Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/12/2012 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 BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BOARD Of TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:00 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Bob Ghosio, Vice-President 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, January 16, 2013 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 to be canceled MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 19, 2012 and November 14, 2012. TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our December meeting. If you can't hear me, just raise your hand er say something. I mumble sometimes. Tonight we have Audrey Horton here from the Conservation Advisory Council, and we have Wayne Galante here taking notes for what everybody says. During the public hearing section if you have some testimony please come up to the microphone; again, identify yourself so he can get everything on the record. So we'll start with, we have the organizational meeting on the 2nd of January, 2013, at 5:30. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 2 December 12, 2012 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Next field inspection, Wednesday, January 16, at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting with will be Wednesday, January 23rd. We are going to start at four o'clock in the afternoon because it's probably going to be an extended meeting. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And there will be no worksession that day. Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of September 19th and November 14th? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November 2012. A check for $3,554.81 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 V Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 12, 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: Sue O'Dell - SCTM# 86-7-3.1 Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins - SCTM# 23-1-6.1 Lewis Topper & Margaret Savercool - SCTM# 123-6-13 Lewis Topper - SCTM# 123-6-12.4 Sandra D. Cubbon Makucewicz- SCTM# 123-8-6 John M. Scopaz - SCTM# 86-7-2.1 Terrance Sullivan - SCTM# 128-4-22.1&22.2 Robert & Susan Gatehouse - SCTM# 128-6-11 Laura A. Yantsos - SCTM# 53-6-11 Board of Trustees 3 December 12, 2012 Louis & Elizabeth Mastro - SCTM# 53-6-13.1 John R. Corbley - SCTM# 104-7-3 James & Janet D'Addario - SCTM# 126-5-6 Charles & Janice Bovino - SCTM# 119-1-6.1 Jonathan P. Wendell - SCTM# 65-1-20 Joseph A. Gebbia -SCTM# 127-3-6.4 Maureen Massa & Alan Schweitzer - SCTM# 52-2-23 Fishers Island Development Corporation - SCTM# 9-8-7 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, these are all pretty simple things. If there is not any controversy with them, they are straightforward, without any problems, we try and lump them all together to approve them to try to save time. So I'll make a motion to approve numbers one through ten because we didn't have any issues there. They are listed as follows: Number one, DIANE GREGORY requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit ~L3660 from James F. Murphy to Diane Gregory, as issued on June 29, 1988. Located: 735 Waterview Drive, Southold. Number two, Prudence Heston on behalf of WlCKHAM HOLDINGS LLC requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #208 from John Wickham to Wickham Holdings LLC, as issued on October 30, 1985. Located: Dyke along West Creek Between Cutchogue & New Suffolk. Number three, Eh-Consultants on behalf of MARGARET GANNON requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #7690 from Laurel Hill Limited Partnership to Margaret Gannon, as issued on November 16, 2011; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7690 to allow for the extension of the +/-12' southwesterly return to +/-42'; to place approximately 300 cubic yards clean fill to restore the storm eroded area to previously existing grades; and to reconstruct the previously existing +/-3'x29' wood walk; and to reconstruct the previously approved +/-73' linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, which had been damaged by Hurricane Sandy. Located: 350 MacDonalds Crossing, Laurel. Number four, NElL J. & ANN M. COOPER request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #1869 to repair the existing storm damaged dock which consists of 4' wide steps leading to a 4'x32' fixed dock with two proposed handrails, a 3'x15' ramp, and a 5'x16' floating dock. Located: 420 Oak Street, Cutchogue. Number five, KENNETH CHILDS requests an Administrative Amendment Wetland Permit #6429 to extend the existing westerly return an additional 60' landward due to storm damage. Located: 530 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel. Number six, DAVID BERGEN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7877 to install 3"x10" oak timber guards along the entire seaward face of the bulkhead. Located: 9525 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number seven, DEBORAH PENNEY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7643 to reduce the size of the non-turf buffer area from 20' wide to a 17' buffer; 5' of which is Board of Trustees 4 December 12, 2012 existing decking over sand and 12' to be untreated mulch. Located: 160 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck. Number eight, Shawn M. Barron, M.S. on behalf of KENNETH & ELIZABETH LeSTRANGE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit # 7256 to construct a two-story addition with a footprint of 277.44 square foot; construct a two-story addition with a footprint of 226.8 square foot; construct a 1,230 square foot second-story addition over the existing garage; construct a 54.6 square foot two-story addition; construct a 78 square foot covered porch; enclose the existing 