Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
TR-05/16/2012
James F. King, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Michael J. Domino Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Present Were: BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, May 16, 2012 6:00 PM Jim King, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael J. Domino, Trustee Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney RECEIVED CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wed., June 13, 2012, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wed., June 20, 2012, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of February 22,2012. TRUSTEE KING: Good evening everyone, can you hear me all right? Sometimes people in the back can't hear me. I tend to mutter a little bit. Welcome to our May meeting. We have three postponements we are not going to be addressing. I'll just let everyone know, on page five, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number two, 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 line. Located: Private Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. On page six, number two, Wetland Permits, 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. And on page seven, number 12, Melrose Marine Service, Inc., on behalf of AUDREY ROTHMAN requests a Wetland Permit for the inkind/inplace replacement of existing Board of Trustees 2 May 16, 2012 deteriorated fixed pier 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, has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. We have with us tonight Wayne Galante keeping track of what everybody says. So during the public hearings if you have any comments to make please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get everything on the record. We also have Jack McGreevey from the Conservation Advisory Council with us tonight. They go out and review a lot of the same projects we look at and give us their advice on what we should be doing. So with that, we'll set the next field inspection, Wednesday, June 13th, at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting with will be Wednesday, June 20, at six o'clock, with a worksession at 5:30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of February 22, 20127 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 2012. A check for $7,024.61 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., May 16, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Lucille Balcom - SCTM#4-4-15 Trust U/W of R.C. Kopf F/BIO Kristen Powers - SCTM#123-8-26.1 James P. Rutherford - SCTM#7-3-3.21 Patricia Mele & Cheryl Christiano - SCTM#115-12-16 Anthony Campo - SCTM#111-1-24,25,26 Joan Prager - SCTM#14-2-1.10 Mattituck Fishing Station - SCTM#99-4-23 William & Patricia Baxter and Goeller Family Trusts - SCTM#111-1-15 Board of Trustees 3 May 16, 2012 Audrey Rothman - SCTM#70-4-1 Joan F. Whelan - SCTM#123-3-20 Crab Cove, LLC - SCTM#3-2-4.3 Lee Kruter - SCTM#119-1-1 TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to move that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, what we try and do, most of these are very simple, we have not had any problems with them, and we try to lump them all together to move things along instead of addressing each one individually and going through everything. It's time saving. We'll pull out two, there will be some discussion on number eight and number ten, there will be discussion on. So I11 make a motion we approve one, two, three, four, five, six, seven and nine. They are listed as follows: Number one, ALBERT PALUMBO requests an Administrative Permit to install a split-rail fence along the side property lines from the front of house to street. Located: 1095 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. Number two, ALEX HILLENBRAND requests an Administrative Permit to abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system further landward. Located: 50 Lupton Point Rd., Mattituck. Number three, BARBARA BODKIN requests an Administrative Permit to remove a dead tree with the stump to remain. Located: 610 Bayview Dr., East Marion. Number four, DANIEL McGOVERN requests an Administrative Permit to construct two (2) groundlevel decks (side by side) 8'X 12' and 12'X 26'. Smaller deck at base of steps and larger deck across back of house. Located: 830 Oak Ave., Southold. Number five, DIANE & HENRY HOBBS request an Administrative Permit to construct a 4'X 5' freestanding outdoor shower with appropriate drywell. Located: 800 Sterling Rd., Cutchogue. Number six, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting on behalf of ,JOINT BOARD OF ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES EDUCATION & CULTURAL HOLDINGS requests an Administrative/Ten-Year Maintenance Permit for periodic beach maintenance, clean-up and removal of debris. Located: 3800 Duck Pond Rd., Cutchogue. Number seven, Chris Rivera on behalf of TOM & IRENE KALOGERAS requests an Administrative Permit to construct second-stow dormers onto the existing garage. Located: 700 Sound Beach Dr., Mattituck. And number nine, LEE & MARIE BENINATI request an Administrative PermiCf'en-Year Maintenance to hand-cut Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to 12" in height by hand, as needed. Located: 855 Oakwood Court, Southold. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight is ,JON KERBS requests an Administrative Permit to install a 4' high split-rail fence with wire mesh. Located: 430 Riley Ave., Mattituck. We all went out and looked at this and the only recommendation we had is it's a fence on either side of the property that's going down to the vegetation on the water side. The applicant plans on just stopping the fence there but in the event that he may have to fence across the property, parallel with the water line, he's going to back the fence ten Board of Trustees 4 May 16, 2012 feet landward up into the yard for us so he's not so close to the vegetation. So that's the change he made for that. He was there and agreed to that, so there is no problem. So I'll make a motion to approve with those stipulations. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number ten, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of SUSAN MAGRINO DUNNING requests an Administrative Permit to remove the waste from the existing septic located on the water side of the dwelling and fill with clean sand as per the Suffolk County Dept. of Health requirements. Located: 925 Stephenson Rd., Orient. This was a request to fill in an abandoned cesspool to County Health Code requirements, and the Trustees in reviewing the site plan felt that there should be established a non-disturbance buffer for the native vegetation that exists from the beach up into the property. So during the course of the field inspection we set flags out to establish on the survey the non-disturbance buffer. So based on the review of the whole Board in the field, I would -- and also concerns that we don't have heavy equipment on the beach in this area, I would make a motion to approve this application subject to filling in the currently abandoned cesspool to County Health Department requirements by hand. Pumping it out and filling it in but without equipment on the beach. And to place on the survey of the property a non-disturbance buffer at the indicated area where the flags were placed by the Trustees, the area seaward of that, to be put in a restrictive covenant for the property so it remains in its native state and not disturbed. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a question. I know we planted stakes out There, but I would feel more comfortable if they were depicted, that line was depicted on a set of plans, because those stakes will disappear shortly. So rather than in the motion having it conform with a set of stakes that are just temporary stakes, I would rather see that line on a set of plans, if possible. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that. I thought I would sort of put it in those words, but to clarify, absolutely, that those flags be placed on a licensed land survey that would be part and parcel to the restrictive covenant so there would be a map reference for the restrictive covenant going forward. Thank you, Dave. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We have one more postponement that I missed. Number 11 on page three, John E. Jones on behalf of OLD ORCHARD HOMEOWNERS ASSOC, requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7464 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7464C to include the beach seating on the deck, install barrier and terrace to stop erosion, and provide for small boat storage. Located: 550 South Lane, East Marion, is postponed. We won't be addressing that tonight, either. Board of Trustees 5 May 16, 2012 V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, basically the same thing, we try and lump them together if we don't have any issues with any of them. Fortunately they all look very straightforward and simple so I would make a motion to approve numbers one through ten under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. They are listed as follows: Number one, JOSEPH MANZl, JR. requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7160, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 355 Midway Rd., Southold. Number two, MARY MANZI requests the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7161, as issued on August 19, 2009. Located: 405 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. Number three, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of RENATE HERTEL requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7330, as issued on June 16, 2010. Located: 205 Cedar Point Dr. West, Southold. Number four, THOMAS CASSIDY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1860 from Francis Romano to Thomas Cassidy, as issued on August 31, 1984. Located: 280 Beebe Dr., Cutchogue. Number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7408 to allow construction of a 15' stone retaining wall extension to the west end of existing vinyl retaining wall. Located: 960 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. Number six, John Wysoczanski on behalf of RONALD FURMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7498 to reposition pool fence. Located: 1455 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. Number seven, Amy Martin/Fairweather & Brown on behalf of PETER & MARY KORNMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7742 to construct an attached garage landward of the existing dwelling and a new dormer onto existing 1 1/~ stow of dwelling. Located: 1077 Bay Home Rd., Southold. Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RICHARD E. WRIGHT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7703 to remove all reference to the existing 9' buffer on the adjacent property. Located: 410 Atlantic Ave., Greenport. Number nine, Amend Resolution dated February 22, 2012 to read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the application of JOHN & AMELIA WOOD to replace 131' of existing wooden bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead installed adjacent and inland of existing bulkhead and to be tied into neighboring bulkhead; remove old bulkhead by cutting pilings at or near grade, preserving existing wetland substrate; remove and replace existing brick walkway on sand bed and leveling as needed; and install a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead. Located: 3150 Cie Jule Lane, Mattituck. And number ten, JOSEPH & ELIZABETH BRITTMAN request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7747 to install an 18'X 36' on-grade pervious patio and a 12'x 30' extension to the existing gravel driveway. Located: 80 Glenn Rd., Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: On number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of NORTH FORK BEACH CONDOMINIUM requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7423 to authorize the replacement of the previously approved layout of the stairway and deck with a new layout consisting of a 6'X 6' top landing; 6'X 13' stairs; 8'X 12' deck; 6'X 7' stairs over revetment; 6'X 6' bottom landing; and 6'X 12' shore-parallel stairs to beach off bottom landing. Board of Trustees 6 May 16, 2012 Located: 52325 County Rd. 48, Southold. There, again, I don't think we had any issues with it. But we will take a roll call vote on this one. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? We'll take a roll call vote. Mike Domino? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll vote nay due to the size of the deck, because of the size of the deck as proposed does not conform with code. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: So the vote is four to one. Carried. VI. MOORINGS: TRUSTEE KING: On the moorings, I don't think so we had an issue with any of the moorings either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven. TRUSTEE KING: We'll approve one through six and we'll have a discussion on number seven. I'll make a motion to approve one through six under Moorings. They are listed as follows: Number one, CAROLYN PEABODY & DIANE JOHNSON request an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Narrow River for a 9' boat, replacing Stake #19. Access: Public Number two, TOM & MARY MORGAN request an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Narrow River for an 8' boat. Access: Public Number three, SOLOMON HASSELNUSS requests a Mooring Permit in Gull Pond for a 22' boat, replacing Mooring #16. Access: Public Number four, ROBERT A. SCOTT requests a Mooring Permit in Goose Creek for a 17' boat, replacing Mooring #228. Access: Public Number five, FREDERICK KOKE requests an Onshore/Offshore Stake Permit in Goose Creek for a 10' boat, replacing Stake #S55. Access: Public Number six, WILLIAM REIMER requests a Mooring Permit in Mattituck Creek for a 26' boat, replacing Mooring #132. Access: Public TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And number seven, DAVID KIREMIDJIAN requests a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 31' sailboat, replacing Mooring mC1. Access: Public I believe we want to have a stern anchor on that also. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, just so in an easterly wind the boat is not blocking the channel going into the marina that is in there. TRUSTEE KING: So it won't swing around. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve with that stipulation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to go off public hearings and on to Public Board of Trustees 7 May 16, 2012 Hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under public hearings, amendments, number one, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOAN PRAGER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7552 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7552C to remove the remains of the existing stairway; construct 100' of new rock revetment using 1 to 2 ton rocks; reconstruct top of bluff to tip top edge; regrade and terrace slope; re-vegetate slope with Cape American beach grass; provide a 15' wide non-turf buffer top of bluff; provide 1' high berm within buffer and revegetate with native plantings such as Rosa Rugosa planted 18" on center and Bayberry planted 4' on center; construct new stairway to beach in-place of existing stairway; and provide a 4'X 9' cleared mulched path between upper platform and backyard. Located: 39823 Main Rd., Orient. We have been out there. As you can see, we have a picture here of some storm damage. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection for this amendment, and therefore no recommendation was made. It's been found consistent by the LWRP coordinator. I want to see if there are any notes on it at all. TRUSTEE KING: (inaudible). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim was just mentioning this was an amendment due to a DEC application that has been revised as per DEC conditions. Aside from that it was approved by us in the past and there is really nothing, we had no problem with it, so. Is there anybody here like to make comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello. If the Board had any other questions, you did issue a permit for a small bulkhead armored with rock. The DEC would not allow the bulkhead so what we had to do is we had to plant, put some terracing on the cliff in order to try and get it revegetated. So we will be tipping the bluff, try to retain all the soils in the terracing and revegetate. I think it's probably -- they think it's a better project, God bless them. TRUSTEE KING: Time will tell. MR. COSTELLO: Let's try to get it done. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else here who would like to address this application? (No response). Anybody on the Board have any comments? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve the application for amendment as applied. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 8 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD ORR an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7315 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7315C to remove 255 linear feet of concrete seawall and construct 255 linear feet of new reinforced, cast-in-place concrete seawall with new reinforced, cast-in-place concrete footing, 275 cy. Over 2,750 square feet and establish a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the new seawall all at and landward of the high tide line; place 35 cy., 80 tons of stone shoreline protection along the face of the new wall water of the apparent high tide line and landward of mean high water. Located: Private Rd. Off Equestrian Ave., Fishers Island. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection of this, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson, Docko, Inc., Mystic, Connecticut, speaking on behalf of the Orr application. I prepared the application documents before you tonight and we discussed this at a meeting a couple months ago. And I believe you had a chance to look at the site now and formulate your opinions. It turns out that where we had proposed removing the southeasterly corner or easterly corner of this wall and utilizing armor stone to make a more natural slope, the DEC would not approve the project that way and they would not approve armor stone in front of the existing wall. They suggested, as did the Department of State, that we go back and rebuild the entire wall in place. So we went out there and did some test hole, came up with some design parameters for retaining the existing soil and it turns out that the reason that the wall is so tender at this point is because the thickness of the concrete on the face, while it's about a foot, and the reinforcement is in place, it was attached to actually to refacing of a stone wall, and so the connection between the concrete and the former stone wall is tenuous at this point, to say the least, and the objective here is to get this rebuilt before it collapses into the waters and the wetlands. The revised drawing will also show a curving corner instead of a hard corner, to minimize the amount of wave reflection along the face, and otherwise the design parameters and the other issues addressed in the previous application are pretty much the same. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. Our application contains all the necessary certifications and information required by the LWRP and the various applications for the state. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm curious. What was the predominant reason of the DEC staff for not allowing the armoring; just because it would simply involve the vegetative wetlands? MR. NIELSON: Well, actually, we had avoided the wetlands by that curving approach in the corner and there would not have been any Board of Trustees 9 May 16, 2012 filling of that wetlands. Their sole objection to it was new fill beyond five feet in front of the existing wall. They will allow us to, after we pour this new wall, they will allow a line of large stone and boulders, not in the wetlands but in the area between the wetlands, in the area of the dock and such, out to about five feet, but they would not allow us to go out the ten feet that we had shown before. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any questions? Anybody else have any comments? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: We were out there on the 20th of April. I just had in the field notes to include that pool fence, the pool fence there, upland. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, was that a split rail or modified -- MR. NIELSON: There was a split rail through the yard, right back in here. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll just include that so it's included on part of the permit so it's an included structure. MR. NIELSON: Thank you. And this design approach does include your ten-foot, non-turf buffer, bayberries and beach plums will be planted there. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with that. Just include the pool fence, just to get it on the record. MR. NIELSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the inclusion of the fence that is on the property that is in our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of PETER SCHWAB requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7629 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7629C to place new scour protection stone, 25+/- cy. over 250+~- square feet along the waterward face of the concrete seawall. Located: Hedge St., Fishers Island. Once again, we are on Fishers Island. I know we issued a permit. This is just a slight modification to it. (Perusing). The Conservation Advisory Council doesn't say -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jack, there is nothing here from the Conservation Advisory Council. MR. MCGREEVEY: On? TRUSTEE KING: Peter Schwab, Fishers Island. You probably didn't look at it. MR. MCGREEVEY: No. TRUSTEE KING: I'll just make a note no inspection. Anyone here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. NIELSON: Again, Keith Nielson from Docko, Inc., on behalf of Board of Trustees 10 May 16, 2012 the application. I prepared the application documents based on discussions at our last meeting when the pier and deck reconstruction project was approved, and the contractor had made a recommendation that some armor stone be added to the base of the existing concrete wall, which would be very similar to what is shown in your photograph, even though that is on the Greevy (sic) property. So that is the basis for the application amendment that we have here before you. Just to let you know, the DEC has determined they want a new permit. They were not willing to amend the other permit. So we are starting over there and Mr. Schwab is not too happy with me on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had no concerns on this one. TRUSTEE KING: What was this date change on this? MS. STANDISH: What do you mean? TRUSTEE KING: On this, the Board of Trustees, April 18th, we approved this a while ago, if I remember right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Last summer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably the September meeting when this was approved originally. TRUSTEE KING: This was approved August 24, 2011. So actually that should be the date of the letter, right? MS. STANDISH: I'm not sure. I have to look (Perusing). It was approved in the May meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original application was approved in August. TRUSTEE KING: August, 2011. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Today is May 16. MS. STANDISH: Sorry, I put it on for today. This is a note to myself to put it on. That is incorrect, I made a note. TRUSTEE KING: So it's August 22nd, right? MS. STANDISH: Right TRUSTEE KING: There we go. Any other comments? Board? Questions? (No response). Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. NIELSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: You're batting a thousand tonight. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: That brings us up to Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits. Number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEE HOUSE PARTNERS/EDGAR J. SMITH, JR. requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to re-stack fallen stone and recap concrete seawall and repair existing 10'X 111' timber dock and Board of Trustees 11 May 16, 2012 jetties. Located: 650 Bay Lane, Orient. This is a holdover from last month. And just to review, it was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they supported the application, however the plan did not include the actual length of the wall being repaired as well as the dimensions of the dock. The Conservation Advisory Council recommended that the dock is repaired using non-treated lumber because the dock is outside the extent of the repair should conform to code. And also to review, it was found consistent under the LWRP. Now, I know last month when we opened this hearing there was extensive conversation about this structure, and in particular the part of the structure or part of the dock to the, I'll call it to the south that was a wave break, I think it's how it was described, and then some offshore mooring dolphins. I know, again, we went out in the field this month to inspect this property. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Wee House Partners. I also have with me the partners Susanne Smith and Edgar Smith,. joint partners. Mr. Kelly, who is the adjacent property owner that benefits also from the dock, is here in support because activity on the wave breaks, any activity on the wave breaks are really included for his benefit as well. So he definitely wants to be here to listen. We have, I have the partners here who are prepared to testify. You have already heard this dock has been there for a very long time, prior to DEC, prior to Trustees jurisdiction. It has been there for at least 41 years in the time that Mr. Smith has been on the property. And the pile cluster equally has been used and been there for about 41 years. So everything there has remained pretty much as is for many, many years. I think, you know, we want -- do you want a dialogue, or how would you like to deal with some issues and questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we could just to clear up one other matter before we get to the dock structure. The CAC's concern about the project description did not include the length of the stack stone repair, to restack the falling stone. If we could just say it's limited to the property boundaries of the applicant. MS. MOORE: Actually, the adjacent property is Smith. That's them. It's just not in the Wee House Partners' ownership. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I'm saying, we can't approve something on a neighbor's property. So if we can limit the repair of the fallen stone to the Wee House Partners' property, that will address that issue that the CAC rightfully brought up. Because we can't issue a permit to another piece of property. MS. MOORE: No, because the stones, they are bordering right There, so it would make sense if you have the guys there fixing the stones, you don't have this arbitrary red line that crosses, so if you would like us to, you know, I think Bob Fox drew it up this way with kind of an approximate of where the stones were, but I would not want the contractors to suddenly stop because I have the boundary line. So if you would like, after the Board of Trustees 12 May 16, 2012 hearing, I can provide for the Board,'s you know, paperwork, consent from the adjacent owner, which is the same owner, to prepare it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, the adjacent owners would have to apply for it. They would have to come in for an application for their property, like any property owner would. If they would like to do that, obviously they have every right to do that. And I'm just surmising we'll look at it favorably as we are this one. It's just we can't give a permit to another property owner without them applying for it, that's all. I just want to clear that up. MS. MOORE: I don't necessarily agree with you. I think with consent of the property owner that you can have repairs that go beyond the line. If, for example, the DEC, when you have a bulkhead that is being repaired and connecting, let's say it's going beyond the property line, the DEC asks for consent of the owner of the property because, of the adjacent property because it's overlapping the property line. So it's being paid for and being done by the primary property owner but because of boundary line issues, a consent is all the DEC ever requires, and I would say similarly that is all you would require as well. But. TRUSTEE KING: I think it depends how long it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I mean I'm looking at the plan view here. It goes pretty far along on both adjoining pieces of property, both Smith and Vanderwater. Vanderwater on the plan looks okay but I don't know if they also want to face the same decision. MS. MOORE: I don't think any of the work that is proposed is on the northeast side. I think all the work -- Edgar, can you confirm this for me? MR. SMITH: You are correct. The Vanderwater property is now owned by Mr. Kelly. So you have all the owners of all the properties and -- MS. MOORE: What we can do, any rocks that need to be put back, if you take the consent of both property owners, it's stacking. It's just rock stacking and repair, so. I'll do whatever you want. Obviously, I don't want to cause trouble, you know, or be difficult. It's just we don't need to make such a big process out of something that is so simple. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, that takes us to the structure of the dock and the timber jetty and the pile clusters. MS. MOORE: Did I get an answer from you, is consent sufficient? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think historically the Board has required separate applications. We don't have counsel here. TRUSTEE KING: By scale it looks like it's about 20 feet on either property. MS. MOORE: On the adjacent? I could talk to Lori and if it's okay with her, would you accept it? If not, I'll come in with an application if it extends beyond the property line. It's your call. As long as it's on the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we go work on the rest of it and maybe Lori will, I know we are expecting her any moment now, maybe she will come in. MS. MOORE: The poor girl will walk in, no forewarning, but okay, that's fine. Board of Trustees 13 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now that gets us to the timber dock, timber jetty and the pile clusters. And as I stated, we did go out and looked at these. And this is a tough situation because this is a, you know, nonconforming structure, obviously built, as you alluded to, many years ago, and we know when we rebuild nonconforming structures we try to bring them into conformance. Here we have a case where there is repairs being asked for but they are permitting in the structure in order to do those repairs because it's a non-permitted structure. So the applicants are doing the right thing with coming in and applying for a permit to permit in the structure. It's just, again, this month, and other Trustees can certainly chime in, but from what I gathered from our conversation out there, we still had a very, it's still very challenging for us to include in what is listed here as a timber jetty to the north that extends beyond, if you extend the property line out -- MS. MOORE: The south line, not the north line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sorry. The south one. Say towards the yacht club, toward Bud Light. As well as those pile clusters. So again, I feel like that was the general feeling of the Trustees was that we had a real issue with those parts of the structure. MS. MOORE: I understand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's a true description of the situation. The three-pile cluster as it is, scales out to be 160 feet from the seawall, so it is additionally, a good distance on the order of I guess 60 feet from the timber dock itself. So there is a huge footprint of this structure, which is probably if not the largest dock that I have ever seen in 13 years on the Board, one of the largest I have ever seen coming in for an approval, um, such that, and I think it should be put into a context with the dock itself. The dock itself, at 111 feet is somewhat larger than the original state grant from the state property office, but within that %" of the dock it would be quite easy to house, if you will, a dock, rather two 30-foot vessels. You could, depending how creative you are, because the depths are very substantial, if you take from the two-and-a-half foot contour out to the "L" at three-and-a-half feet you could probably put two 31-foot Egg Harbors in there with proper, you know, fendering and proper tying. The timber jetty to the north then would be an asset, of course, to protect boats that are within that dock structure. And a wave break on the face to the seaward would similarly, and that doesn't even count the potential for any neighborly docking that I know has been the history there between neighbors Jack Kelly and Mr. Smith have enjoyed. So my feelings go exactly to those of Dave's, I think it's extremely problematic to have a timber jetty that extends across the property line of another. I think neighborly, this is a great thing. I lived in Orient almost my entire life, and it's something to be appreciated. I had the use of a large dock growing up. But as a Trustee I'm very concerned that we now grant a permit with that wave break which seemingly goes so much against our current standards that future property owners would come to a board and have a permit problem with a permit we might issue. Now, if something could run with the land, restrictive covenants, one to the other, the relationship, such that it runs Board of Trustees 14 May 16, 2012 with the property so there is no question with what the property owners intend and what this Board feels, I.think that's a consideration. But otherwise, speaking for myself, I have a problem with both those structures as transecting and going way beyond the code, given that the structure has been maintained and looks like they totally honored, the owners have honored the state grant, I don't have a real problem with the width of the dock or the current extension of the "L" itself because it seems to me to meet all those attributes. We realize the DEC would not grant a permit for a 65-foot long structure in this day and age because of not meeting the two-and-a-half foot standard depth that they require. MS. MOORE: I appreciate your comments. I do want to point out if you take the, I mean I have the same aerial, if you scan the aerial down to the south, and go out, you can see that when you are looking in the context of, I mean you can see it actually better this way. When you see the, you have Orient club, what is it called, the yacht club, wharf house, you have, this is a huge, a substantial structure. It is dwarfed by these even though Mr. Smith's structure historically, based on today's standards is a large structure, it is dwarfed by the wharf there. So in relation to that particular code, that area, it really isn't that large. It's all in relation to the rest of the structures that are in that cove. You can also see the structure just to the south of it is a larger one that, I mean I have the aerial. I don't know -- does it have that structure there? I don't know. I have an aerial that shows it. I don't know what you have there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the yacht club right there. MS. MOORE: I'm missing one there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not there. It's gone. MS. MOORE: I went out to see, okay, well from this date to that date, I don't know. Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a local Orient trustee, I don't want to get out in front of you, that's very true, as far as scaling. But you have to recognize the wharf was an historic wharf that shipped multiple thousands of tons of vegetables to New York City to feed the city and took multiple thousands of tons of horse manure to run the farms. And there is a state grant is similar to the Smith grant, the state grant, so the scaling also has to be put into context to that. That this is state bottom land and predominant interests of the state being what they are, the state has already also made some determinations. But a Board of Trustees, which apparently the prior Board, had also granted a permit with restrictions that included removing the pile cluster. You know, it's within our discretion. It's a discretionary issue here. MS. MOORE: I'm not saying it's not within your discretion. I agree. However the environmental, the damage you do to removing a 40 or at least 50-year old structure, pile clusters, you probably have more stability under those piles than to take them out, and you are now disturbing. So you are undermining your own purpose and regulations My client uses that as a tie off Board of Trustees 15 May 16, 2012 and then because, as you know, the outside of this timber dock is useless with the wave action. So they actually tie it to the pile cluster, and he then takes his small craft rowboat and goes out to a moored vessel. So it's been in use and it's been useful for that purpose. It doesn't house a large boat that, you know, takes up any more space. So it just seems to me you have to honor existing, particular structures that have been there for so many years, I think you do more damage to remove them. That is as to the pile cluster. The timber jetty, I am happy to address that. I did speak to Mr. Smith of Wee House Partners and Mr. Kelly and we could certainly draw up an agreement that says that it's understood that the timber jetty is for the benefit of both Wee House and Mr. Kelly's property because it does provide protection for those, for Mr. Kelly's marine structures as well as any boats that would be docked on the inside. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When I said restrictive covenant, I didn't say agreement. MS. MOORE: It's the same thing, agreement or covenant. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Something that is recorded with the property. MS. MOORE: I'm using the same terminology. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would certainly, if it's something that would pass muster with the attorneys so a future Board of Trustees is not looking down the barrel of a neighbor who wants to alter their dock and has objection to the existing timber jetty or wave break potentially. MS. MOORE: Right. I think, as you said, it's a covenant that would actually benefit both properties, so it's understood the person who buys Mr. Kelly's property, that wave break is actually a protection for them as well. So it seems, that's not a problem. That's easily addressed. And it's a benefit, it's a logical determination by this Board to allow it and have it functional. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: When you are talking a mutual benefit, it's similar to if a new applicant would try to develop docking facilities that were shared as part of a subdivision or another planning process, where there would be rules that the community knows, in this case adjoining property owners would understand and not-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think there is also an opportunity here, because I understand the concern for a wave break, particularly when you consider the fetch build up from Shelter Island all the way over to this location. There is an opportunity for a wave break to be constructed right along the dock. But without putting, in other words remove that timber jetty and incorporate a wave break into the structure of the dock so that it functions the same way. The goal here, as I understand it, is to stop the waves from going in and attacking any vessels tied -- MR. SMITH: If I may, it was there before. It was all broken up by storms. MS. MOORE: I would agree, the wave breaks along the west side of the timber dock, the fixed dock, would be very helpful, but at Board of Trustees 16 May 16, 2012 the time this was built some 40, 50, 60 years ago -- 60 years ago, there was somebody knew more than we did that they thought the timber jetty also with wave breaks, would also provide protection. So the design of it was thought through at the time when there was a lot more, I would say even commercial activity out there in Orient. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would agree with what you said. I'm sure at the time, adding another wave break, so to speak, in the form of a timber jetty, did assist with a wave break issue. But what we are saying here, you heard the Board has an issue, has a challenge with this timber jetty that is proposed on here. So if the goal here is a wave break, what I'm suggesting is just incorporate the wave break into that dock structure itself and you now have a wave break for boats to tie up to the north side to assist with breaking up the waves to the north side. The other issue with that pile cluster, particularly the one Trustee Bredemeyer had mentioned, that is approximately give or take a couple of feet, 60 feet off the timber dock, we saw in the one picture there, it looked like there was a line going from that pile cluster to that dock. And that's, you know, I think that's excessive. I know we have in docks, we have in docks on the bays in some locations allowed for a tie off pile, but certainly nothing 60 feet away extending that far out into the bay. MS. MOORE: Understand, we didn't have to do anything to the pile cluster, so that is staying. That was not part of this application. If they wanted to replace the pile cluster with a pile, a suitable size pile closer in to, so he can still maneuver, use the tie off, I mean I guess that's a possibility. It seems to me, I don't want to say a waste of money in the sense you are removing a very good, stable -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: But where I'm going, and I'm just one, I don't know how the other four up here feel about this, if the tie-off pile was ten feet off, or, I'm just using an arbitrary number here, that is a lot less of the bay that is being interfered with by this line and tie-off system, et cetera. It's impeding navigation for kayaks and small boats, whatever it is, and I'm just trying to find some type of reasonable accommodation that can perform the function of a tie-off but at the same time try and eliminate the hazard to navigation. MR. SMITH: Edgar Smith, Wee House Partners. I just want to make sure I understand the colloquy concerning the jetty that just occurred five minutes ago. Do I understand that you would permit the jetty to continue as a part of your approval process on the understanding that Mr. Kelly and Wee House Partners would enter into some kind of covenant and, if you want to put in the covenant we would put wave breaks down because that would indeed be protective of both the Kelly property and ours. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure what I said the whole Board is comfortable with. MR. SMITH: I'm asking because I can't figure out whether we are dealing with two give ups or one with an adjustment. Do you understand? Am I making myself clear? I hope. MS. MOORE: There was a question, and let me just get your Board of Trustees 17 May 16, 2012 feedback, the pile cluster, because you need that tie off, if that was, arguably, whatever the distance is that you need, ten, 15, whatever the number is, I don't know what it is, to move a pile here so you have the tie-off rather than the pile cluster that is here? MR. SMITH: You certainly could do that. MS. MOORE: Okay, there is willingness to do that. MR. SMITH: It is physically possible to do it. MS. HULSE: This is actually, it's difficult to have testimony taken because they are having a separate conversation than this conversation and I don't know what Wayne is recording right now. MS. MOORE: He's taking ours. MS. HULSE: Is this part of the testimony of the public hearing, this conversation? MS. MOORE: Yes, it's to find out if he would accept a pile that is removing the pile cluster that is there and been there a long time, and replace it with a pile that allows for a tie-off the way he's always had, but nearer to the -- MS. HULSE: I'm just asking if that's a conference between you and your client or if this is part of the testimony. MS. MOORE: No, it's for the record. I want him to say yes or no. And I think the answer is yes. MR. SMITH: The question is whether it was feasible. And yes, it clearly would be feasible. It would significantly diminish the ability to put a boat there because of the diminished freeway between the piling and the dock. I would, with your permission, I would like to know whether the Trustees, what is the Trustees' position with regard to the jetty? TRUSTEE KING: My position is I think the non-functional timber jetty should be removed and I think the three-pile cluster should be removed and moved landward if it's replaced. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my preferred position. I think it keeps it neatest and cleanest. TRUSTEE KING: That's where I'm coming from. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And since a former Board has also made a determination to have the pile cluster removed as part of the permit process, I think it's something to give some additional consideration. MS. MOORE: But they were not touching the jetties. Now you are asking to touch the jetties as well. And those have also been historically there. And I take great objection to that in the sense that all throughout your legislative process we have all, I have been very vocal about preserving the historic rights of property owners. And, urn, this functions very well as is. And the -- you know, it seems like you are taking away -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, it would seem if Mr. Jack Kelly were the owner of that wave break and that it was not part and not attached to the dock of Mr. Smith and we were to come in with his own application for the wave break, as the owner of the water, because it's over the extension of his property line, then it would be his structure and it would be his permit. It would be something that would be with his property. MS HULSE: Just to clarify, Jay, the application seeks to repair Board of Trustees 18 May 16, 2012 the existing jetty. Part of the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, part of the application. But I'm just saying, in other words -- MS. MOORE: We are willing to do that. I'm not going to have my client or Mr. Kelly go through a fruitless effort of coming back to essentially put, you know, fix the jetties, because they don't need replacement, I think they are repairs, and add wave breaks to the jetty so that they are more, you know, they work in the way that they were originally intended. But if the Board is of the mind that, no, you know, we don't like these wave breaks, we don't care who makes the application, then why waste the time? I'm telling you now that Mr. Kelly is here and he's willing to put on the record that, yes, he wants to see it kept and the Wee House Partners are willing to fix it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a point of clarification. At this time I think we recognized the request to repair the wave break is of course with this application of Wee House Partners, but I didn't see a connection between the four pilings and the dock. Or did I miss something. Is there a physical connection? I didn't see a connection. MS. MOORE: They are physically connected. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are, okay. MS. MOORE: So it would not make any sense to build a wave break independently of the dock. It just -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what we have to do is move this conversation along a little bit. And I'll just start by saying for myself, I do not feel comfortable approving the southern timber jetty as part of this project, and I don't feel comfortable with that outer pile cluster, 60 foot offshore, or excuse me, 60 foot off the end of the dock, at its current location. I think that needs to be pulled in. That's my opinion on this. And if other Trustees would like to chime in, feel free. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to echo those sentiments. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody else on this project? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll just point out, just because you see me playing over here, I'm looking at the aerials, Suffolk County aerials. I can only go back as 1962. When we looked at 1969, so you know what I'm doing here, 1969 there is no wave breaks there. I don't see any pile cluster either. That doesn't show up untiE, 1978, for whatever reason. But in 1984 it shows up. So it looks like it was built somewhere either in the late 70s or early 80s. MS. MOORE: Prior to your jurisdiction, though. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And then the pile shows up. MS. MOORE: It was definitely there prior to DEC jurisdiction in 1977 because that was proven to the DEC. MR. SMITH: I just want to go on record, I don't know what it is you are looking at, Mr. Ghosio, but we purchased the property in '71. The other property in '71. The adjoining property in '71. The pilings have been there, the cluster pilings have been there forever, as far as I know. Board of Trustees 19 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'm looking at, to answer your question, this is the Suffolk County GIS, I guess. It has all the aerials that were taken in Suffolk County for government purposes, going back to 1947. I'm able to pull up some older aerials. MS. MOORE: In the time he has been there, and their history, it's always been there, so. There is no doubt that it's been there certainly before the Trustees had jurisdiction and the DEC had jurisdiction, so whether it was in the 40s or in the 50s, or, you know, it was prior to the Board's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). MS. MOORE: I just need clarification. The sentiments of the Board are that the timber jetty, the southern timber jetty, is, you don't want to approve repairs to that at this time, on this application, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't want to include it. We prefer to have it removed. In other words we are considering a permit here that would not include that structure. So it would be removed. MS. MOORE: Okay. And the northern -- the western side jetty, there one on the west and one on the east. The larger one is the one on the east that Mr. Kelly has been here at two meetings and told you that it benefits him. And what I didn't hear from other than one Board member is that if Mr. Kelly and Wee House Partners come in together to repair that jetty, because it benefits both of them, whether the Board would entertain it. This is -- I guess just answer that question, if you could. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is, what Trustee Bredemeyer had discussed is the possibility of, in covenant and restrictions, to have the property owner to the south include in their C&R's that southern wave break/timber jetty. And I can just say for myself I prefer to have the jetty removed and that outer tie-off pile or cluster pile moved in and to incorporate some type of wave break into the dock structure itself. So on the profile of the dock there would be a modification there to include a wave break. MS. MOORE: But understand, I think Mr. Bredemeyer, I think in the field, mentioned that the portion of the dock that is on the east side, the area for the boat itself, to be able to put a boat on the east side of the dock without it being damaged, or effected by the wave action, needs the protection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But ur~fortunately, Pat, and I have to move this along, unfortunately with docks on the bay, anybody who has docks on the bay, including you pointed out the Orient wharf, you notice there are no boats on the eastern side there. There is no slips on the eastern side. It's the wharf. And with docks on the bay, you are not going to get a situation where there is going to be total protection allowed on all sides for all weather conditions. It's just inherent with having a dock on the bay. MS. MOORE: That just happens to be the place where the common, by agreement or by sharing, somebody is being allowed to use that space, and they seem to be comfortable, correct, that's the Board of Trustees 20 May 16, 2012 mutual friend that has a boat on that side. MR. SMITH: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I just question the repairs to the seawall. Should they be restricted just for this property and not for the neighbor's property without them coming in for a permit. MS. HULSE: Just for whose property? MS. MOORE: Lori, what I have mentioned -- MS. HULSE: I know. But I've researched this and discussed it with the Trustees. MS. MOORE: Even though the DEC uses a consent form? MS. HULSE: Yes. MS. MOORE: Well, you guys always steal from the DEC the bad things, I thought maybe this good thing would be acceptable. So you propose to come in and do work on the Smith side of the property line and you want Smith to come in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and the same thing for Vanderwater, if there is anything needed for Vanderwater, for Vanderwater to come in. It sounded like Vanderwater is fine, though. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we go, I have a comment based on the research I have been doing as I have been listening to the testimony. And I don't think I'm necessarily inconsistent by saying I have always looked at part of these applications, I tend to look at the history, too. You guys heard me talk about that. If it's been, if I could see it's historically been there, I tend to be a little more lenient than I would be if it had not been there for so long. Here is a case where I can see it's been there for at least the last 60 years in terms of the main structure. Then I can see that the wave break or jetty, whatever we want to call it, was added at some point in the 70's, based upon what I could see from Suffolk County records. That means it's been there for 30 years or more. I mean at this point seeing how it's repairs, I'm not one that is apt to require to remove it at this point. I would be more inclined to put a stipulation in if it ever, and it will at some point, needs to be replaced, then it needs to be brought up to current code as a replacement. That's just my opinion. I know how the rest of you guys feel. That's just what I wanted to say. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How would your client feel about the pile cluster being relocated 20 feet seaward of the outer edge of the timber dock? MS. MOORE: It's your call. MR. SMITH: Gentlemen, I would agree with Trustee Bergen we need to come to some kind of conclusion. I appreciate your comments, Mr. Ghosio. I think what would be fair and reasonable and I was about to say not arbitrary but I'm not sure that's true, would be for us to keep the jetty, we'll put wave breaks on it pursuant to a covenant agreement with Mr. Kelly, and we'll remove the piling. But the cluster piling all together, I think having, having the piling moved that close to the dock would not work because the swinging action of a small boat that is Board of Trustees 21 May 16, 2012 tethered between the dock and the piling, there would not be enough turning radius, to use a car term. And so if the demand of the Trustees, for what is otherwise a permitted use, would be to remove the pile clusters, we would do that, but I would ask you to do is permit the jetty to exist and we would put wave break boards down and we'll try and work out how to put a small boat there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If Lori is okay with restrictive covenants. MS. HULSE: For the neighbor propedies? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Neighbors to each other. MS. HULSE: No. TRUSTEE KING: I still think it should be removed. I don't think it's functional. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it should be a condition of the permit. MS. MOORE: I could remove it from my permit and come back with a separate application for the, to address the timber jetty. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ill make a motion to approve the application of Wee House Partners Edgar Smith, with the stipulation that the repair of the stack stone is contained within the Wee House Partners property line, and to include the removal of the outer pile cluster and allow for a tie-off piling 20 feet off the outer end, seaward end of that dock, the removal of the timber jetty to the south, and the addition of wave break structure to the dock subject to receipt of plans that depict that as described. And this was found consistent under the LWRP. So that's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. All in favor? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion on the motion. I don't know if Mr. Smith has indicated he doesn't really want a single pile 20 feet out. I'm not sure we want to include it in, and cloud the removal of the three-pile dolphin. But that's just a thought I have. He may wish to have a different configuration for tie-off pilings. I would not want to preempt his planning with respect to tie-off piles could also accommodate a vessel on that seaward side when the weather is nice and it might actually not have to be 20 feet out. It could can 12 or 15 feet out depending on the berth of the vessel. It's just a thought I had. MS. MOORE: Please, come up here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the hearing is closed. This is just a discussion on the motion. My reason for proposing tie-off pile 20 feet off the seaward end of the dock is the applicant can elect not to put one in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO:'Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If he doesn't want one. But allows for one if he wants it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the motion is to remove that cluster. And what was the wave break. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And to allow a wave break. TRUSTEE KING: You can build a wave break on the end of the dock Board of Trustees 22 May 16, 2012 here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But remove the wave break to the south and east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Subject to receipt of plans that shows profiles in particular of the new wave break, the additional wave break structure on this dock. That's the motion, and I have a second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, nay. Trustee Ghosio, nay). TRUSTEE KING: The motion carries, three to two. MS. MOORE: Can I just get a clarification of what you said. Because you said remove the southeasterly jetty. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The southeasterly timber jetty, that is removed. MS. MOORE: You didn't say anything about the northwest. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. MS. MOORE: Fine. Okay, thank you. And I'll get you a new drawing. MR. MCGREEVEY: Was there wording in there on that ,non-treated lumber? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's in our standards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's in the code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is in the matter of J.MO. Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM L. HANLEY, JR. requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to restore a damaged shoreline in various onsite locations; install 85' of boulder barrier along the eroded shoreline consisting of 1- 2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3; extend the existing concrete seawall 38' and armor the extension with a boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3. In the eastern portion of the site, install 50' of boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3; and randomly place boulders and stones seaward of the proposed barrier. In the northwestern portion of the site install 35' of boulder barrier consisting of 1-2 ton stones placed on top of a 1' deep layer of stone chips on filter fabric, and with a slope of 1:2-1:3. Along the northern portion armor/rearmor the existing concrete seawall by randomly placing 1-2 boulders and stones in the voids of the existing armoring. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. This is to repair extensive erosion of the easterly most portion of Fishers Island. Do I have the right location here? The Hanley job is the one all the way out at the point, right? He's still setting up and didn't hear me. MR. JUST: Sorry? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the Hanley job is the one we are hearing now, that's on the easterly portion -- MR. JUST: Yes TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We walked a number of sites on this where the tropical store Irene had evulsed the shoreline and had Board of Trustees 23 May 16, 2012 basically torn up and moved, safe to say hundreds if not thousands of cubic yards of material. It was huge erosion. And the project plan is rather extensive. We met with the applicant. We walked the site. We didn't have any problems with this construction. It didn't involve any vegetative wetlands. It's restorative of what was the native shoreline before Irene had really torn it up. And there was really, that was the, it was really no questions, it was standard marine construction on each one of the sites. We had a person from the DEC joining us on field inspections. I don't believe I heard any concerns from them during the course of the inspection. We had a question about the drain pipes but we found they were roof runoff that is contained basically within the stone area. There was a concern it might have been swimming pool filter backwash, which we, subsequent to seeing you, I don't know if you were aware, we checked it all out and found out it was roof runoff and doesn't pose an issue for this particular location. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. I'll tryto keep my comments brief, under five minutes or less. Again, we walked the site three weeks ago. We showed surveys prior to the 1938 hurricane that the conditions really have not changed, except after Irene. For a lot of damage to the boulder field, a lot of boulders moved. And it's basically just a replacement of the boulders where they were, and armoring on the north side where the concrete seawall is, just placing some boulders in front of it to break up the wave energy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP coordinator did find this consistent with LWRP so there is no issues with coastal consistency. Any questions? (No response). Hearing none, Ill make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Make a motion to approve the application of JMO Consulting on behalf of William Hanley, Jr., as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of ~ISHERS 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. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. He also noted that the sites are identified as occurring within the archeo-sensitive area with a high probability of artifact occurrence. There is one letter in the file from a neighbor, Penelope Board of Trustees 24 May 16, 2012 C. Sharp. I won't read the letter. The neighbor has two concerns, essentially; one, that the septic system might interfere with her septic system and also notes that an archaeologist should be hired to evaluate the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, what's the last name of the author's letter? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Penelope C. Sharp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll stipulate that the Sharp letter is entered into the record in its entirety. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is no recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Council as they did not do a field inspection. As I recall, in our visitation, this was fairly straightforward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we should probably review the inconsistency. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It mentioned inconsistent because of the archeo-sensitive area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we'll have to address that through possibly a review by the appropriate rating agency that handles the archaeological review. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone here to address this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. I'm unaware of any archaeological historical concerns. I don't know if that's based on the surface and square maps from years ago that the public is not allowed to view, but regulatory agencies are. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that because they don't want to have unauthorized digs? MR. JUST: So people don't steal artifacts. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the Ferguson Museum on the Island is the museum of record, but I don't know if to meet the inconsistency we go through them or the New York State office. MR. JUST: Quite frankly, John, I think Penny Sharp is part of the museum. And this letter, you know, came out of left field on me and I would be more, if you could send it to me, we could put this application on hold, you know, for further review. Because I do think it's a big plus. Actually, where the septic system is, it's about -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Usually an archaeological dig in connection with a septic system excavation is a doable event that can be planned for to keep, I'm sure to accommodate the needs of -- MR. JUST: It's usually three stages. I think the first stage is a literature check and second stage is someone actually goes out and looks for artifacts. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the museum right there I suspect the community would cooperate and have a monitor at the site. Back in the day I found remains on Shelter Island. Human remains. Itwas an Indian quarry. MR. JUST: It's quite some time since something like this, archaeological concerns is head on the project. I would be more than happy to research that. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was also, Glenn, in that list, did she request it be moved further to the west also from her property? That was something, another comment she made in the Board of Trustees 25 May 16, 2012 letter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, approximately 20 feet to the west. MR. JUST: What was the concern about that? TRUSTEE KING: I guess she feels it's too close to her property. MR. JUST: Again, we could deal with that. There was, at one point, the church there, they thought there was a little kettle hole, and we went there after you guys left, with Bob Marsh and we couldn't find anything. So. I'm sure we could move the whole system 20 or 30 feet, if needed. TRUSTEE KING: We can table this until you find out what is going on with the dig or whatever. MR. JUST: We are not proceeding any quicker with the Health Department or DEC, so it would not be a headache for us. TRUSTEE KING: Because that letter came in kind of late in the game. Why don't we table it tonight. MR. JUST: Okay. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Is there anyone else to speak to this? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to table this application. MR. JUST: If l could just be forwarded a copy of the letters for concern so I could address them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I11 second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, J.M.©. Environmental Consulting on behalf of HOLIDAY HOUSE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct approx. 50' of a storm damaged bouldedconcrete seawall and to repoint as necessary; remove and dispose of existing concrete cap and provide approx. 52' of new concrete cap; fill voids landward of the wall with stone as necessary; place stones along the base of the wall at its northern terminus; and provide four 2-3 ton boulders to armor the wall. Located: Fox Ave., Fishers Island. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. JUST: Once again Glenn Just JMO Consulting. If there is any questions from the Board or public. TRUSTEE KING: We walked down this shoreline with you. MR. JUST: You came down the ramp and back to the left there was a broken off piece on the top of the seawall. They want to just tie that back up. Once again, this is a wall that predated the '38 hurricane. The homeowners actually spent the honeymoon in that house during the '38 hurricane. Which I guess gave them less to talk about. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would have been lonely, too, I'm sure. TRUSTEE KING: Any comments from anybody else? Board comments. I don't think we had any issues from anything here. It was a simple application. Being no comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 26 May 16, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing is J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CRAB COVE, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct a 3'X 50' timber walk and a 4.8'X 90' timber fixed dock. Located: 12060 East Main Rd., Fishers Island. I think this is one we don't have a photo for. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which one is this for? MR. JUST: This is the one we went back to on the latter part of the day before we left the island. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this Silver Cove? TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. JUST: It's on Chocomount Cove. It's the place we went back to just before we jumped on the boat where it was an existing dock that most of the decking was off. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You went back with DEC. We didn't go back. That's where the confusion is. I didn't take photograph with this particular one. We didn't have a problem with this project as submitted. It was a straightforward repair of an existing dock. I'll open it up to any questions. (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second, to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Wetland Permits, PATRIClA MELE & CHERYL CHRISTIANO request a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing dwelling, construct a second-story addition and landward extension with a two-car garage. Located: 1140 Deep Hole Dr., Mattituck. This is found to be consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, with no other suggestions. Jim was out in the field to take a look at this. And I'm also familiar with the property. Jim notes to come back to the Trustees if it becomes a full demo. Hay bales were already in place. And was them a question about jet-ski floats? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there are two jet-ski floats there that are not permitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. So we would, I imagine stipulate the jet-ski floats be removed. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? Board of Trustees 27 May 16, 2012 MS. MELE: My name is Patricia Mele. And we can remove the jet-ski floats. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, anybody else have any comments from the audience? (No response). Anybody on the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You do understand if this becomes a complete demolition you'll have to come back to this Board. In other words, during construction if they decide that the whole house, the builder or the engineers decide the whole structure has to come down, you have to come back to this Board before proceeding forward. MS. MELE: We are not anticipating that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sure you are not, but sometimes it happens. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Hearing no other comments or questions, 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 written with the stipulation if it does become a demolition, the applicant will come back and re-apply, and that the jet-ski floats will be removed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Is there a certain point for removal? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would assume it would be pretty much immediately. You'll take them out pretty much immediately. MS. MIELE: As soon as we get some muscle this weekend. We can't lift them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a paved recreational path approx. 4,250' long and 8' wide; approx. 1,533' of the proposed path would be located within 100' of a regulated freshwater wetlands; construct approx. 570' of 8' wide elevated boardwalk secured by helical anchors within 100' of wetlands, which is a portion of the 4,250' total length of the proposed path; construct approx. 617' of retaining walls within 100' of wetlands; and to construct a 16'X 24' viewing deck that would be elevated approx. 9' above grade. Located: East End Rd., Fishers Island. This is a continuation of a project that Trustees previously had approved for the Fishers Island Development Corp., that goes out to the country club, and in reliance greatly on the DEC staff who was there flagging it, we understand we are probably not as well versed in freshwater wetlands as they are in the sense it's wetlands on Fishers Island and their staff was busy flagging and going over the project specifications. At this time I'll open it up for comments. MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. Quite frankly, I have been Board of Trustees 28 May 16, 2012 back out there twice since we were out there. I'm delineating the wetlands completely around the bodies of water of Barlow Pond, both sides of the road for the DEC. We have not really gone back and forth as far as what the decision is but what they are mostly focused right now is mitigation. And the reason that I'm delineating these wetlands is they want to see 100 feet away from the wetlands, 150 feet away from the wetlands, because they have different ratios of mitigation. If you are within 100 feet, they may want say two bottom. A one to three feet of mitigation. If you are 150 feet away, they might want one in ten. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are the plans being altered as you are going through the mapping process? MR. JUST: No, not at all TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words there is the likelihood if we approve this packet tonight we would not have to come back with amendments or -- MR. JUST: I feel, quite frankly, that the DEC will approve what you have in front of you and what they have in front of them. But again, it's a matter of mitigation of the payback we have to do at the end of the project, which will benefit the people of the Town of Southold. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did the previous mitigation include the blueberries I picked along the bike path on the way with the county health inspectors? MR. JUST: It might have been. I think, I don't know if you noticed the path, I think they did a pretty nice job. They actually had ten-thousand passes for the last two years of people using this very short path for walking or jogging or riding a bike. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I could attest to the safety that it's put there. I was doing, in my former life I was doing inspections, and a coworker joined me to go out to the point to take beach samples and he had the chain come off his bicycle while he was going on one of those hairpin curves when there was oncoming traffic, and I'll tell you, the new system is, as far as public health and safety, is a real plus. MR. JUST: People that are not familiar with Fishers Island, it's one contiguous road on the east end, it's not very well marked, there is no street signs, no lights. It's not very, it's been repaved in the last year and, um, there is a lot of big SUVs and old cars driven down the road all summer, and kids on the road going back and forth to the club, and the mode on Fishers on the east end is by bicycle and walking. It's just a laid back community. But again, we are still working with the DEC as far as the mitigation is concerned and I don't think they'll have any, you know, we met with Rob Marsh once since we went to Fishers three weeks ago and he seems to be pretty comfortable with the plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do the Trustees feel about this? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any issues with anything that has been done so far. They have done a nice job. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very nice. Board of Trustees 29 May 16, 2012 MR. MCGREEVEY: Just a point. The CAC didn't make an inspection on this property and I'm not familiar with the diagram. But part of the mitigation, does it include at all the eight foot width of the path and the eight foot wide elevated boardwalk? I think that would be a concern if I had been there. The width of it. And especially within a hundred feet of the wetlands. Do you think it's a concern? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe, not from what we had seen. The width of it, it was pretty much laid out to take into consideration the road hazards there and to have bicyclists safely pass next to each other, and sections that were going over vegetated freshwater wetlands were open-grate sections, so even though it might have been, and correct me if I'm wrong, even if it was the full width, it was almost in every instance where it was upland path, it was developed and it was macadam or concrete, depending on the crossings, and then any area that went into a vegetated freshwater wetland was all open-grate construction so that vegetation could thrive underneath it. MR. JUST: There would be the post modification over vegetated wetlands whereas the first part was, but they are still willing to use the 60% thru-flow decking. There will be one part that would extend over the wetlands. That's the wildlife viewing station they want to put out. But again, that will be nine feet above grade, and because of the sun patch, you can see the sky, there is not much of shading factor, but it's also built on thru-flow. MR. MCGREEVEY: It's still a lot of square footage over the wetland area. It's just a thought thrown out there for your consideration. This is the first time I have seen any path that I'm familiar with. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The path is not in the wetland. In other words, the path itself is actually in upland, fringe areas, in many cases. The path itself is kept out of the regulatory wetland but because of the proximity, that's the reason for the mitigation is, by the mere presence within the zone of jurisdiction, but they are not taking out freshwater wetlands, the plans show there is no path going on this section of wetland. MR. JUST: And the final plan will also reflect a lot of screenings done into the adjacent area between the path and, you know, the adjacent wetlands area. Again, nothing is proposed over wetlands over the observation deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments? (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'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the stipulation that if the DEC requires a plan change, that we receive updated plans so our files can be complete. So moved Board of Trustees 30 May 16, 2012 MR. JUST: Most definitely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES).. MR. JUST: Thank you, very much, have a good evening. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects, PLLC on behalf of ,JAMES P. RUTHERFURD requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, terrace, screened porch, sanitary system and drywells for roof drainage. Located: Clay Point Rd., Fishers Island. The LWRP found this to be consistent. There was no inspection by the CAC. We inspected this three weeks ago and found it was in our jurisdiction. Other than that it was straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. KINLIN: My name is Bruce Kinlin, from Kinlin Rutherfurd Architects. We designed the house and filled out the application. TRUSTEE KING: We don't have any issues with it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: No. Jim, they are looking at the photographs there. There were no issues with it. We were concerned that tree might be taken. That's why it was in the photograph. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I thought you were just trying to converse with it. MR. KINLIN: I wanted to say I don't know who I should give this to. I have the notarized form from the certified mail and the receipts from that, for the mailing. TRUSTEE KING: Bring them up. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you have any other comments to make? MR. KINLIN: No, I don't. I'm happy to engage in conversation about the project if there is are there questions. Essentially we think we designed the house, in fact we think we are sure, it's within all, outside of the required setbacks in terms of zoning and in terms of wetlands. We believe we have all the height restrictions. TRUSTEE KING: We have one area designated there, designated undisturbed. That's what we would have asked for. I think you met all the requirements, in my mind. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That was our only concern, that tree, for example, seems to us to fall within the line you designated in your application as a limit of clearing. MR. KINLIN: Is the question does the tree stay or go, or what is the owner's intent? I'm not sure. Can you help me, I'm just not sure where that is relative to other things. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a stake that shows the corner of the building. The terrace. And then -- MR. KINLIN: I know. I think I know. May I approach? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure. MR. KINLIN: I think that tree, you can, if I have the right spot, is located right here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The tree is right about here, so it would be the corner. You can see there. MR. KINLIN: Okay. So your question is? Board of Trustees 31 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: The tree would be here. This is the limit of clearing. We want to make sure that -- MR. KINLIN: You want to make sure the tree stays. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. MR. KINLIN: Okay, sure. We can -- yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: If not, Ill make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill make a motion we approve this application with the stipulation that that tree remain. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. KINLIN: Thank you. Can I get a copy of the photograph of that tree? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we E-mail it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, I can. MR. KINLIN: I know what tree it is, it would be good to give it to my client. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It should be in our file TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It should be a hard copy in the file. Typically, we print them out in the file. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have a hard copy there now? Do you want to give it to him? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure. MR. KINLIN: That would be great. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It is quite a substantial tree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Wetland Permits, number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of NICK ANDREADIS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 1,570 sf. permeable patio with drains leading to existing drywells; install a set of stairs on either side of existing pool at first floor level down to grade level; place silt fence and hay bales on south side of property during construction; remove all Poison Ivy and replant with native plants; remove selective trees to allow for further growth of healthy trees and plants; place permeable brick path on existing 72'X 3.5' wide dirt path; and add a 4'X 24' catwalk on the landward end of existing catwalk. Located: 700 North Dr., Mattituck. This is a continuation of a hearing we tabled last month so we could go back out and take a look at some flags for some vegetation we couldn't see the month before because it was not the growing season, really. Just to, I guess to recap. We were in the middle of a discussion on this, we were talking about the need to be able to remove the Poison Ivy. As we can see in the, it's kind of hard to see in this photograph, it's easier to see in my computer. We all saw it when we were there, a good many flags showing where the Poison Ivy is. Even though it's early in the season, it's pretty prevalent all through the property. As part of this application, of course, is also some work above the Board of Trustees 32 May 16, 2012 line of non-disturbance. We did see the line of non-disturbance that was staked out for us when we went out the second time. So it was good we get to see that. Get a better feel for what it was we were trying to do. The applicant if I'm not mistaken, has has decided to not remove the trees in the non-disturbance area but just remove the trees above the non-disturbance area. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Correct, in order to conform with the non-disturbance zone, to leave all the vegetation other than hopefully grant removal of the Poison Ivy above the 18-foot non-disturbance line, and we would like approval to remove the trees that were staked from the original. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just for the record, your name. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I think we discussed it out in the field. Are there any questions or concerns from the Board? I think we pretty much have seen what we wanted to see. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we still have an issue though with the non-disturbance buffer listed in the C&R's and wanting to do work in the non-disturbance buffer? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as, I don't think, maybe it's just me, I don't think the intent of having a non-disturbance buffer in a case like this, where so prevalent a health and safety issue for the kids there, urn, I don't know. I don't have a problem with removing Poison Ivy. There is also a plan to re-vegetate, right? The Poison Ivy taken out and revegetate? MR. CHICANOWlCZ: We can revegetate the Poison Ivy removed areas or not, basically depending on what the Board says. We would be very happy to revegetate but, you know, just the guidelines from the last meeting, trying not to touch anything, so if we are just touching just the Poison Ivy, so be it. If we are allowed to put back some native species planting -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If he takes out the Poison Ivy, which is what we discussed in the field, I imagine it would just seed and revegetate itself. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was an understory, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure, if it was Huckleberries, there was some wild native members of the -- MR. CHICANOWICZ: Mulberry and blueberry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, native bush, whatever it was. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, blueberry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whether they would come back, at this point, I guess it's early intervention, because maybe that would come back because the Poison Ivy has not totally made a canopy over them. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: That would kind of look to see what happens or allowing us to put in, you know, a few dozen native plants in place of. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I have a problem doing anything additional in there until we get a code change. I think public health and safety, I think there is a doctor's note in the file the children are particularly allergic. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, there is. From Peconic Pediatrics, um, Nicholas -- I'll read it into the record. Nicholas Andreadis is Board of Trustees 33 ~, May 16, 2012 an 11-year old followed in our office for pediatric care. His mother reports he's had a recent episode of Poison Ivy. His sister Lorisa and both parents have had multiple episodes of Poison Ivy in the past as well. Please allow the family to have the Poison Ivy removed from their property. This is from Dr. Meah, which interestingly enough is my son's doctor. So that is in here. MR. CHICANOWICZ: May I make a suggestion for the time being, if we could be granted permission to at least remove the Poison Ivy and just stop there and allow the Board to possibly, you know, re-visit the code as it's written to make whatever amendments and maybe we could back at a later date to revegetate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For me, I would not want to wait for code changes because, 111, we have been waiting three or four years for code changes. So I mean for myself personally, I don't have a problem with removal of the Poison Ivy for health and safety reasons. And I think it was also there was an issue with two sets of stairs or one set of stairs from the house down to -- MR. CHICANOWICZ: We have two proposed sets of stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Last month we asked if there was an opportunity to reduce that to one set of stairs. I don't know if you had a chance to speak to your client about that. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: I have my client here. And we had not discussed it, but we can, if you want to give me a half a minute. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. ANDREADIS: Hi, my name is Nick Andreadis. I want to thank you for all the wonderful work that you do I appreciate your consideration of this matter. We had kind of gone two stairs coming down from the deck because that would look better, you know, for esthetics really, because it would kind of balance out the structure. I suppose in a practical sense you could have, you know, one set of the stairs coming down but it would not have the same esthetic appearance as the two. So if it's all the same to the Board, I would like to have two. But if you have an objection, we'll go with one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't really have an objection. It's certainly out of the non-disturbance area, and it will connect up to the paver patio. So, any other questions? Comments? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to mention that I don't think removing the Poison Ivy goes against the intent of the non-disturbance zone. So I don't have a problem with that because of the health issues that are raised. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: If I could make one more note. In the area of the non-disturbance zone there are at least two if not three completely dead and rotten trees, kind of standing there. Just to allow us to remove those. It's not cutting anything live, it's just for safety issue more so than anything. It's in the non-disturbance. Would that be allowable? Not revegetating, not doing anything else, just remove it so it doesn't fall on somebody's head. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't recall that. I don't recall them, so I can't make a comment. Are they in any of the photographs? Board of Trustees 34 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll see if I have anything older. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think over to the left of the stairwell. I remember that tree. MR. CHICANOWICZ: That right there. Specifically, it's just down, probably two feet away from the non-disturbance line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are talking about trees, they are not that large either. MR. CHICANOWICZ: That's probably seven or eight inch caliper. We want to just cut it off and remove it. No live trees. Yes, that's it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just that one? MR. CHICANOWICZ: That's the only one that is most apparent. Do you know of any others? MR. ANDREADIS: If you go to the right, there is, I think you can see them here, actually the ones marked here: This one, this one and this one are totally dead. So right now you don't see it because they are, the others, those, they'll be just as dead if you revisit later on, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aren't those the ones that are above the -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MR. CHICANOWICZ: No, those are definitely below. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to tell you, we had this come up before and we have not allowed it. Again, it does serve as habitat for something; many times, it's a non-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Bob, I agree with what you are saying. I would make an exception though because of the safety issue of that tree to the left that is adjacent to the walkway. I would hate so to see it come down and destroy the walkway. So I would make an exception to that. The others, you know, I agree that we have not allowed that to be done in the past. MR. CHICANOWICZ: So the one on the left, okay, but the others leave them alone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It opens up too many doors. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, Ill make a motion to approve the application with the following stipulations: That the removal of the Poison Ivy will be permitted, however there will not be any replanting with native plants at this time. The only tree that can be removed would be the dead tree to the north of the existing stairwell, the existing stairway, just a couple feet inside the non-disturbance area. I'm seeing if there is anything else we need to change from the description. And I'll ask for a revised drawing showing the differences, because the planting plan we have shows plantings and things of that nature, so. And I would say that addressing only the Poison Ivy in the non-disturbance area, as a health and safety issue, Board of Trustees 35 May 16, 2012 removes the inconsistency with LWRP and makes it consistent. Is there any other questions or concerns? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought the walkway that was requested down at the base of the bank to the dock, I thought we had discussed in the field moving it slightly so it was not going to, there was a more direct shot, I thought we had discussed in the field. MR. CHICANOWICZ: The end of the catwalk was requested to be angled, and I thought you have that revised plan. If you don't -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure we have that. Thank you. MR. CHICANOWICZ: Instead of going straight, we made a lazy "L" toward the direction of the staircase. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lazy %." Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. And the only reason I wanted to get a new set of plans is because there is some plantings in there that were included that we are not going to allow. And that is my motion. MS. HULSE: So the rest of the application as written is going to be denied, basically; it's not being considered? Because there a lot of language that is in that resolution. So it's going to be as you read it, Bob, correct? MR. CHICANOWlCZ: You need to include the patio. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's right. Everything as written, except for no replanting of the non-disturbance area after he removes the Poison Ivy. He's only allowed to remove the one tree instead of all the trees. The one to the north of the stairway, two or three feet inside the non-disturbance buffer. And he did make the change on the plans to slightly bend that catwalk. And that's reflected on the plans. And everything else is okay. Do I have that right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have a second. All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For the record, Jim King has recused himself from that application. MR. CHICANOWlCZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, High Point Engineering on behalf of MATTITUCK FISHING STATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove (1) 3,000 gallon single wall fiberglass gasoline UST, install (1) 3,000 double wall steel UL #2085 fire rated A.S.T. with new piping and dispensers along bulkhead. Located: 2275 Naugles Dr., Mattituck. This was found exempt from LWRP. The CAC does not support the application. Work was completed prior to issuance of a permit. There are runoff issues due to the steep grade. There was toxic testing of the soil so the tank was removed, and DEC required an Environmental Phase One Impact Study. I don't know. This was a previously approved plan. And I know there is work done. I don't know if the work was started before the original permit expired or not. I don't know. I think most of the work has been completed For me it's not an issue. These people have Board of Trustees 36 May 16, 2012 waited and gone through a lengthy process on this tank and I certainly would not want to hold them up for any reason whatsoever. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this or against this application? MR. LEGER: My name is Brian Leger, from High Point Engineering. As you said, we went ahead, the project has been going, we filed for our building permit. We tried to extend it since the construction had been taking a long time. We filed for a building permit, we obtained that, and at that time we were notified the Board of Trustees permit had expired so we are here to extend such and follow it through. TRUSTEE KING: The easiest thing would it have been to extend the Trustee permit. But it was overlapped. I understand what happened there. Things were held up. MR. LEGER: We have our Health Department approval and our building permit. This is the last thing, so. TRUSTEE KING: What were the concerns, Jack, as far as drainage goes, and testing of the soil? I don't know that they -- they have, between the Health Department and DEC, they go through a tremendous amount of work. MR. MCGREEVEY: I would imagine so, but we raise that question because we assume the testing was done, but for the -- TRUSTEE KING: Ourselves, we don't. We try and move these along as easy as we can because it's very important. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a fiberglass underground tank. MR. LEGER: It's actually an aboveground tank, triple containment. It's double wall underground tand that holds 110% of volume. So it's triple containment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And believe me, because I have the hundred thousand gallons in the dyke right here on Leon's Avenue. You have to keep rain records and the whole thing. I have three books of stuff on my rack alone. TRUSTEE KING: This is not easy. And it's very expensive. MR. MCGREEVEY: The CAC's concern was not about the new tank. It was about the one being removed, because when I had mine removed, I didn't have it removed. What I had done is encapsulate, if that's the word they used, so instead of soil testing being done, we just closed it right down. But this tank is removed and our concern is the soil tested at that time to see if there was contamination there. That was our concern. MR. LEGER: That's usually prepared by the Health Department when they go out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's part of the field inspection of the tank program. I have a little familiarity with that when I previously worked for the department. I knew some of the crew that did that. MR. MCGREEVEY: There is one other concern, because of the topography of that piece of property, and there is an asphalt road that goes from Naugles right down to the bulkhead, if something could be done and some kind of construction at the end of that roadway to catch the storm water runoff that goes, just comes right down like a thruway right into -- TRUSTEE KING: Did you ever look at what goes down by the old Board of Trustees 37 May 16, 2012 mill? MR. MCGREEVEY: I could make a list. But this is my application. TRUSTEE KING: This is a drop in the bucket. I believe down the road here those folks will be coming in for bulkhead permits because some of that bulkhead, I think it's in the south end now is getting pretty old. MR. MCGREEVEY: You can appreciate the CAC's position. When we see something, storm water runoff and possible contamination of the creek. TRUSTEE KING: When they come in with these new bulkhead permits, we'll take care of that. MR. MCGREEVEY: Okay, but you can see the position where we come from. TRUSTEE KING: I know. Any other questions, anything from anybody? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of WILLIAM & PATRIOIA BAXTER AND GOELLER FAMILY TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'X 20' floating dock secured by (2) 8" diameter pilings and a 3'X 14' hinged ramp to be connected to existing bulkhead; and remove existing mooring piles as necessary. Located: 420 Fisherman's Beach Rd., Cutchogue. This was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC tabled the application because the proposed dock was not staked. They recommend a ten-foot wide buffer and four-foot wide path and a possible variance for an accessory structure on 8 vacant property. The LWRP coordinator found inconsistent and the reason for the inconsistency is the construction of the dock is not possible to maintain a 15-foot setback on the property line as per code. The Board did go out and looked at this application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I had a feeling that a seasonal ramp and float in a bulkheaded basin surrounded by dozens of other similar docks would somehow be too easy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought that was maybe a little sarcastic. MR. HERMAN: Actually, it's really not. I had a few of these over the years in different towns and somehow these can become more complicated than a hundred-foot long dock. I don't know how. Anyway, this is a site that the Board is familiar with this area, I'm sure. There are several of these properties that have ownership on alternating sides of the road. This is a small lot. It's not a buildable lot, under any of the standard code Board of Trustees 38 May 16, 2012 allowances. It has been used historically for dockage. There are tie-off poles there now, one set of which will be removed for the placement of this float. So there really is just a continuation of this historic use to dock boats here, except now two of the owners of the property are handicapped and they are seeking to have a more accessible use than what has been used historically by having a float that will rise up and down with the tide in which they can access with a ramp.~. We have positioned it basically in the center of the parcel that allows ten feet to 14 feet on either side. There is good water depth there. Even at lower Iow tide. As I noted, there are many, many, many docks just like this one that line the shoreline, including a fixed dock immediately to the west that will protrude out quite a bit farther. This is a bulkheaded basin. There is no marsh vegetation here. There is no aquatic vegetation here. I can't think of any reason why this would have any impact whatsoever, really, on anything regulated by your Board. Again, the use exists now. So the only thing this will change will be that it will improve the access to the boats that are already and have already been docked there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, it looks like in order to stay within the property lines they will be limited to one vessel on each side of this floating dock. MR. HERMAN: There is basically, I showed the distances from either side of the float. So, and again, the tie-off poles, there is two clusters. Well, there is actually a few clusters of poles there. There is one that lines up with the easterly property line. So they would be about a ten-foot dockage area between that existing piling cluster and the east side of the proposed float. And then to the east of that there is another ramp and float associated with the Holman's property TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: There is a cluster that exists right where the float would go now. That would be removed. Basically the end of the float which extends maybe a foot past that existing cluster would just have a single pile to hold the end of the float. Then to the west, there is another two-pile cluster which I have to assume is probably used by the house to the west of the Curren property. So there would be a 14-foot space between the west side of the proposed float and that pile cluster, and that pile cluster to the west seems to run along with that float adjacent to the bulkhead on that adjacent property, which also shows on the map. It's also a fixed dock that extends out off of that property to the west. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I'm very familiar with this piece of property. MR. HERMAN: I figured. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I just, like I said, my only concern is when we add the boats on each side, that it doesn't encroach on the neighbor's property. MR. HERMAN: It seems to me that the locations of those clusters, at least as they exist or as are proposed would dictate consistency with that concern. Board of Trustees 39 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. HERMAN: I don't know exactly what their plans are but I'm sure that if they had to put in something bigger they would probably have to drop one of the slips all together and come back to you to move the float, then adjust it accordingly. But at the moment, I had shown this design to William Baxter and he said this was exactly what they want. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Are there any other questions from any Board member on this application? (No response). Anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application, and given the historical use of this property for the docking of boats, I would find it consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Eh-Consultants on behalf of TRUST U/W OF R.C. KOPF F/BIO KRISTEN POWERS requests a Wetland Permit to construct +/-30' landward extension of the existing +/-66' Iow-profile vinyl groin. Located: 220 Park Ave. Ext., Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application, however recommends the Trustees limit the landward extension of groins. Jack, why was it suggested to limit the landward extension? I don't understand. MR. MCGREEVEY: We had kind of a unique setup at this applicant's location. You have a very narrow strip of land, and that became obvious that at some point you would have to limit, in our opinion, the landward extension of a groin. It's especially in this area, it's something to be considered. When you say landward is enough, at what point do you draw the line. Because if I'm not mistaken, the applicant's property goes from one body of water in the south to another body of water in the north. So that was a question to be raised. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why they would want to extend it that far. MR. MCGREEVEY: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: It's just that is a road behind the existing where it starts. I mean, I don't have an issue with this at all. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. As Jack said, it's, I don't know if it's unique, but it's definitely a little bit different situation than we typically see with groins that we see so often around Great Board of Trustees 40 May 16, 2012 Peconic Bay that back up to a bulkhead. So the bulkhead kind of sets the most landward possible extent that the structure can go. The Trustees had previously approved what became in effect a landward translation of or landward relocation of the prior groin. If you remember, there was a substantial section that was seaward and no longer functional, that was removed permanently. And then the groin was moved landward and this is a house that had been moved landward previously. So this is sort of a pattern of landward retreat on this site. But as it turned out, after Irene, there was such a drop in beach elevation that the high water progressed immediately farther north and, as Jim mentioned, is really outflanking the landward extent. I don't think there would be a concern in general as the CAC had alluded to in terms of the landward extent. I mean at some point the groin would just function as a retaining wall along the upland part of the property. It's not a part that is interacting with the bay at all. After a certain point. So really, this is really a perfect position to prevent the bay from outflanking around to the house. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any comments from the audience? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of JOAN F. WHELAN 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. TRUSTEE KING: There was no LWRP on that? I don't see one. MR. HERMAN: There isn't. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. And the CAC resolved not to support the application, with the following observation: The dock should be elevated off the wetland; concerns with the possible use of treated materials; there was an erosion condition along the front of the property; and there should be at least ten to 15 feet non-turf buffer landward of the wetlands. Those are the CAC comments. This is an existing catwalk, ramp and float, and it's been there for many years. It never had a permit on it. It's there. What you see is there. I looked at it. Is there anybody here who wants to talk about this for or against it? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Jim, there is no waterfront consistency review on this because there is no action that is actually proposed. We are just looking to legalize the existing structure. With respect to the CAC concerns, those are concerns that relate to what the current policies of the Board would be, and we would anticipate, as with other similar, not really grandfathered Board of Trustees 41 May 16, 2012 permits, but this type of legalization of pre-existing structure, that we would expect there to be some sort of caveat or condition with your permit that would indicate that if the dock at some point had to be substantially replaced or reconstructed that it would have to be, you know, it would undergo a full review under waterfront consistency, Chapter 268, full review under Chapter 275, wetlands, and that some changes might have to be made to the dock with respect to treated materials, et cetera. But at this time there is not even maintenance or repairs proposed. The property is changing hands and they are just seeking to, based on how the Town Attorney's office and this Board interprets Chapter 275, to have it as a permitted structure in case even a simple replacement of deck boards or something like that had to be done, they would not have to worry about doing that and then getting a violation over something for, you know, repairing a non-permitted structure. So that is the extent of the request. I have found aerial photographs on line dating back to late 1960s that depict a dock being present at this property. The 1976 aerial we obtained from, for purposes of recessing the dock relative to New York State DEC regulations, actually showed virtually the same structure except that the floater looked more like it was more of an %" than a "T." Otherwise it looks like this dock has been around for quite some time. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, your plan, are you indicating a Iow sill bulkhead here? There is no Iow sill bulkhead there. MR. HERMAN: There actually is. TRUSTEE KING: Really? It's invisible. MR. HERMAN: It's invisible at high tide. You can actually see it. TRUSTEE KING: I know we put one to the neighbor. MR. HERMAN: Yes, and this is the Meuller (sic) property where the Board approved the bulkhead. This is the Iow sill bulkhead that runs, you can see this is at Iow tide because you can see Meuller's wall. But remember, when we had proposed Meuller, we had point out the fact there was in effect a Iow sill bulkhead immediately next door and we joked at the fact these folks are well ahead of their time. It's almost completely covered by growth, but it is most certainly there. In fact we took some pictures of it which of course I don't have. But it's too long a story to get into, but we wanted to show somebody what the Iow sill bulkhead looked like, so we took shots of both walls there at Iow tide. And then above that, there is some sort of like railroad timbers or telephone pole timbers or something that the surveyor picked up, which I didn't see. But it shows on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? Anybody else? MS. HULSE: Jim, I would just like to make a record that probably the more appropriate course of action would be to apply for LWRP and be exempted if that's the case that it would be exempted. Because I think there is an argument that could be made under 268-3 under definition of "action," it says require one or more new or modified approvals, permits to review from an agency Board of Trustees 42 May 16, 2012 Which is essentially what he's requesting here. So, you know, I'm not going to argue whether it is or isn't, or whether it's exempt or not, because that's the coordinator's purview but, um, it seems the better course of action would be to apply and see if it's exempt so at least you have something in writing saying you had to review it because certainly there is some ambiguity there that could interpret that it could be required. MR. HERMAN: Lori, this is actually one that I talked to you on the phone before I filed. Based on our conversation MS. HULSE: I did not-- no, no. No. Trust me. I said it's up to, Rob. You could do whatever you want, if you want to proceed that way. However, there is definitely, and it's up to the LWRP coordinator to say if it's exempt or not. I can't say that. That's his decision. However, I think it's a precedent that you might not want to start at this point, since you were asking for an approval of a permit from this Board. Essentially, once approved, then you can make repairs and do stuff to'it. So certainly that will be an action down the road. TRUSTEE KING: I was surprised there was not an LWRP review done on this. MS. HULSE: Because itwas not applied for, so. MR. HERMAN: The letter that I submitted with the application reads the paragraph that relates to it: Please note that because we are not requesting permission to replace or reconstruct any part of the dock at this time, there is no construction or other physical activities proposed by the application. Therefore the formal permitting of the dock pursuant to Chapter 275 does not constitute an action pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code, and because the structure also predates the enactment of Chapter 268, there is no waterfront consistency review required pursuant to Chapter 268. Therefore we are not submitting an LWRP application with this application. We do understand if and when reconstruction of the dock is proposed, such action would at that time be subject to review pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code. So what I was getting at was unlike an illegally constructed dock, where somebody let's say went out tomorrow, built a dock, then came to you a month from now and said, well, I'm not proposing to do anything other than have you permit this dock. They would say, well, at the time that you built it without a permit you would have to have gone through waterfront consistency review pursuant to Chapter 268. But in the 1960s, there was no waterfront consistency review required. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, but there was a Trustee permit required. MR. HERMAN: Yes, we understand that. That's why we are here. TRUSTEE KING: Technically it was built as a violation. It was built without a permit. I would be more comfortable we table this and have LWRP -- I'm listening to our attorney. You're not an attorney. She is. MR. HERMAN: I suppose my question is, I mean, Mark will come back and say -- TRUSTEE KING: Because it would be on the record as being found inconsistent, consistent or exempt. I would be more comfortable Board of Trustees 43 May 16, 2012 going that route. MR. HERMAN: What if we stipulate we assume it will be inconsistent because every application for a dock is inconsistent. Would that change the Board's course of action? MS. HULSE: They can't answer that at this juncture. That is calling for an advisory opinion. TRUSTEE KING: How does the Board feel? I would like to just table it until we get an LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should table it because we are subject to audits, the town is, and it puts all of us in the same basket if we move on this and don't listen to our attorney. TRUSTEE KING: I feel the same way. Ill make a motion to table this application until we get an LWRP review on it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: All right, moving right along. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number ten, 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 clean sand; and remove and replace existing retractable access stairs. Located: 9475 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. The application has been deemed to be consistent with the Town's LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the condition of the new bulkhead is constructed in place and best management engineering practice is used in question length and and tie rods. So that would be a point of discussion. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). The clerk informs me also there is a deficiency existing in the notification. One of the neighbors who was here happens to be Dave Bergen, he got his notice, but there is apparently at least two or neighbors that we have not gotten cards back. We didn't get notice on. So I guess we could discuss some of the issues surrounding maybe some of the concerns of the CAC but we are in a position we can't move on this. We'll have to table it. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I just kind of want to see a profile of it. I don't understand, I never heard of a cantilevered bulkhead. I don't know what I they mean by "cantilevered." I thought may have meant drive it straight down. That isn't cantilevered. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I thought maybe cantilevering refers to the profile of the materials. Is cantilevered. MR. MCGREEVEY: That's why in wording our concern was in place. Because I think that was brought up at our meeting that the new bulkhead be in place. I don't think that wording was on the application TRUSTEE KING: This is a unique situation here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you see on the plans, if it's cantilevering, I'm thinking of, did you see the actual tracks or Board of Trustees 44 May 16, 20'12 trundles or whatever you call it, of the bulkhead, are designed to meet exactly contacting the existing pile surface. So they'll cut the sheet and mate it so at each juncture where there is a pile in front of the existing bulkhead they'll be actually having the new sheet touching it so effectively the new bulkhead is probably within, I want say four or five or six inches at most within the existing structures, as close as you could place it. And the environmental benefits here, for a one shot, you know, this may probably be the last time they can maintain this bulkhead without an inkind/inplace replacement provided DEC is in accord, they'll be much less siltation of the waterway. It will just be a huge amount of disturbance. In any event, the reconstruction of this will involve some environmental impact, even with a silt boom and silt fence in the future. So it was a situation that, we are looking at is a unique construction situation which will avoid all those very detrimental environmental impacts, at least put them off for a time. Understanding that, yes, at some point when this bulkhead has its last life it would it major engineering feat that will involve a new bulkhead, the stabilization of the house structure. That was, I think the general feeling of the Board, if I'm -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's pretty accurate. TRUSTEE KING: We talked in general out in the field. It looks like the lifespan of this epoxy-coated steel will be a long time. Long time. Because I seen some of these regular steel bulkheads that are 40, 50 years old. So. If there is a problem with notifying neighbors, we'll have to table this until next month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point I'll make a motion to table this application pending proof of the service. We can reconsider it at a subsequent date. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstained). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm abstaining TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen abstains. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of ANTHONY CAI~PO requests a Wetland Permit to demolish the existing dwelling and replace in same general location, meeting flood zone regulations; existing septic system to be removed and new one installed further from the water and at a higher elevation with retaining walls; install drywells to control water run-off from the dwelling; construct alterations to existing shed; rebuild deck; reside building; and remove existing bath, utility use only. Located: 1165 Haywaters Rd., Cutchogue. MR. SCHWARTZ: Good evening. Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We are back basically with the same project that you saw back, that was approved back in August of 2009. A couple of minor things that changed, we did add a deck area, a slight wrap-around deck area. And there is an existing shed we would like to reside, reroof, new windows, that is an accessory Board of Trustees 45 May 16, 2012 building that was not part of the original application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we could backtrack a second. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent for a couple of reasons. One is the as-built shed doesn't comply with erosion hazard recommendations. The second is that the activities require enough fill that a storm water management plan should be prepared. I'm reading from the LWRP dated May 9. And that the non-disturbance buffer area be staked out prior to any construction. The CAC resolved to support this application. MR. SCHWARTZ: We could certainly stake out the non-disturbance buffer area prior to construction. I do understand that SWlP is kind of a new program, I have never done one, but we'll fill out the necessary application forms and submit them. Does that need to go to the Trustees prior to an approval from the Trustees? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I missed part of that. MR. SCHWARTZ: The storm water management plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe this is a new regulation, so it's new by us. I think you make an independent application through the town engineer for the storm management plan. We are not going to pass review on the storm water management plan. It's an independent function under the new regulations and we'll incorporate if there is any recommendations or if that's maybe, I think a standalone permit. But we don't do that Was there a mention, there was a question about the ZBA that Dave is researching. Dave I think is conferencing with the Town Attorney concerning the ZBA issue right now. MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question was for that shed, has there been approval given for that shed from the ZBA? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, it has, actually. I don't have a copy with me, I'll get a copy to you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what you are now asking for is the permitting in of that shed so you can do work on the shed. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, Mr. Campo did start doing work. They got a stop work order. We stopped immediately. We want to really replace what was there, inkind, with siding, deck, and for the ZBA approval we'll take out the half bath in there and the use is going to be just storage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see removal of the septic, so I figured the bathroom was coming out. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How big is -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: The shed itself is 14.3x14.3 square with a wood deck extending out beyond that. We just need to address Chapter 236 in whatever we do there with the shed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any further comment from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not a comment. I think it's a question. How do we meet inconsistency on this? It seems we have to get involved with replacement of the buffer. MR. SCHWARTZ: We have a hay bale line that shows the limits of clearing. That would pretty much be, I think the line of un-disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Could you show that hay bale line? Board of Trustees 46 May 16, 2012 MR. SCHWARTZ: (Indicating). I don't see one. I'm looking at the DEC approvals. I have to get you the proper site plan. This doesn't show it. But it's somewhere along these lines. You are right. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would be our concerns. MR. SCHWARTZ: All right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll probably have to table this. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other comment I would have with regard to 236, obviously it's all sand all around that small shed, so I don't think there is any need for any additional drainage structures to address 236 around that shed. I don't see the need for it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion we table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why are we tabling it? MR. SCHWARTZ: I can submit tomorrow a site plan that shows the hay bales. What I submitted doesn't show the hay bale line. So that's the concern. It was just a mistake. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could stipulate a hay bale line on a contour line on the survey there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess it's a question how you meet inconsistency without having a hay bale line, if there is a way to site it. MR. SCHWARTZ: I could show you, we have DEC approval for this project that does have a hay bale line on it. I could show you that, if that helps. So it wraps around here and along here. So the limit of non-disturbance would follow here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think storm water management is independent of us. I don't think, even though we may acknowledge it is all sand, I don't think it's our call. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is the DEC approval. Here is the hay bale line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It has to conform to 236, no? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's no trouble conforming. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question, Lori, that we have is no storm water management plan application is included in the packet. And so we are trying to see if it's the same as the previous application that has been missing an LWRP, we tabled that, do we have to table this because of that or can we address the storm water management on this property through the permit? MS. HULSE: You can address it through the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It just has to conform to Chapter 236, that's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a DEC permit that shows the hay bale line, so we can request additional copies of the plan that shows the hay bale line in compliance with the DEC permit and then we would have addressed the inconsistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does this make sense? MR. SCHWARTZ: I agree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought you would. Board of Trustees 47 May 16, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now, you'll have to help me craft this motion. I make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that that the hay bale line follows the DEC approved permit as per the submitted site plan, and that the project comply with the requirements of Chapter 236 of the Town Code, thereby addressing the inconsistency of the LWRP. And given the historical use of the shed, that we would also find that it is consistent under the LWRP. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: So we'll get a set of plans showing the hay bale line and everything else that is on this site plan. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Motion that we adjourn. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). ully submitted by, James F. King, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED AUG 2 4 2012 S uthold To,*,n Clerl