs, that also would be exempt under 268. So I don't know how to reconcile the determination that has been made by the LWRP coordinator, but that's what has been made. Otherwise our position has not changed. We are here just to legalize the structure. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other comments? Any other comment from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have any issues with this. I'm familiar with the area. It's really a very small dock. The whole shoreline, almost every piece of property along there has a dock. To me it's not an issue. He's trying to legitimize it and I understand that. In the event that it ever is rebuilt, it will be brought up to code. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If there are no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close this application. Board of Trustees 22 June 20,2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to deem it consistent. You need to bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As noted, that it is inconsistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to bring it into consistency. TRUSTEE KING: In looking at the whole general area, it's consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't know how to frame the motion, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I would make a motion to approve the application with the condition that if it ever needs to be re-built it would have to comply with current code, and with that condition it would be deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. MR. HERMAN: Dave, I assume that language will be incorporated into your permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I second the motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of ELYSE JAMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-18 linear feet vinyl return landward of an existing timber bulkhead along the northeasterly property line. Located: 5000 Paradise Point Rd., Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with LWRP. Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because of the serious erosion problem to the east, and this should be addressed and coordinated with other property owners along the shoreline rather than a piecemeal approach with the engineered plan along the entire reach of properties. Our Board went out and took a look at it and thought it was fairly straightforward. There has been a lot of damage here done, as you can see. But we found it to be consistent as well and I don't recall there being any issues. The Conservation Advisory Council is not supporting the application because of the serious erosion problem. They would like to see it addressed and coordinated with all the other property owners in the area. And they would like to see an engineered plan for the entire region. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Of course we are here for the very reason that there is this very severe erosion problem on the adjacent property, that has been in the condition that you now see it, since Tropical Storm Irene. So being it's not being addressed, the applicant here is concerned that if that continues to be unaddressed that the erosion of the bank will continue onto their property and undermine the house. Even where two properties are adjacent and have functional Board of Trustees 23 June 20,2012 bulkheading, returns are often put in as a precautionary measure just to make sure that if the adjacent property owner, that they can't take responsibility for, fails to keep the structure in good repair, that they are protected. So that's really all that is being proposed here. We have received the DEC permit for the project also. I don't really have anything to add. It's a pretty academic application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would anybody else like to address the application? (No response). Questions or comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting it's consistent with LWRP and notwithstanding the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of HELEN & ROBERT KEITH requests a Wetland Permit to construct approx. 95 linear feet of Iow-sill bulkhead between existing Iow-sill bulkheads on subject parcel and adjoining parcel to west; and place approx. 20 cubic yards of sand fill (to be trucked in from an upland source) between proposed bulkhead and existing inter-tidal marsh to be planted with Spartina alterniflora (12" on center) to create approx. 190 square feet of additional inter-tidal marsh. Located: 995 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. This is an application to continue a Iow sill bulkhead and to do some stone work, which was found consistent with LWRP, which is good news. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the structure does not extend into public waters. It is recommended that the Board of Trustees investigate the impact this application will have on Willis Creek. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I almost have fun coming back for applications for this property. We always hold it up sort of as our poster child as the most successful erosion control project that we have been involved with where restoration, preservation and maintenance of marsh is involved. I actually want to give to the Board at some point, I have a long sort of photo diary of this site from before it was every improved with the Iow sill to where it is now. The only reason we are here really is when the project was originally designed and approved by the Board many years ago, at the time the erosion down on this side of the property was not as evident and the DEC at that time, who played a big role in Board of Trustees 24 June 20,2012 designing the project, allowed us to go so far, and then with a wait-and-see-how-it-works-out sort of approach. It worked out well. I think this Board shares that opinion. And recently there was another Iow sill structure approved to the west. So we