Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/14/2012 James F. King, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Michael J. Domino Town Hail Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, November 14, 2012 6:00 PM RECEIVED ~.' Town Clerk Present Were: Jim King, President Robed Ghosio, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSlON: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 5:30 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 22, 2012. TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our November meeting. Now that we have the hurricane behind us, I don't know if anybody here had any damage or not. But it was a very serious storm. And we are trying to do our best to get down on these permits, issues these permits and the other permits that are necessary for people to rebuild. We are just doing the best we can. That's all I can say. First order of business, we'll set the next field inspection for Wednesday, December 5th, at 8:00 in the morning. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 2 November 14, 2012 (ALL AYES). The next meeting will be Wednesday, December 12th, at 6:00, with our work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of August 22, 20127 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sec~ond. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 2012. A check for $5,981.07 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 19, 2012, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: TRUSTEE KING: They are listed as follows: Daniel & Jackie Bingham - SCTM# 116-6-24.1 George & Maria Yatrakis - SCTM# 51-1-14 McFarland Living Trust - SCTM# 111-14-17 Alison Byers- SCTM# 119-1-13.1 Dorinda Oliver - SCTM# 68-3-2 Patrick Scollard - SCTM# 123-10-3 Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins- SCTM# 23-1-6.1 Gardiner's Bay Homeowners Association - SCTM# 37-4-18 George Yatrakis -SCTM# 51-1-14 Forosich Family Irrevocable Trust - SCTM# 79-4-4.1 New Suffolk Waterfront Fund, Inc. - SCTM# 117-8-18 Sue K. Odell - SCTM# 86-7-3.1 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 3 November 14, 2012 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, JOHN GALLAGHER requests an Administrative Permit to install +/-100' of ~" PEX tubing underground from the house to the dock. Located: 700 & 730 Bayview Drive, East Marion. I understand there has been some questions about a right-of-way and it needs to get straightened out before he can do any work on this, before we can move on it. So Ill recommend we table this. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for clarification, I'm sorry, our court reporter is not here yet, so we just need to clarify things on the microphone. Who is the second on that? There were multiple voices. MS. CANTRELL: Bob. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Great. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: The rest of these, numbers two, three, four and five, are very simple, there are no controversies, so I'd like to lump all those together and approve them all at the same time. And I would make a motion to approve two, three, four and five, under Resolutions and Administrative Permits. They are listed as follows: Number two, WILLIAM C. GOGGINS, ESQ., requests and Administrative Permit to replace the wood fence on west side of property, outdoor shower and portion of southwest property adjacent to the fence that was damaged in the storm. Located: 1780 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. Number three, WILLIAM P. EDWARDS requests an Administrative Permit to remove approximately 66' of timber sheathing on existing retaining wall and replace with vinyl; where necessary, replace any 8" pilings, stringers, deadmen and tie-rods; remove and replace existing +/- 18' return at west end of retaining wall; and replace approximately 175 yards of sand fill lost when retaining wall was breached during Hurricane Sandy. Located: 1600 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Number four, SUSAN BURKE requests an Administrative Permit to replace the screens with windows to enclose the screened-in porch; repaidreplace 2nd story deck and railings with new composite wood; repair/replace outside rear deck, railings and stairs with composite wood; replacing foundation under porch. Located: 780 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. Number five, Robert O'Brien, P.E. on behalf of KIRK O'FERRALL requests an Administrative Permit to repair/replace the existing roofed-over porch attached to dwelling. Located: 11292 Main Road, East Marion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Under Applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, we'll taking number one out of it, separating it from the rest of the group. Number one is JAMES & MARK KING request the Final One Year Extension to Administrative Permit #7214A, as issued on December 16, 2009. Located: 200 & 220 East Mill Road,Mattituck. Board of Trustees 4 November 14, 2012 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE permit. TRUSTEE I'll make a motion to approve that, and we'll have to do a roll call on this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second the motion. GHOSIO: Trustee Domino? DOMINO: Aye. GHOSIO: Trustee Bredemeyer? BREDEMEYER: Aye. GHOSIO: Trustee Bergen? BERGEN: Aye. GHOSIO: Aye. Trustee King? KING: I abstain from this because I am involved with this application, with this GHOSIO: The resolution passes. TRUSTEE KING: Some of these applications for administrative amendments and so forth, we can lump together. Numbers two through eight. They are all very simple. Three of them are because of failing bulkheads and they'll go to from vinyl sheathing to steel sheathing. They are listed as follows: Number two, FRANK & JOANNE GUMPER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1194 from B. Loretta & Harvey D. Vom Lehn to Frank & Joanne Gumper, as issued on November 1, 1976. Located: 2400 Minnehaha Blvd., Southold. Number three, VIRGINIA A. STYPE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #311 from Vernon G. Strub to Virginia A. Stype, as issued on April 8, 1986. Located: 2000 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Number four, MARK SCHWARTZ requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #770 from Henry F. Praus to Mark Schwartz and Lauren Praus, as issued on March 5, 1973. Located: 375 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. Number five, EMANUEL MORAITIS requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #7901A to remove or cut down one dead cherry tree. Located: 40 The Strand, East Marion. Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of RYAN STORK requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7642 to use steel sheet sheathing versus the approved vinyl sheet sheathing on the bulkhead. Located: 3270 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of LUDIVOICA ROMANELLI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7482 to use steel sheet sheathing versus the approved vinyl sheet sheathing on the bulkhead. Located: 3204 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of LEON MUNIER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4226 to use steel sheet sheathing versus vinyl sheet sheathing on the bulkhead. Located: 4030 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. TRUSTEE KING: I would move to approve numbers two through eight. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and onto our public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Board of Trustees 5 November 14, 2012 AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: As we go through these public hearings, please step up to the microphone and identify yourself, if you have anything to say. And try and keep it brief, if possible, five minutes or less. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Under Amendments, number one Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DANIEL & JACKIE BINGHAM request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7712 to raise and construct renovations to dwelling on new timber piling foundation in order to meet FEMA regulations. Located: 50 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. This was a permitted renovation, I guess, from what I understand, FEMA is requiring that they bring the house up on pilings to get out of the flood plane. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. The LWRP coordinator deemed it to be consistent with the LWRP. And I think the only question we had when we went out and looked at it, was where is the house going to go temporarily while the pilings are being sunk? MR. SAMUELS: Hi, I'm Tom Samuels, on behalf of the Bingham's. The house will not be moved off of the foundation. In fact the Zoning Board of Appeals has refused to allow us to move it off the site. We can only lift it vertically and install helical screw piles underneath it and then put concrete caps on those and then a timber pile on top of that. So at great expense, the Bingham's are going to have to weave out to simply vertically raise it and do the pile foundation underneath it and then put it back down. So it will not be moved laterally in any way at all. It will just be up and down straight. TRUSTEE KING: How high does he have to raise that in order to do this? MR. SAMUELS: I mean, with the helical screw piles, you can add sections, so you don't have to lift it more than maybe ten feet above the ground. It's relatively simple, but very expensive. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would actually kind of like to see how they do that. MR. SAMUELS: Well, we'll let you know. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or any other questions from the Board? MR. SAMUELS: No, I'm here just to answer any questions. TRUSTEE GHOStO: It's pretty straightforward, really. MR. SAMUELS: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions from the rest of the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I entirely forgot the postponements. Page four, number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of GEORGE & MARIA YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 100' of 1 to 2 ton rock revetment; fill void area landward on revetment using materials excavated for construction; re-grade disturbed slope areas and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing and/or Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold, is postponed. On page five, number 11, Eh-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock Board of Trustees 6 November 14, 2012 equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'x95' fixed, elevated walkway, a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion, has been postponed. Page five, number 12, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of GEORGE YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate any disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment and access area; removal of existing grass from top of bluff to northern pool fence line, and re-vegetate with native plant species; construct a 4' wide access path to stairs consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base. Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. Number 13, 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 also been postponed. So we will not be addressing those tonight. And we now have Wayne Galante with us. He'll keep track of what everybody says. And we have Jack McGreevey with us. WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number three, under Wetland Permits, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of GARDINER'S BAY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new 4' wide x 57.3' long wood catwalk between existing wood walkway (bridge) and existing fixed dock; construct 70' of Iow sill bulkhead with a 24' return on north end and a 16' return on south end, backfill, re-grade, and re-vegetate area; construct 290 lineal feet of a two 16" diameter Coirlog retaining structure along erosion line, backfill, re-grade and re-vegetate area. Located: Fox Island in Spring Pond, East Marion. This is found consistent with the LWRP: The Conservation Advisory Council looked at it. I guess they had two members; one, Audrey Horton recommends safety feature for a wheelchair or scooter. And Doug Hardy inspected the property and supports the project. I don't understand the safety feature for a wheelchair. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would suspect based on what we saw when we were out there, it would not be ADA compliant. TRUSTEE KING: Is this open to the public? I think it's private, isn't it? So ADA doesn't apply, I don't believe. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's not open to the public. MS. HULSE: It doesn't apply. For the record, he said it's not open to the public. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody here to comment on this application, for or against it? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, Costello Marine, on behalf of. the applicant. This is a private association, there is no public through there at all. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have. It's a pretty simple application. TRUSTEE KING: We all looked at it. I think the Board, in my mind, thought it was a good project. Board of Trustees 7 November 14, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a copy of the survey? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's trying to protect the destruction of the wetlands and that little island. TRUSTEE KING: It will increase the wetland area here. MR. COSTELLO: The whole idea is to increase the wetlands area. That's why it's been diminished. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They did mention while we were out there, one of the representatives of the group was there and they mentioned maybe doing the project in stages; doing the bulkhead on the south side of the piling first, then doing the coirlogs later. MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure it will be a financial issue. They just want to remediate the situation as quickly as possible. The island is disappearing pretty much. Whether it will be in stages, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I think the first thing they should do is a Iow sill bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: And the coirlogs are a quick, easy thing. I hope they alleviate the situation. Because the erosion is coming from both sides. It's coming from both rain runoff and coming from the sea. So, it's supposed to be a soft way to do it without bulkheading the whole island. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else here to comment on this application? (No response). Board comments? (No response). I think we all -- we have no field notes on it, so there were no problems with it. No further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Barbara Schnitzler, Chairperson on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace +/-227 linear feet of failing bulkhead. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made. The Trustees did go out and looked at this application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. RIVARA: My name is Greg Rivara. I'm a board member along with Barbara. So I'm here representing the Board as an unpaid agent, we'll say. So I'm here to answer any questions. And I actually have a few questions when you are done asking. Board of Trustees 8 November 14, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Now, as I recall, several years ago, an application came before this Board for this bulkhead replacement. And it was approved. I think it was larger, what was approved then was larger than -- MR. RIVARA: Larger in scope. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Larger in scope than what is being applied for now. MR. RIVARA: And that permit expired. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And at that time what we had suggested and was included in that permit at that time was raising the bulkhead along the northern property line one foot to help reduce the opportunity of flooding into that area during abnormal high tides. And that was included in the last permit that is now expired. MR. RIVARA: Excuse me. This was the Capt. Marlin side? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Exactly. So my first question is would the applicant consider raising, again, raising the bulkhead one foot along that property line, the northern property line, again, to help protect the property from flooding during abnormal tides. Not tides like we had during Hurricane Sandy, because those were extremely abnormal. MR. RIVARA: I understand. One of my questions to the Board was going to be can we raise the whole thing maybe two to three feet. The whole thing. But I haven't talked to the DEC about this or the proposed contractor but I'm sure he won't mind getting sheets that are two feet longer and pilings that are two feet longer. And charging us a few dollars more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To raise that by two to three feet, um -- MR. RIVARA: Maybe not where the travel lift is, the old travel lift is. That's not even included in this at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What is included in this application is probably, I'm looking for -- TRUSTEE KING: The north side and east side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we have a ruler? MR. RIVARA: There is a floating dock, it's not there right now, thankfully, but a 60-foot long floating dock we use for transient dockage for people who want to visit. We are talking to that spot. You'll see the floating dock on the plans. And I might have highlighted it with a yellow highlighter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What you have highlighted is approximately 60-foot of bulkhead replacement along the northern side. So if we were to raise it two to three -- well, it doesn't matter, either two or three feet, you are going to have then a very, another continuing section going farther toward the west. In other words, toward First Street, between the marina and First Street, it will be a much lower level. So it's just something, I want to make sure you were aware of that. MR. RIVARA: I spoke with Barbara about that just last night. That water wilt find its way around that bulkhead from the south end where that preserve is now, where there is an osprey nest, and it was basically used for small boats. So the Captain Board of Trustees 9 November 14, 2012 Martin's side might be fine but water will find its way around back there if we have another Sandy. And we will have another Sandy. So for now, we don't have the money to go any further. But if we could go to the transient dock where the yellow is with something that is at least two feet high all around, and then we'll worry about that Iow sill bulkhead that goes from the transient dock to approximately where the steel "H" beam is that travel width used to ride on. Maybe we'll come back in a year or two when we have more money and build that up, too. There is two schools of thought on that. We want to keep it Iow, because if we have transient boats coming in, people can't step on a bulkhead at Iow tide that's six feet up. So we would have to get a ramp and a stairway. So we are thinking about maybe leaving that Iow. But we'll talk about that more as a board of Saturday. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Once this is moved back they can regrade this thing. MR. RIVARA: You know, we are planning to move that back quite a bit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that was my next question. My understanding is, I don't even know if it's been done yet, but there were preparations to actually pick the building up and move it landward. And again, my understanding is that the building is going to be relocated landward from its present location. Do you -- MR. RIVARA: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you know when you'll be coming in for a permit with the Trustees to do this? MR. RIVARA: I was away during Sandy, either fortunately or unfortunately, and I was told we got an emergency permit from the Board to do some demolition on a part of the Galley Ho that was destroyed, basically both sides, north and south ends of it. I don't know what else they got, honestly. You probably know more than I do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that we have it here in the file. ~ thought to stabilize, like you said, stabilize the building. MR. RIVARA: The dumpsters are full of concrete and timbers right now. The building has not been moved yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have been just informed, it was just to stabilize the building so, just so you understand, as the applicant, the applicant would now have to come in for a permit to move the building and place it on, I'm guessing a new foundation. That's up to you and the architects to figure out what type of foundation to be placed on. And then, you know, attached with that, building a new septic, moving the septic, et cetera. So we would be looking for an application from you for sometime in the future to do that in order to facilitate moving the building. And you would work with the Building Department on that, obviously, first. They should be your primary contact, and we would be the secondary contact for that. TRUSTEE KING: Could we amend this permit to include moving the building at a later date? Board of Trustees 10 November 14, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: But we would need a foundation built, the septic system built. It's not just moving the building. You have to put the building on something. There has to be a septic system associated with it. That's going to be -- the septic system will be disconnected when this happens and abandoned. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is the possibility that somebody would have something they would want to say about it. You know, I don't think it would be fair for us to do it without allowing the public to comment. TRUSTEE KING: I'm thinking at a later date, a full amendment still requires a public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know, I think I like separate. Because you'll deal with grade issues, elevations for sanitary, slopes to and from if they raise the bulkhead two feet. There will be environmental issues concerning how to handle runoff and pitch and drywells. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with raising the bulkhead two feet, though. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that sounds good. Now, again, the description is just to repair or replace the linear feet of failing bulkhead. What I would like to see included in this permit is fill, the ability for you to bring fill in, because 1 know during the hurricane you lost a tremendous amount of fill. So I would like to see the ability for fill to be brought in to support this new bulkhead that you are putting up. Because it would not make sense to put a new bulkhead in without fill behind it to support. It would then be subject to failure in another storm. MR. RIVARA: My second question to the Board is actually about fill. Our DEC permit allows for 125 cubic yards to be brought in. This was done before Sandy. So two questions. We want to probably bring in more than that. That's not the issue. The issue is most of the sand that was behind the bulkhead is now out in front. So you have boats that want to dock, you have literally, at Iow tide, no water. Is it a problem to take some of that soil from out front, when I say soil, I mean sand and stone, that has been leaking out of there for decades, and obviously was accelerated by Sandy just a few weeks ago. And while we'll have the contractor there, take a clamshell bucket and dig out just along the bulkhead, then bring in fill. Obviously we'll backfill and grade it and vegetate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't have a problem with that. I do have a question for legal. Given the fact that this was applied for and noticed as a bulkhead replacement and now we are talking about raising the bulkhead, incidental dredging in front of the bulkhead, increasing the amount of fill behind the bulkhead when there was no fill asked for in the application, can these adjustments be. made to this permit or do you feel that a whole new permit needs to be applied for and noticed to the public for the opportunity for public comment? In other words, is the project changing substantially to Board of Trustees 11 November 14, 2012 the point where it needs to be re-submitted? MS. HULSE: It seems to me it would be. You are talking about dredging, it's certainly not replacing or repairing. MR. RIVARA: I would argue it is replacing. We are replacing sand, just like we are replacing wood and sheathing, that was once to the west. MS. HULSE: It's just a question of legal notice. It's really net -- I mean we are not going to argue semantics, it's just what is required by notice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That could also provide you the opportunity to include in the permit request whatever you want to de with the building. The restaurant building itself. The Galley Ho. So if you look at it from that perspective it's also giving you the opportunity to package this all together in the one permit application that would be comprehensive of all the work you want to perform. MR. RIVARA: So what does that leave us for new, with this permit application in front of the Board tonight? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could, and I pose this to the Board, we could table this, okay, pending the submission of a more comprehensive permit application, or we could approve just the bulkhead with a two-foot, raising it by height by two feet. And that would all that we would be able to approve tonight. Everything would have to be done in a later -- I would also propose we put in sufficient fill to cover the lost fill from Sandy in this one also. Because I can't see doing this -- MR. RIVARA: Brought in from outside the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I can't see putting in a bulkhead without providing the opportunity to put in a sufficient amount of fill behind it to support that bulkhead. That's just me. I don't know how the Board feels about that. TRUSTEE KING: We'll, they have the go from DEC for 125 cubic yards MR. RIVARA: I'm not sure that would do, quite honestly. I haven't done the math. TRUSTEE KING: They can do 125, then they could come back with the rest of the application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could do that. MR. RIVARA: We want to get this done, obviously, this month. We have somebody ready to work. MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, a point of interest, on that application, I'm familiar with the property. I have been there quite a few times. Is there wording in the present application for new bulkheading in addition to replacing bulkheading that has been damaged? If I recall, on the south, on the south edge of the concrete apron that they use for, there is an apron there, and a piece of property. Is there wording in that application saying putting in new bulkhead along there, running east and west? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, that whole area is not included in this application, Jack. What they have highlighted goes Board of Trustees 12 November 14,2012 basically to the corner, just past the corner of the present Galley Ho. In other words, this application before us tonight does not include any work from, I'm going, looking at this, approximately the corner of the Galley Ho southerly to that concrete apron you are talking about. So it's not in the application, that whole area. Before I close the public hearing, was there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this application in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). I11 make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of New Suffolk Waterfront to repair or replace 227 linear feet of bulkheading as depicted on the plans stamped received by our office October 23, 2012, with the conditions that the bulkhead would be able to be raised up to two feet over present proposed elevation height, and that it will include 125, the ability of the applicant to bring in 125 cubic yards of fill to place behind that bulkhead. Clean fill, to be placed behind that bulkhead: That would be the motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we'll look forward to receiving an application for the moving of the Galley Ho and any other work you would like done, such as dredging. MR. RIVARA: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number five, Inter-Science Research Associates, Inc., on behalf of McFARLAND LIVlN6 TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the existing dock consisting of stairs 4'x9'; to a 3.3'x12.5' fixed catwalk; to a 5'x20' fixed dock in an "L" configuration; the dock is supported by various pilings ranging in sizes of 6", 8" and 9" diameter. Located: 1130 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. This site was visited by the Trustees. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not have an opportunity to make inspection so they therefore don't have a recommendation to forward to us. The LWRP had indicated concerns surrounding three primary issues. One was the existence of the dock without a permit, but I believe the Trustees in performing the field inspection determined this was a pre-existing structure that predated the Trustees' jurisdiction on this particular branch of Wunneweta Pond. Another concern of the LWRP was that the applicant had not proven that it did not exceed the one-third requirement across the creek. And actually the Trustees inspected specifically for that. And the scale rule indicates it is less than a third. And Board of Trustees 13 November 14, 2012 the third item, I believe, which I believe has been raised by the LWRP, was that meets construction standards, and I believe that the dock is generally in conformity with construction standards, and that the fixed construction, the Trustees view, I think we felt that that was a good opportunity here to keep the dock close in so it was not going to exceed the one-third requirement. The possible needs for flow-thru grate to allow for the marsh fringe, I'm not sure we discussed it at length, but that might be a remaining possible area to discuss concerning bringing the application into consistency. So that said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. POYER: Lisa Poyer, for Inter-Science, on behalf of the applicant. I'm here to answer any questions or concerns you may have. TRUSTEE KING: I would just suggest, Jay, if it's able to be re-built, use the open-grate. It's all there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's all there. And the fringe was healthy under the structure. Yes, the marsh fringe to marsh fringe on the 20-foot, excuse me, 20-feet to the inch scale, indicates almost 60 feet. And the structure barely goes beyond the marsh fringe of 14 or 15 feet. It's actually tucked in quite well. So I believe the concerns of the LWRP were met on field inspection by the Board. I think the Trustees have no additional comments on our field notes. I believe it's fairly straightforward. Any additional questions? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not hearing any additional concerns or questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the condition that future replacement of the decking in the intertidal zone be replaced with a flow-thru decking. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would bring it into consistency. All concerns have been addressed during the field inspection. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Raymond Nemschick, R.A. on behalf of ALISOFI BYERS requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 16'x21' frame building. Located: 10075 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. I went out and looked at this. This is a very, as described, a very simple project, which is simply removing a secondary accessory structure. It's on this piece of property Board of Trustees 14 November 14, 2012 approximately 52 feet landward of the top of the bluff. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NEMSCHICK: Ray Nemschick, Nemschick Silverman Architects. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, this seems like a very simple project. As a matter of fact, upon my review I think this qualifies as an Administrative Permit. So what I'll be recommending in my motion is to approve this as an Administrative Permit, with a refund of fees as appropriate. Are there any questions from anybody else in the audience related to this project? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board members? TRUSTEE KING: Is this on a foundation? MR. NEMSCHICK: No, there is no foundation. And, I mean, it's really just a shed, and it was never permitted to begin with. So the Building Department has been after us for a long time to move it. So Alison decided at this point she doesn't want to keep it anyway, so she said we'll just get rid of it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Alison Byers, amending it from a Wetland Permit to an Administrative Permit, and in doing so, request an appropriate refund of fees as per the Trustees fee schedule. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Ali in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of FOROSICH FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of an 18'x36' gunite in-ground swimming pool with associated patio, fence, and pool equipment area; replace the decking, railings and relocate stairs on existing deck; new entry on existing Bilco doors. Located: 1405 Anchor Lane, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Trustees upon field inspection on November 7th, noted a modification concerning a non-turf buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council did not inspect, so there is no comment on that regard. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no comments, are there any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, just a brief recap of the field inspections. It was raining cats and dogs when I went out to help with that inspection, and you could see the water sheeting down the yard, and it was down sloped, and we requested that the Board of Trustees 15 November 14, 2012 Creative Environmental Design put in a non-turf buffer at the down slope end of the property, which is immediately adjacent to the wetlands. And they had no problem, and they accommodated us with a revised plan to have a non-turf buffer there so it would absorb some of the runoff, particularly with the development of the pool, there are several trees that will have to be removed, and the likelihood of regrading and re-establishment of the lawn area. I just want to clarify that. TRUSTEE KING: I think they put that on the plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have new revised plans showing that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The revised plans were submitted November 9th, two days after inspection and shows the non-turf buffer line as requested by Trustee Bredemeyer. Hearing no further comments, I'll make motion to close this application hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With the addition of the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the revised plans, yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. Including the revised plans. So I make a motion to approve this application including the revised plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: The revised plans have been approved because they showed the non-turf buffer that was requested. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight En-Consuttants on behalf of DORINDA OLIVER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4' x +60' timber stairway with associated landings and access steps to provide pedestrian access down bluff to beach. Located: 1400 Salt Marsh Lane, Peconic. The Conservation Advisory Council inspected the property and found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommends the application be resubmitted after the bluff is stabilized. The LWRP coordinator finds this to be consistent with the LWRP. And the field notes do note that there is severe erosion on the west side of existing stairs and makes the recommendation that we use untreated lumber on the treads and platforms. Is there anybody here who would like to address the application? MR. HERMAN: Good evening. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Dorinda Oliver. Originally we did have a pretty simple application for a bluff stairway. It seemed that as a result of Sandy there were some spots on The Sound that actually gained beach and others where the bluff got more severely eroded. Unfortunately for Mrs. Oliver, this is one of the areas where Board of Trustees 16 November 14, 2012 the bluff got hit a little bit. What I have handed up and I had put in front of Jim is actually a revised plan from Jeff Butler which has been amended in a couple of ways; one in response to a request from the DEC and the other in response to the bluff erosion that did occur during Hurricane Sandy. The simple matter is the DEC had asked we show a three feet rather than two foot separation between the stairway and grade, so there was some structural adjustments made to the stairway that makes it a little different from the original project description. The length of the stairway has increased by two feet from 60 to 62 feet overall, from beginning to end. And the top platform was raised, and all of this was to achieve the raise in grade that was requested by DEC. The configuration of the top platform was modified to a 4x8 as opposed to three-and-a-half by nine. We had kind of a little bit of a wacky configuration originally because we were trying to keep to the quirky 32-square foot requirement in the code. Now it's a little simpler at 4x8. So that section looks like it made sense for this stairway. The posts at the bottom of the bluff are shown to be driven in deeper and to grade, and we have shown approximately four-hundred yards of fill to be placed back on the bluff to be re-nourished and planted with native vegetation. If you look at the photograph that was submitted with our original application, this bluff was actually not in terribly bad shape. Again, this was one of the areas that seemed to get a little hit, so it would be wise, obviously, to add re-nourishment material in order to build the stairway. So all of that is now included on this revised plan. Then I had gotten a call from Jim, who I think was going to suggest that we do just this. So hopefully that would meet with the concerns about the re-nourishment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments or questions from the Board? The revisions seem to make a lot of sense. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. The west side there had a lot of erosion problem with the storm. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Bringing the fill in will definitely be needed. Just out of curiosity, is there any thoughts of putting a bulkhead down there at some point? MR. HERMAN: I did speak with Mrs. Oliver in terms of what she might consider in terms of Iongterm stabilization, but her thinking is not quite there yet. Her goal was really to try to get the former stairway replaced, and now, of course, it's faced with the additional investment of trying to bring the bluff back to pre-storm condition. I think once she gets there and gets it revegetated, she may or may not consider whether she would then have to go to the next level of investment, in terms of terracing or some sort of toe stabilization. There are a couple of cottages immediately to the west there that are in trouble. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It looks that way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A question. I'm not picking out from the Board of Trustees 17 November 14, 2012 plans, the landings are proposed to be in the conventional lumber, non-toxic lumber or is it flow-thru? TRUSTEE KING: Down the bottom is a description. All handrails, treads and platforms are to be composite material. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it will be a flow-thru type. I'm thinking as far as the vegetation issues, it's high enough that it's not considered to be an issue -- MR. HERMAN: That, Jay, I think is what drives the DEC request to raise the stairway. I think once you are in that bluff condition where you have the narrowest part is three feet. The struggle with these designs is if you try to keep the top three feet, by the time you get to the bottom you are starting to get really high up. But even with that elevation it really doesn't seem to be a problem for the vegetation underneath it. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: No, in fact in one of the pictures from the original application shows the vegetation growing right up to the stairs, in this particular spot. MR. HERMAN: For elevated stairways that have been constructed in the past 20 years, I really have not seen too much problem with vegetation under stairways on the bluff. It's just so much sun exposure there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So three feet at the top is driving the rise on the stairs to meet building construction standards and that's how they end up being so tall at the base. MR. HERMAN: That's the struggle. Because I was speaking with Jeff Butler's office tonight and we were talking about, you know, if we get to a certain elevation and just pitch the stairs, but the problem is then you have a different rise and run, and they have to be designed to what the safety code dictates. And that creates the problems on these steeper bluffs. If the bluff starts to give way, you know, fall back at the bottom. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Did you give us revised plans? MR. HERMAN: I gave you one copy, which is not the official copy. If that seems acceptable to you then I would just send Liz three signed, sealed, stamped copies. The most recent revision, Dave, if you are looking for, is N~vember 9th. So I'll give you three copies of those at that point. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: Any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I11 make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the changes being made, extending it to 62 feet, raising the stairway, and that these changes will be made, will be noted on the revised plans that will be submitted, dated 11/9/12. And it will include fill to rebuild the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 18 November 14, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICK SCOLLARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 18 linear foot extension to existing vinyl bulkhead return to be armored at toe with 500 to 2,000 lb. stone rip-rap; and re-nourish/backfill scoured berm with approximately 5 to 10 cubic yards clean sand to be replanted with native vegetation (Cape American beach grass and Northern Bayberry). Located: 905 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council, Doug Hardy inspected the property and found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommends the application be submitted after the bluff is stabilized. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of er against this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of Pat Scollard. Jim and I had a chance to speak a couple of minutes about this one, too. The original application had called for an 18-feet extension of the easterly return where there had been what you would see in the photographs submitted with the application some marginal outflanking that was occurring around that return. During Hurricane Sandy, the storm surge came up right over the primary bulkhead and removed much of that naturally vegetated berm that Pat Scollard has been working on for the better part of the past 20 years, leaving a rather steep, exposed escarpment there. So similar to the prior application, what we would like to do here is amend our application to extend or lengthen the proposed 18-foot extension to a proposed 30-foot extension to try to seal that easterly corner as much as possible, and then to increase the backfill that would now have to cover much of the frontage behind that primary bulkhead to what I would say a conservative estimate of about 650 cubic yards of sand to rebuild that berm. The one advantage to this situation is there is a bulkhead there. There is a lawn and a house and it all stayed in place. Basically everything that was lost was that natural area that really did serve as a naturally protective resource at this site. The problem is now it is all gone. They may come back to you at some point with some potential modification to put perhaps a secondary retaining wall and work that into the re-establishment of that bluff behind the wall. But for now we would like to limit the application really to what we came in for, which is to extend the return, and now we would have to put in the re-nourishment material to restore what was lost during the storm. So I don't know if the Board would want to limit what I assume would be its approval of that plan or perhaps you could include some language that would allow for the potential construction of a secondary retaining structure pending receipt of modified plans, or if we could just do it discretely as one permit and then come back with a modification as necessary for the secondary structure. It's just happened too fast and too soon and too quick for them to propose right now. Board of Trustees 19 November 14, 2012 They are really just concerned about trying to get the material back out there before the rest of the winter storm season comes. Although, I mean, if we see a storm surge that high again in the future we are all in bigger trouble than this place. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be better to do a 30-foot extension on the return instead of the 18-foot. MR. HERMAN: I think so. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we do that tonight and you can always come in and amend this to include the retaining wall. Does that sound good? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Because I know he needs to think about that. He didn't want to say, yeah, just throw in some wall. You know Scollard and the neighbor Keith, they have been in front of the Board many times before. They take very meticulous care of the their waterfront. I think they want to give some thought as to how they want to do this. It's all work that is behind an existing, functional, legal bulkhead, so environmentally it will not really have a big -- however they do it, it will be more about protecting their house than really any wetland impact anyway. It will all be in a naturally vegetated buffer area, one way or the other. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? Board? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application with instead of 18-foot extension there will be a 30-foot extension to the return, and to allow fill to be brought in necessary to change the grade. And probably at a later date there will be an amendment to this into include a retaining wall behind the main bulkhead. That's my motion. And give us revised plans showing the 30-foot return. MR. HERMAN: And the fill material. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of SUE K. ODELL request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) existing 3' wide stairway and associated landings. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory Council inspected the property and found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommends the application be resubmitted after the bluff is stabilized. The Board did go out and looked at this application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants, and like the two applications before this one, there was some damage, although Board of Trustees 20 November 14, 2012 the damage here was, after having been driving around the north fork for four or five days, now seems almost negligible. But nonetheless, there is, and you can see it in the photos in the application, there is a retaining walt down at the bottom, an old concrete retaining wall behind the primary bulkhead which was replaced pursuant to a wetland permit a number of years ago, that has cracked, and a bunch of the fill basically got washed out. Not due to any damage of the bulkhead but just due to over topping of the wall. So what we would like to ask here, again, is to amend the application, basically to allow the inplace replacement of that retaining wall, although it would probably be with either timber or, you know, vinyl material as opposed to concrete, unless they figure out they can fix the concrete. That I don't think has been assessed yet. And then just bring in whatever sand fill would be necessary just to restore that embankment and the plantings. Because the way, the configuration of the stairway and the platform, I mean again, you coutd see it in this photo, really nestles in pretty nicely. I mean it's very heavily vegetated, vegetation is growing through, around and over the stairway. So our goal was really just to try to keep this exactly as it's always been, with as little disturbance as possible. But the storm changed that plan a little bit. And so we would just like to get that retaining wall replaced and re-nourished and revegetated to bring it back to what it looked like before. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify, on the plan it's listed as an existing concrete wall; is that correct? MR. HERMAN: Yes, that's how it appeared on the survey. And I have a blowup of the plan view at an inch to 20 scale on the first page. You could see a little more clearly. This was a stairway that the Board had earlier in the summer issued a letter allowing them to make some simple repairs to the steps that were needed for safety purposes, which were done. So now they would just be looking to make the full replacement of those steps. One other thing, um, if you look at the steps to the beach, which are noted as existing 3x4 steps, on the prior permit, on the bulkhead permit, a couple of those steps down there were in slightly different configurations on the plans than how they actually installed them. So the one thing I would like to ask on this permit is if the permit can just reflect, acknowledge in some way the existing beach steps in their current configuration. I think originally we had a little platform with the steps going the other way or something. Minor, but I figure we are here, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one item, Rob, that we did notice was the current size of the deck associated, or platform associated with stairs, is larger than the code-required 32-square feet. I believe on the survey it has it listed as 4X10 feet, so we'll ask that that be downsized to comply with code of 32-square feet. Board of Trustees 21 November 14, 2012 MR. HERMAN: I hope we are not going to have this conversation again. Isn't that for stairways associated with bluffs? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Platforms associated with stairways to the beach. MR. HERMAN: Well, again, I mean for this site, this is basically a reverse flag lot. The one use and enjoyment these folks have along the bay is that one platform to sit on. And on one side it's only four-feet wide, where the stairs come down. And on the other side it's seven feet, and the full ten feet is the width cross as the steps lead to the deck and the steps. It's really not much size to it. It's really the only place they have for this property to sit and enjoy it. Again, the whole way this thing is nestled into the little bank there, it sits very nicely and it works very well for them. So the only thing I could ask the Board is if you could possibly allow them to keep it the way it has historically existed here. To chop it off, I don't know how you would chop it. You would probably have to end up redesigning the stairs going down and then the stairs going down from there. And I think we are talking about probably a pretty negligible square footage. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually we measured it out there in the field and if you take approximately four feet off that one side of it, it would comply with code without changing the configuration of the stairs. TRUSTEE KING: It is still a little over code but it's much more, it's a lot closer. MR. HERMAN: Then there would be nowhere to sit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's, I'm sorry, but that is what code says. And so, I leave it up to my fellow Board members, but for myself. TRUSTEE KING: It comes out to about 7x7, if you take the four feet off. MR. HERMAN: I know that platform is critical to them, so I can't agree to that. I don't know where that leaves us, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We could either table or deny the application. If you would like us to table it so you could go back and talk to your client about that? MR. HERMAN: What is the Board going to do to deal with this code section? MS. HULSE: I don't think that's appropriate for this hearing. It's really not appropriate to discuss it in this forum. MR. HERMAN: When do you think it will be appropriate? MS. HULSE: Not during a public hearing. MR. HERMAN: This is a public hearing about this application. MS. HULSE: There has been other hearings before the Town Board, public hearings to discuss changes to 275. There will be proposed amendments to 111 being presented to the Town Board probably early next year and that would be where you would make those arguments. MR. HERMAN: Then I'll have to ask you to table the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, just so we could give you full feedback for your client. I don't have any problem with your request of Board of Trustees 22 November 14, 2012 the existing beach steps to remain in the current configuration, if none of the other Board members do. So that is not going to hold you up at all. Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't want to jump totally into design aspects, it's not a job of the Trustees. But it seems to me, too, 32-square feet arranged with landings can probably end up with built-in bench seats or other accommodations that would at least in the near term is something to think about for your client, or have discuss with them, that they still might be able to maintain some of those aspects that they may seek, until such time as maybe the Town Board is looking at code revisions more friendly to decks that are certainly not hurting vegetation, you know. MR. HERMAN: I think that's really my question. That's the only reason I ask the broader question. Because the Board has to be concerned with impacts. And you, for this site, there is a primary bulkhead and there is a bank that probably jumps about 16 feet in elevation. This is a narrow part of the property that provides the only waterfront use and enjoyment for this homeowner. So is the impact of this deck that is laid out as it has always been there, with vegetation growing completely around it, in the Board's mind, I mean outside of the code issue, do you actually perceive that allowing this deck to remain is going to have an impact different on wetlands, than if this were reconfigured in some way to be 32-square feet. MS. HULSE: That's an irrelevant question for them because they don't have the discretion to waive the code requirements. So their opinion might be their opinion, but they are required to apply the code as written. MR. HERMAN: I understand that. I'm asking a second question about impact so I could try to apply that information toward how we would reconfigure it. Because obviously the substance of this is still the substance. So is there a concern about the impact about the size of this deck compared to one that would be reduced to 32-square feet? MS. HULSE: Your question should not be that question. Are you asking them what configuration would be best in terms of protecting the vegetation that is there? I mean, your question -- MR. HERMAN: I'm asking a question that relates to the permit standards under 275 as it relates to wetland impact, and I'm just trying to determine if the Board feels there is a wetland impact. In other words, I have somebody I have to go back and explain this to, and so I'm just looking for a quick answer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the quick answer is the code says 32-square feet, so you could go back to your client with that. MR. HERMAN: And that's it, okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And also to go back to a little housekeeping for when you do come back, why don't you just include that concrete wall or retaining wall in the proposal. That way it will all be Board of Trustees 23 November 14, 2012 clean and hopefully easier. MR. HERMAN: Makes sense. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, Ill make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: If the Board has no further matters, can I ask you a general question relating to the storm damage permits? MS. HULSE: We have one other resolution. MR. HERMAN: My apologies. VII. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: MODIFICATION OF MOORING AND STAKE & PULLEY SYSTEM FEES EFFECTIVE FOR 2013 SEASON Stake & Pulley Systems: Vessels up to but no larger than 18' to be $150.00 per year. Moorings: Vessels up to 19' to be $200.00 per year. Vessels from 20' thru 27' to be $40Q00 per year. Vessels from 28' thru 35' to be $600.00 per year. Number seven, under resolutions, this is for a modification of mooring and stake and pulley system fees effective for the 2013 season. We've talked about this for quite a while. There is a waiting list for every creek for moorings, and some of the fees have been so reasonable that people have been abusing the system and they are just taking a mooring just to take up space. So we'll increase these mooring fees for vessels up to 19 feet, will be $200 per year; vessels for 20 feet through 27 feet, to be $400 per year; and vessels from 28 feet through 35 feet, which is the maximum size, 35 feet is the maximum, to be $600 per year. And the fees are usually due by January 1st, but this has been done late in the season. The hurricane held us up a little bit on getting this done sooner, so we'll have a grace period on making the payment until the 1st of March to give people time. Hopefully we could work something out with the Town Board with the extra fees will go into a dedicated fund the Trustees can use for water quality improvements and mooring studies and some more work in the creeks to get this mooring mess straightened out. And vessels up to 18 feet can be used on a stake and pulley and that will be 150 dollars per year. Do I have a second on that motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we have a discussion first? TRUSTEE KING: Any discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm uncomfortable with this for the following reasons. I'm not uncomfortable with adjusting the fees, increasing the fees for moorings and stake and pulley systems. I Board of Trustees 24 November 14, 2012 think you described very well what the conditions are. My concern is that while my understanding is legally we can go ahead and do this, raise the fees, by resolution, I feel this should be discussed with the Town Board in a work session. I think the public should have an opportunity to comment on this. Because this is quite an increase in fees over the present fee structure for moorings, stakes and pulleys. So I would like to table this until there is an opportunity for public comment, until we have can have a discussion with the Town Board, as you had alluded to, Jim, we would like to see the additional revenue that is generated from this to be dedicated toward some certain water quality projects. And I think we need the Town Board's assurance of that first before we can approve these rate increases. So I would like to see this tabled until we have a chance to meet with the Town Board and have a better chance for public comment. TRUSTEE KING: I did meet with the Town Board at the budget session and talked it over with them and I got support for this. MS. HULSE: Can I just pose one clarification, if you take out the word "for." It will be effective in the 2013 season and presumably after that. So it's not just for one year. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, I was not party to those conversations, Jim, so I believe you, I do. But I think I would like to see an assurance in a public session from the Town Board in total that they would dedicate this money in the direction that you described. And I would like to have an opportunity for public comment on this. That's all. I think we are moving very quickly on this. That's just my own feeling. ~' TRUSTEE KING: It's up to the rest of the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave makes a good point on public comment. mean we might presume that the public is always adverse to spending money, but if nothing else, to maybe to provide an opportunity for them to be heard. And again, approach maybe the Town Board as to, you know, maybe proportionally or, you know, what portion of the revenue they might anticipate could be put into the dedication. I'm just wondering what our legal, what Lori says about would we, could we set a hearing just to take information from the public? MS. HULSE: You can do that on any topic that you want to. It's not required to do this, by code. And like Jim said, I think he discussed this at the meeting that he had with Town Board was in public session, when this was discussed before the Town Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It has been discussed and I know it's been discussed for a number of years that fees increases also as a means of degree of fairness for those that have been holding permits and not using them, in a sense denying those that would want to have greater access to town waters, they are not able to do it. Where people just have a ball out there and they don't have boats on it, for whatever the reason. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't necessarily buy into the argument we Board of Trustees 25 November 14, 2012 need to have public hearings on this. I mean, you know, in the private sector, which I understand is different, but I mean Home Depot doesn't ask for my input when they raise the price on nails. And I think that, you know, we are elected officials and I think we are elected to make these kinds of decisions. This is not a referendum. This is just raising the fees on and trying to address a problem that we see out there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think a lot of us realize that it's a responsible way to deal with the problem. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I don't see the need for a public hearing on this, frankly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, what I'm looking for is public comment. It doesn't necessarily have to be in a hearing. At least posted and at least word get out there to give the public the opportunity, and if the public decides they don't have any comment on it, great, no problem. Like I said, I don't oppose the fee increase. I am just troubled by the process by which it is being implemented. I understand the rationale. I support the rationale. I support the fee increase, but just not do it by resolution tonight. That's all. TRUSTEE KING: Mike, what's your thoughts? TRUSTEE DOMINO: When I was campaigning, many people asked me to raise these fees because of the abuses that are involved. And I think that counsel's comment satisfied any concerns that t had. So I'm in favor of moving this resolution along. MS. HULSE: There is a motion on the table. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have a second yet? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? We'll take a roll call vote? Trustee Domino? TRUSTEE DE)MINE): Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nay. TRUSTEE KING: I vote aye. Bob Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: The vote passes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Rob? MR. HERMAN: Thank you, Bob. General question, you may not be able to answer it. I'm thinking about this deck issue in relation to 30 people that have hired me in the past week-and-a-half for the storm damage along Peconic Bay Boulevard, which is where most of it is occurred. 90% of the people that I'm meeting with have unpermitted structures prior to 1991 who will have to go through the full permit process, and I don't anticipate the Board having issues with the replacement of these bulkheads. I mean these are not standout bulkheads. These are thousands of feet of bulkheading or there is a vinyl bulkhead 100 feet that way and a vinyl bulkhead that way, they are standing just fine. It looked like maybe it rained. And then Board of Trustees 26 November 14, 2012 there is two or three properties in the middle that are just blown out, mostly because they were older walls. My question is. most of these properties have all sorts of things behind them: Decks, platforms, landings, stairways, gazebos, cabanas. Structures that have been there for 30, 40, 50, 60 years. Does the Board have any idea how it is going to deal with probably not even in December but come January, a situation that you are going to quite literally be overrun with, probably easily 100 applications in two months. Every single person will be standing here like this Odell application saying I have had this, never mind this deck, I have a 20x15 deck that has always been there. And I don't know if those situations are a little different. Because Dave always points out, well, I mean the whole Board does, but you are typically the first to point out that these landings associated with the stairways. Some of these things I don't know if you could define them that way. They are really accessory decks that sit in these flat areas right behind the bulkhead. And they are not integral to a stairway. In fact they are not even on the bank. They are down lower. So will it be that kind of thing where you'll look at these things on a case by case basis or will every single deck on every single property along Peconic Bay going to end up at 32 square feet? Because you'll have a mob with torches outside the door. TRUSTEE KING: I myself would look at each individual one, look at aerials of what is there, and will be reasonable with it. And Peconic Bay, all along there, it has a history of decks, beach, little beach hacks. Most of them have second retaining walls behind the primary bulkhead. I'm not out to change that. That's my feeling. I do think -- MR. HERMAN: I'm not trying to put you in a spot, I just have so many people asking me these questions. TRUSTEE KING: I think they need to go through the process for a permit. MR. HERMAN: That's basically what we are going to be dealing with. TRUSTEE KING: And I don't see any reason we would be overwhelmed. We'll just go at it. MR. HERMAN: Okay. Question going back to Odell, and I guess this would be a general question, too. What if they proposed -- MS. HULSE: Sorry, this really is not appropriate for a public discussion at this point. This decision has been made on this particular application and the hearing has been closed. MR. HERMAN: Can I pretend it's about a different -- Lori, I'm just trying to ask a question. MS. HULSE: It's not the appropriate forum. MR. HERMAN: Can I reopen the hearing so I can ask a thirty-second question? Come on, what are you breaking my chops for? MS. HULSE: I'm not breaking your chops to provide legal counsel. MR. HERMAN: There is nobody else at the public hearing with any comments, so Board of Trustees 27 November 14, 2012 MS. HULSE: That's not the point. This is on the record. It has to be done the proper way, Rob. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are ample opportunities for field inspection to meet with applicants and their consultants to discuss issues in the field or possibly deal with such things. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make a motion to we adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, JaYmes F. KinC:~g, r~esident Board of Trustees RECEIVED */~ wn Clerk