are really here to tie the two points together. One thing that we omitted from the original application, which I submitted in revised plans, results to about the 25-foot extension of the stone rip rap along the landward embankment, which had also been originally approved by the Board, and there was an upland retaining wall approved for the neighbor to the west. So we are looking to tie that gap as well, and we submitted that to the Board with the June 12 planned revision. So that's it. Hopefully this one is also a fairly academic application at this point. TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. I'm familiar with the area and the project. I was involved with the first project. It's just a continuation, connect the dots. It really, on this west side of the dock you'll really gain some wetland because it's been eroded out a little bit and the wind is going straight across. That will be filled with Spartina. So it's a net increase in wetland area, which I think is good. I just think this was a great project. Really. You go down there, you have a beautiful wetland behind that bulkhead. MR. HERMAN: Which would be gone. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there would be nothing left. MR. HERMAN: Inarguably. TRUSTEE KING: I fully support this project. I think it's good. Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And as far as investigating the impact to Willis Creek, I really don't think this will have any impact. It's quite a way from the entrance there. You'll have far more problem to the west. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Still second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of NICHOLAS YUELYS requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing sanitary system with new system in the front yard. Located: 56005 County Rd. 48, Southold. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and it was found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because proposed activities are not in the Iongterm interest of the community and abutting property owners and 25 Board of Trustees requires an engineered plan. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Yuelys. They are both in their 80s and they just couldn't make it out here. So they apologize. That would have liked to have been here. They have owned the house since the 50s. The existing sanitary system that was under the house is exposed add it was based, through the storm damage that occurred, the whole line of homes in this area, there is history of the storm damage. Their sanitary system has been approved but, the design has been approved by the Health Department. The reason they came to me initially is because of the covenants that have to be filed with respect to the sanitary because of the way that the water line has to cross the septic tank. But other than that, it's moving along smoothly with the Health Department. The DEC, we are above the ten-foot contour and we should get a letter of non-jurisdiction from the DEC. And there is no other place to put a sanitary system, so unless the town chooses to extend the sewer plant, sewer, all the way down to benefit everybody here, this really is the only option. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is going to be done with the abandonment of the old system? Are they going to fill it in? MS. MOORE: I don't know if my Health Depadment paperwork says it. It might be, we might, I don't know, I mean the Health Department might say something, but, let's see, usually it's filled with sand. I don't know if it's easier to remove it. I think it would be too much disturbance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was thinking, also. If this is just pumped out and filled with sand, that would satisfy the abandonment. MS. MOORE: That's fine. You can certainly direct us to do that in your permit. That's fine. I'll let you know if another agency has a different opinion but so far I don't believe we have been told how to do it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, Audrey, as can you see, the septic system that is in real trouble and obviously it is contributing nutrients right into The Sound, and moving it landward, I just need help understanding how that's not in the best Iongterm interest of the community. MS. HORTON: I just started reading another one. I want to make sure I'm on the right one. You are talking about which one, so I could pick up my notes? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight. Yuelys. MS. HORTON: Okay. (Perusing). Um, you know what, Do~g is talking about this whole engineered plan, and what I'm trying to do with Doug is keep it absolutely consistent for everyone. We can't like tear apart one and I'm just trying to keep the verbiage the same on every one of them. He wants a light on it and it should be recognized, and we don't give approval or disapproval. So when we are putting this stamp on it we are just trying to be the one saying there is a problem coming down the road. And I June 20,2012 Board of Trustees 26 June 20, 2012 may be, after being here tonight, I kind of thought I'm going to talk to some other engineers and scientists and see if I could come up with a resolution, because I'm one of these people that like resolutions. And we are not trying to put a stop on anything, we are just trying to put a light on it when we are, in using the same wording. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. It's just here there is a project that is really very, very positive. MS. HORTON: That's called biting off our nose to spite our face. I get that. And I'm just trying to keep consistency, and I think I need to explore it further. But I'm not trying to stop what you are trying to do. We are not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, any other comments from the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Nicholas Yuelys as described with the condition that the old septic will be, part of its abandonment, simply filled with sand. Pumped out and filled with sand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of ELIZABETH 6ARDNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 13'X 13' screeo porch over existing deck landward of bulkhead; patio; existing deck; split-rail fence; and drywell. Located: 1665 Shore Rd., Greenport. The proposed project has been deemed consistent under the LWRP. The Trustees have been to the site. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain roof runoff, and there be a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees had questions concerning whether the patio would be pervious and it was unclear, although the plan shows relocate the existing shower, there was concern they were keeping the existing shower to be noted. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Ms. Gardner. Mark Schwartz was the design professional on this. I'm trying to find my survey. Here it is. I'm trying to remember where the outdoor shower was going. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the plan addresses the shower. It was relocated on the plan. I know David brought it up when I was taking the field notes and he confirmed what I had thought, it does in fact show on the plan. And there is a drywell shown on 27 Board of Trustees the proposal. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe we have any problems with the application. The request by the Conservation Advisory Council to consider a 15-foot non-turf buffer would usually only be entertained if there was active construction that involved the bulkhead or bulkhead replacement. I don't think we had a problem with any aspect of this application, or basically the concerns to have a drywell are addressed by the plan and our concerns concerning the shower is a non-issue on the plan. MS. MOORE: Okay, I won't comment. I think it's been answered. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Next application, number 11, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of MICHELLE & TIM McMANUS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish an existing one-stow dwelling and garage; abandon sanitary system; construct new two-stow frame dwelling with attached garage and stone terrace; and new sanitary system. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with the suggestion there be a 15-foot non-turf buffer, and questioned the legality of the beach house. The Trustees in their field notes noted that there was a question about the history, permitting history of the cabana and deck. Other than that, it was straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Good evening. My name is Tom Samuels, on behalf of Tim and Michele McManus, and also Michele McManus is here. I have a series of documents from the Building Department, including certificates of occupancy for the dwelling and as they describe it, one-family dwelling with accessory bath house. And then I have-- which was issued in 1997. And then they have a, includes an inspection report which refers to work that was done at that time on the accessory beach house, is the way they refer to it, in 1997. Then also another CO that was basically should have at the same time repairs, and deck additions to bath house as applied for as-built. Signed by Michael Verity. This was long before the McManus's owned the house. I also have some affidavits that were filed quite a while ago attesting to the existence of the bath house, beach house, in the mid 60s. So 1997 is the latest that I have information on this from the June 20,2012 Board of Trustees 28 June 20, 2012 Building Department. I don't have any copies of the Trustees permits. TRUSTEE KING: There is nothing from the Trustees on that, though. MR. SAMUELS: I don't know, I know ultimately the Building Department, I mean -- TRUSTEE KING: I know it was built long before the Trustees had jurisdiction there, but I think the Trustees took jurisdiction in May of '92. So at that time it was an unpermitted structure, and still is. By Trustees record. Even though they have a building permit and CO for it. MS. HORTON: Maybe I could clear this up. I looked in the window. There is a toilet one side and I couldn't understand, without a significant pump, how that toilet goes into the new system they are putting in. So I felt that that was the illegal problem, not the structure or when it was grandfathered and get into all that. There is a toilet. So it's got no place to go but where we are swimming. No place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I could attest to the fact that beach house has been there, I'm sure since the 60s. MS. HORTON: But someone put a toilet in it and it doesn't flush up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And since then it's obviously been upgraded and changes have been made and a deck has been built within the last few years -- it appears within the last few years. So it's a concern of now in the code today. Would the applicant consider the removal of the toilet and the associated septic that goes -with that toilet? Let me back up. Removal of the toilet and if there is a septic immediately in back of or around that structure that that toilet is going to, the abandonment of that septic also? MR. SAMUELS: I'll let my client speak to that directly, but I can tell you in our discussions that has not seen a lot of favor on their part. They just bought the house last year and naturally this was a feature that was considered very desirable. I don't think they use it a great deal. It doesn't just go straight into the bay. There must be a cesspool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But even if there is a cesspool there, it has to be right adjacent to the shore front. We are not talking about removing a structure here. We are just talking about thinking of what is best for the bay and the environment there, to remove the toilet and septic. TRUSTEE KING: We have a situation in The Sound very similar to where they installed plumbing and everything and a beach house and we went round and round over that one. I know these folks didn't do this, the other folks did. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A double objective would be going back to the new sanitary is always a possibility, incorporating it in the plans, then you have a surety of full treatment. MR. SAMUELS: We do bump outs all the time and it's a technical possibility. It's only about a 20-foot bluff at this point. I would definitely rather go in that direction rather than Board of Trustees 29 June 20,2012 eliminate it outright, if we could, to make it comply. We are already into the Health Department, we are probably a step away from their approval. I don't know what it would take, probably an amendment to their permit to make that happen. But we definitely would like to save that. I mean, it's called a bath house in the CO and they see it as that. They understand it as that and we would like to preserve that function in any way we can. And the technical feasibility of pumping it up to the sanitary is not out of the question. TRUSTEE KING: Where does that leave us, Lori. It has a building permit in the CO but no Trustee permit. MS. HULSE: It's in your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's in our jurisdiction. Tonight -- we can permit it in tonight or, correct? MS. HU/SE: Well, is it part of the application? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's not part of this application. MS. HULSE: So how can you permit it in? TRUSTEE KING: We are only supposed to be addressing demolishing the house and rebuilding the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But we can condition -- TRUSTEE KING: Can we condition the house permit, the plumbing is either removed or a system is put in with the waste pumped up into the new system landward. That would be my recommendation. Either remove it or show us how it's being done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But they would have to come back for a permit for that. t mean we would be approving something we have no idea what the scope of the project is. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Think we should table it until they come back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could tell you, he's right, I could certainly pump that toilet landward. That's not an issue. It's just a matter of what size pump you need and what kind of storage you need. But whether or not you have to dig up half the bluff to get to it and make the piping work, is another issue. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to table it so they can produce plans to show it? MR. SAMUELS: There is no way you can approve a permit with that as a condition, that we come back with that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Jim, isn't it better to table it until they come back with more rendering so we can make a determination as to what we are voting on? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's best to table it. I think it's getting too convoluted. MR. SAMUELS: There is no way you can write it subject to that condition order on it? We are looking to move ahead with this. We really already have the Building Department permits and we would like to expedite. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was my question for legal. You know, could we approve this with a condition as Jim described. MS. HULSE: The condition being? Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I thought you heard what Jim said. It's either removal or re-engineered septic system. Board of Trustees 3O June 20, 2012 MS. HULSE: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So I guess the only thing we can do is table it until it's addressed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What if we approve it with simple removal of the toilet? MR. SAMUELS: Can we come back for an amendment in that instance? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And back with plans submitted and the impact to the bluff, then we can, environmental impacts associated with an amendment and we can either track it as a separate permit. TRUSTEE KING: Remove the plumbing for now. MR. SAMUELS: Remove the toilet for now, not all the plumbing necessarily. I think that's also acceptable if it can be seen as an amendment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was asking but Lori says no. MS. HULSE: Do we have a verification of what the CO is for? Did anyone look at the CO? TRUSTEE KING: Have you got copies of the CO? MR. SAMUELS: We have the CO. Accessory bath house. Which suggests bathroom to me. MS. HULSE: So we don't have that for sure. MR. SAMUELS: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would table it. TRUSTEE KING: We'd better table it, to be on the safe side. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The project itself, the Board had no problem with as far as the house and garage and everything up there. I mean, absolutely no issue with that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion we table this application pending additional information about the cabana/bath house, and plumbing, the engineering solution to the plumbing problem. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SAMUELS: Does that automatically place us on next month's agenda? MS. HULSE: No, it does not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But I mean, certainly a month is enough time to do this research we are talking about. MR. SAMUELS: Right, I just don't know how Lauren is for timing for next month. MS. STANDISH: We can. MR. SAMUELS: We have time to get it in for next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MS. STANDISH: So it will come up again if he has all the requirements that we tabled it for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BREWER STERLING HARBOR requests a Wetland Permit to replace various floating dockage; replace two (2) sections of existing timber sheathed bulkheading along the northwestern section of the marina with vinyl/fiberglass Board of Trustees 31 June 20,2012 sheathed bulkheading; and demolish the extant metal boat storage building and attached plastic building along with the extant frame building and attached trailer and replace them with a new one-story 9,000 square foot metal boat storage building and attached two-story 2,500 square foot office building/storage building. Located: 1410 Manhasset Ave., Greenport. The Board was out there, we took a look at it. The LWRP coordinator deemed this to be consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC has resolved to support the application with the condition that a landscape plan to be landward of the new bulkhead. Supports the application with the condition of landscape plan for the area landward of the new bulkhead to the concrete curb. We really found this to be a pretty straightforward application. The Brewer Sterling Harbor has been excellent in maintaining things they have applied for in the past. They have done a lot of work down there. We are really impressed with how well that work is done, how it's completed and how it satisfies the applications. I think the only thing we wanted to make sure that we noted on this is that it meets Chapter 236 as that code should be applied to any of these items that are being applied for. So aside from that, is there anybody here like to address this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for applicant Brewer Sterling Harbor. I guess the one thing I want to point out is we are actually moving this building back slightly from where it presently is. So you should know that. Secondly, which is of interest, is the support for the building is to be through helical piles and be completely independent of the backing system for the bulkhead. Which is important to note. And that's shown on the plans as well. I don't see really any landscaping opportunities there that the CAC is speaking upon of. I don't even think there is room for a single row of, it's probably just sand and, it's fine. I don't know how I would even put landscaping in there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, Audrey, is this kind of the area you are talking about, as you look at this photo? MR. ANDERSON: That's not the photo of Sterling Harbor. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean it's landscaped already. MS. HORTON: I think it was on the plans they were talking about. MR. ANDERSON: I'm not sure where you are talking about. Are you talking about the stretch that runs along the, we'll call it the east side, not adjacent to the building certainly, right? MS. HORTON: I hate to comment too much because I didn't, you know, I didn't look at the thing itself. So it's hard. MR. ANDERSON: It's already landscape and there is no place to landscape anything between the building and the bulkhead, we'll call it the northern portion of the bulkhead. MS. HORTON: Was there something missing on the plan itself? t'm trying to think. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the area near the building there is no room Board of Trustees 32 June 20,2012 for landscape between the area and the building anyway. MS. HORTON: Okay, then there is nothing, it doesn't make sense. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The other areas they are showing it basically as a non-turf buffer. We have already discussed that bulkhead will be brought up, you know, so it's actually raised above grade at that point. Not like you see here. You can see in the distance, when we did the last grouping, the bulkhead is actually raised to help prevent the runoff. So that's not an issue. I think pretty much, like I said, we looked at the application, we looked at all the plans, it looked pretty straightforward to us. So, any other comments from the audience? (No response). Any comments, questions, from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of KENDALL TODD requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing concrete walkway landward of bulkhead; remove existing wooden ramp and 5'X 18' floating dock; remove 76' of existing bulkhead; construct 76' of new bulkhead and new 6' east return in-place, raising top elevation of new bulkhead 2'; install new 30"X 16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'X 20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings; dredge an area 30'X 25' below dock to -4' below mean Iow water, removing approx. 40 cubic yards of soil; dredged spoil to be placed as backfill for voids landward of bulkhead; supplement dredged spoil with clean trucked-in sand (approx. 35 cubic yards) as needed; and provide a non-turf buffer of 6" well compacted gravel on filter cloth landward of bulkhead. Located: 670 Bayview Dr., East Marion. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC comments, the project was not staked however CAC supports the application with the condition of 15-foot non-turf buffer, drywells to contain roof runoff in the disposition plan for the concrete. The CAC questions the need to increase the size of the floating dock. Is there anyone here to represent this applicant or to speak for or against it? MR. COPE: Jim Cope, East Marion. I'm a member of the Board of Gardner Bays Estates Homeowners Association, and in conversation this evening with Mr. George Peter, who is the president of that association, he advises me that Kendall Todd agreed within the Board of Trustees 33 June 20,2012 last day to alter this application as to the size of the gangway and the floating dock. I'm surprised that you have not received any notification of that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't believe so. MR. COPE: He has had some opposition from the homeowners. Association. I don't know that I'm speaking out of turn but the Spring Pond on which this proposed reconstruction exists is privately owned property. The association owns the land under the water in Spring Pond, and the board, by way of the president, is opposed to this particular proposal, as proposed, some changes, scaling back the scope of the project, which I'm told secondhand from Mr. Peter this evening on the phone, that he has agreed to. Only that I'm in the audience -- TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in here stating that. We had some questions about that. I wish Mr. Costello was here tonight. You know, we had talked about possibly straightening this bulkhead out, trimming it back a little bit. You know, it comes out 7_ MR. COPE: Well, I lived there. I saw it this evening before I came. It's rather extensive. I see some grasslands there. I see the lower type bulkhea~ing, the knee bulkheading, as well as something that supports a ramp and a floating dock. TRUSTEE KING: I would be more comfortable if we table this and talk it over with Mr. Costello and the applicant. We would like to see some changes made here. MR. COPE: Thank you, kindly. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application to take another look at it and consult the contractor. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUG & KATHLEEN FOLTS requests a Wetland Permit to re-frame the existing first-floor with attached garage, wrap around porch and new second-floor; existing septic system to be removed and new one to be installed further from the water; and install drywells to control water run-off from dwelling. Located: 90 Oak St., Cutchogue. This was reviewed and actually this was applied for back in January. It was reviewed back in January and found to be consistent under the LWRP. It was reviewed in January by the CAC and they resolved to support the application. It was then tabled at our January meeting, to go to ZBA and it went to ZBA and they obtained approval from ZBA with the condition of a Trustee-approved permit. So follow the bouncing ball. So you are back here before us. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We are looking to expand the existing footprint of the house and create a two-stow dwelling. The owners would like to move there full-time. The plan is to abandon the existing septic system and move back beyond 100 feet with the new septic system. Basically Board of Trustees 34 June 20,2012 the setbacks from the wetlands will remain the same as what is existing. And as you mentioned, we got the approval from the Zoning Board for this project and we apparently submitted to the DEC and we are still waiting for their approval as well as the Department of Health. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, a couple comments we had from when we were out there on January 11. And that was we would like to see installation of hay bale line and silt fence, probably, I would recommend just landward of the limit of clearing, if that would work for you. MR. SCHWARTZ: Sure, that indicates -- the limits of clearing were shown as the hay bale line also. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see that on this plan. But we'll just stipulate that. There was a question at that time about that existing patio. When I say "that time," back in January, the patio appeared to be in pretty bad shape. Is it they just want to reconstruct that patio or do they want to leave it as is? MR. SCHWARTZ: At this point, leave it as is. Remove the walkways to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And at the time we also noticed, again, this is in January so it's a little tough, but the shoreline, just below the rip rap line was in need of some attention, it looked like, just to, a little restoration down there. It's just a suggestion to take back to the property owners. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Mike, I see you looked at it in June. But you were fine with everything? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comment from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). The project looks good. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Doug and Kathleen Foltz with the condition of a hay bale and silt fence line just landward of the limits of clearing line as depicted on the plans dated received December 15, 2011. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number 15, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LUCILLE BALCOM requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair 142 linear feet of 6' wide pile and timber pier and boat lift waterward of the apparent high water 35 Board of Trustees June 20, 2012 line. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island. Jim and I inspected this back in April. It was quite a while ago. April 20. This is essentially a request to repair a surface decking of a pre-existing dock which has a permit history that goes back to 1991 with the Trustees, and the boat ramp was put in at that time prior to when we had jurisdiction, and the current ban. We didn't view this with any problem whatsoever, and the application is considered consistent under the LWRP, and it was pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was an old Coast Guard station at one time, with the amount of structure that was there. It was an old Coast Guard facility. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's making use of a pre-existing facility. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Hearing no one to speak on behalf, is there anyone here to speak against this application? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that also. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council never made an inspection on The Island. I want to make sure I mentioned the fact you were unable to make inspection on The Island, but I didn't want to have that fact not entered into the record. My apologies. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Jam F. King, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED S~uthold ToWn