187.2 square foot covered porch; construct new 11 'xl 3' entry steps; construct two (2) new raised planters adjacent to the entry steps; install a new sanitary system located 112' from the wetland boundary at its closest point; remove the existing wood steps and part of the wood walk on the south side of the dwelling and construct a +~-534.5 square foot deck addition with new steps to grade; install five (5) new drywells for roof runoff. Located: 960 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Number nine, JOSEPH BATTAGLIA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #64-3-3 to reduce the size of the existing damaged 8'x85' dock to 4'x70' with a 3'x15' seasonal ramp and a 6'x20' float; decking to be plastic timber reck, no treated lumber on decking. Located: Hobart Road, Southold. Number ten Garret A. Strang, Architect on behalf of PORT OF EGYPTIC&L REALTY INC., requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7770 to substitute for previously approved concrete sidewalks, steps and landings for wood constructed walkways, landings and ramps elevated to finished floor elevation and add stepped terracing of loose stone on filter cloth down to existing grade. Located: 62300 (AKA 61600) Main Road, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES with the exception Trustee Bergen abstains on number six). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to note for the record I'm aye one through five and seven through ten and I'm abstaining on number six. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off the regular hearing and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: Before we get into the public hearings, like I said before, please, if you have comments, come the microphone, identify yourself, and please try and keep it to five minutes or less. Sometimes people get carried away and keep going on and on and sometimes there is some controversy between opposing forces. So if you do have comments or have any problems, please address the Board and not each other, if you are arguing about something. Thank you. AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one, Land Use Ecological Services, Inc., on behalf of WILLIAM TURNBULL requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7551 & Coastal Erosion Permit Board of Trustees 5 December 12, 2012 #7551C to extend the west bulkhead return from 5' to 14' and for a 4' wide walkway connecting stairs to bulkhead with 11'x19.5" wide timber cap. Located: 54005 North Road, Southold. As I recall, this is a bulkhead that was built, had been permitted but it was, when it was built it was, the return ended up instead of being the permitted five foot they ended up building a 14-foot long return on the west side. And there were a couple of -- which we discovered when we went to do the compliance inspection. And now they have come in to amend it so it matches, I guess, what exactly has been built out there. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved -- no, this goes back to July. Back in July they resolved not to support the application based on the recommendation to the Board of Trustees back in May of 2011, which is the original application. And there is no LWRP on this. I guess it goes back to the original. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. TURNBULL: I'm William Turnbull. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, do you have anything you would like to say? MR. TURNBULL: No, not really. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: Okay, did I pretty much summarize what the story was? MR. TURNBULL: Well, it's been ten years now. 2013 would be ten years this process has been going on, and I sure would like to see it end. TRUSTEE KING: You started this ten years ago? MR. TURNBULL: We made our first application for permits and it went back and forth, back and forth. And we tried a one-story house, then a two-story house, then the hurricane came in and wiped out the bulkhead, wiped out the embankment, and we had to put up bulkheading. And then I guess I hired the wrong bulkheader or something and he put a platform there instead of a walkway. TRUSTEE KING: I think you have resolved everything with the DEC. MR. TURNBULL: Yes, everything is ail done. In fact I got the letter in the mail today. TRUSTEE KING: We kind of held off a little bit on this to see what they were going to do. MR. TURNBULL: I have it here. TRUSTEE KING: I have seen it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As far as the construction of the bulkhead, it seems all right, it was just in the wrong spot. TRUSTEE KING: The construction was fine, he just didn't build it according to the plans. And it's unfortunate. I think this is -- there are some other cases that are kind of to the point we should start going out and doing a site inspection as to when construction just begins, because if we did something like that, we would have picked that up. It's something for us all to consider, I think, in the future. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That and the engineering quality. It was not an issue on this particular bulkhead, seemingly, but others we have issues surrounding -- TRUSTEE KING: We have been talking a lot about the marine contractors being licensed in the town, and this is just one of the issues I think a licensing would be very helpful for us. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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: I'll make a motion to approve the application for the amendment as it was submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: Can we do a roll call vote on this? Board of Trustees 6 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. KING: Trustee Domino? DOMINO: Aye. KING: Trustee Bredemeyer? BREDEMEYER: Aye. KING: Trustee Bergen? BERGEN: Aye. KING: Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: I'm going to vote nay because I just would like to send the message when you build it wrong you should not get approved. But the motion carries. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Good point. (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE KING: But the motion carries, it's approved. MR. TURNBULL: Thank you. I just hope we don't have any more hurricanes so I don't have to come back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think everybody in this audience wishes the same thing. Except maybe dock builders and agents. TRUSTEE KING: They say there is never a wind that doesn't blow somebody some good. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one under Wetland and Coastal Erosion, 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. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the project. One member supported at least a 15-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. Another member inspected the property and found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommended the application be resubmitted after the bluff was stabilized. There is a letter in here also from a neighbor that supported it, and the letter is from November 8th. And there was a second letter after the storm with some concerns about the erosion around the stairway and how it, if any erosion will impact the adjoining properties. That's the main concern is the stairway, there has been some erosion around it after the storm. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant, just here to answer any questions you might have. You have seen it since the storm, I presume. There is no stabilizing the bluff. It's a sheer bluff now. The dynamic has changed a little bit, but the plan hasn't. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out and looked at it. It's a pretty straightforward rock revetment. Any suggestions of what we could do around the stairway to stabilize the area? MR. COSTELLO: We were going to add some posts to sister them up until the revetment goes in. They are not safe, but they are not going to do anything until the revetment is done, you know. Because they'll have, the bottom half will have to be removed anyway, so there is no point really in fixing it twice. TRUSTEE KING: Are you going to bring any fill in at the bluff where it's been eroded? Board of Trustees 7 December 12, 2012 MR. COSTELLO: Like I said, the dynamics have changed quite a bit. We'll have to bring in quite a bit of fill and perhaps tip the top edge of the bluff a little bit to decrease the angle. Like I said, there is no stabilizing that bluff at this point because it's a sheer cliff. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe you could submit new plans showing some of that. MR. COSTELLO: Well, it's just a matter of fill coming in. I don't want do hold up the process, because this guy is losing, you know. TRUSTEE KING: I don't want to hold up the process either. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any estimate how much fill you'll need to bring in? MR. COSTELLO: Every wave that hits it's going to change. I don't even give the customer an estimate on that. One more nor'easter or something like that and it will change astronomically. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This property has an outstanding violation on it, doesn't it? MR. COSTELLO: It's been resolved, I believe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we know that it's been resolved? TRUSTEE KING: That's coming up. This is separate from -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that this is separate from the issue that is up above. TRUSTEE KING: I was hoping Lori would be here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I just recommend if we are moving forward with this tonight that a condition that the permit would not be released until the violation is resolved with regard to the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And I think that's standard. TRUSTEE KING: That's fair. And everything will be done from the landward side? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. Predominantly. Just because of the massive amount of fill that has to come in. We were going to try to bring the rocks in by barge but now it's not really practical. Because we can't bring the fill in by barge. We can bring the rocks in. Primarily it will be done by land. I'll bring the excavators in by water and maybe some of the rocks. But primarily by land. TRUSTEE KING: A combination of both. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess fortunately he had wiped everything out up there so it's not a big deal now. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with the revetment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We prefer revetments now down the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: Where do you stand with DEC? MR. COSTELLO: I don't know. I don't have that file with me. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any comments on this? (No response). Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted. I know there will be some fill brought in probably down the road here. But we won't release the permit until this violation, the upper part of the property is taken care of. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 8 December 12, 2012 WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland Permits, number one 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. REVISED DESCRIPTION AS OF 1115112 To construct 118LF of 4ft wide fixed wood pile and timber pier including two ladders and two outhaul piles, all waterward of the apparent high water line; construct +/-11LF of 4ft wide wood deck, landward of the approximate high water line. This was reviewed and found to be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation can be made. This was a project that was reviewed back in August by the Trustees. We had some questions regarding the project as it was originally submitted because there was a field of eel grass out there. As a matter of fact we had somebody dive on the site while we were out there to identify the eel grass site. And so we asked the applicant to please go back, taking into consideration our findings and to possibly resubmit a new proposed structure that would take into consideration the protection of that eel grass bed. And that brings us up to present where we have a new set of plans that I have here dated received November 5, 2012, in front of me. And so that brings us to today. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. NIELSON: Keith Nielson, Docko Inc., on behalf of the applicant and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have but I would like to just go over where we stand now with the DEC since I did hear from them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. NIELSON: The project is 118 feet of fixed wood pier four-feet wide, a gradually descending profile to maintain approximately eight foot above the bottom sediments for its full length, until we reach the last 30 feet where it will be leveled at about five feet above mean Iow water. That's for boarding and boating access. The outer part, as you can see on my sketch here, originally when we surveyed the site, the dark green area here was the eel grass bed that was documented a year ago. The light green is the eel grass that was documented right after your visit in August. And so the modifications were presented to the DEC and the Cornell Extension for evaluation. A consensus was reached that if we maintain this eight foot of deck clearance above the sediments and use through-flow decking for the part of the pier that is over the eel grass, that they would find this acceptable. As of today, the memo went from the Marine Habitat Protection Bureau down to the regulatory permit group and with a recommendation to approve it as it is shown here. The one other issue that was raised in August was the possibility of transplanting eel grass from the deck profile over to a different area, and the DEC recommends against that. They would like to study the impact of this pier on the eel grass, and has recommended that the permittee every year for three years do that documentation and provide the results to the DEC. And I presume to other agencies as well. The application was further modified to include one rather wide slip on the south side of the pier out at the west end so that the boat would not stay in one location constantly when it's berthed at the slip. It would allow the boat to move back and forth and north and south to hopefully minimize the area of focus on any shading impact on the eel grass. I believe that's a fair representation of the changes and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My first question here for the Board, the DEC's recommendation that a study be made once per year every three years as to the sustainability of the eel grass bed is that something you think this Board also should consider as a condition on this permit? Board of Trustees 9 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: If they have already conditioned it, I don't think we have to. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We could just request a copy of the report. TRUSTEE KING: We could just get a copy of the survey. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who will be conducting the survey every year? MR. NIELSON: I would hope it would be the same gentleman from the Cornell Extension who did the survey this year. TRUSTEE KING: Chris Pickeral. MR. NIELSON: Yes. That way we have before and after and it would be objective and uniform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I think that's a good idea also to see if Chris could come out on our August trip each year, with tank in hand. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that would be worth it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think with this new plan as proposed, it's addressing the concerns that we had several months ago when this was first brought to our attention. Are there any other questions by any Board members for Mr. Nielson? (No response). Anybody else in the audience want to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, Ill 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 on Docko on behalf of Hiram Moody as per the revised plan description dated 1115112, with the request that we receive the annual report that is being done on the sustainability of the eel grass bed from the DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And note it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, J.MO. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of JOSEPH A. GEBBIA requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct in-place a 61'x24.6' barn. Located: 475 Condor Court, Laurel. The project has been deemed to be exempt under the LWRP as essentially being a repair inplace/inkind. The Conservation Advisory Council is resolved to support the application recommending a condition that commercial-grade gutters and leaders to drywells be implemented on the project. The Trustees inspected the site on December 5th and found rather remarkable wetland and entrance to the property, and a nice project to restore the barn. I don't believe the Board had any issues with the application other than having a control of roof runoff. And it was very straightforward. Anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Consulting, on behalf of Dr. Gebbia. I didn't read the introduction before, but the record should read Dr. Joseph Gebbia. I sent a letter to the Trustees. Dr. Dunn's name is on not on the deed. I just wanted to correct that for the record. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. The transmittal is here. Thank you, Mr. Just. The transmittal is here and for the record it would be, on the agenda it's listed strictly under Dr. Joseph Gebbia's, name. MR. JUST: Thank you. I don't think Dr. Gebbia has any objections to leaders and gutters. I don't think they have any problem with leaders and gutters. They are on vacation right now. I'll discuss it with them and if they agree to it Ill have the plans modified and resubmitted to you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any additional questions, concerns? Additional comments? Board of Trustees 10 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: No, just inplace replacement. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing none, I'll close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting it's an exempt action under LWRP, and with the condition that leaders and gutters to drywells be provided for the building. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three on the agenda, and I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your name, SANDRA D. CUBBON MAKUCEWICZ requests a Wetland Permit to replace the approximately 132' long retaining wall and backfill approximately 15' landward of existing bulkhead. Located: 1900 Park Avenue, Mattituck. The LWRP found this action to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this resolution with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the retaining wall. And removal of the sprinkler head system immediately behind the wall. The Trustees, in their examination, found this to be straightforward but noted the condition they submit plans to scale for decking, retaining wall and bulkhead, which I did not see in the folder. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MRS. MAKUCEWICZ: I'm Mrs. Makucewicz. First, there is no sprinkler system in the ground, so I don't know where that came from. And we are only doing the retaining walls right now and the backfill. There is a deck there. There is a bulkhead and there are stairs but we did not amend the permit request this time. If we do need to do that, we would resubmit and request permits for those other items. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a need for a non-turf buffer on the landward side of the top of the bluff? Because that whole bluff is actually non-turf. I don't think we have a picture showing it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It had a broad, vegetated bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's the top there, and it starts to slope. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee King, what would you like to see there? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is any need for a non-turf buffer on the lawn, on the top of the bluff landward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Up to the retaining wall seems vegetated. TRUSTEE KING: The bluff itself is vegetated pretty good. The question is the area between the retaining wall and the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do you plan for behind the retaining wall? MR. MAKUCEWICZ: Basically whatever grows, whatever is supposed to be there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We suggest American beach grass. MR. MAKUCEWICZ: We had grass. It was taking over pretty good, then it just wiped it all out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any further questions or comments from the Board?. TRUSTEE KING: I would just let that bank naturally vegetate with native species. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 11 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application noting that it is consistent with LWRP, subject to submission of scaled plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Valerie Scopaz on behalf of JOHN M. SCOPAZ requests a Wetland Permit to backfill with +/-200 cubic yards clean fill to restore the undermined embankment and re-vegetate disturbed area; installation of a proposed retaining wall approximately 75' in length with two (2) angled returns approximately 5'-7' in length; to reconstruct the existing stairs with associated platforms in-place from top of bank to beach; and for ordinary maintenance & repairs to the existing bulkhead. Located: 6300 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The Board was out there to look at this and some of the notes were whether or not we were looking to find out if the existing bulkhead was permitted; something about the cesspool, and also adding a splash pad. The Conservation Advisory Council was out there and they decided to support the application with the condition that appropriate construction materials are used. And the LWRP finds this to be consistent with the LWRP. Is there anybody here who would like to address the application? MS. SKOPAZ: My name is Valerie Skopaz and I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was some old cast iron in front that seemed to be exposed. Is that from a long-since abandoned sanitary or just construction debris? MS. SKOPAZ: There was a prior residence on the property. As you may well know, the studio next door was part of the artist's center studio and at some point in time after the artist passed away, the subsequent property owner subdivided the two lots and John Skopaz's house, what was there before was another house. After the storm we discovered what you discovered, it's like what is this. Apparently during construction, they chucked it over whatever. So that will all be removed before any work will be done. That is part of the bid to remove all of that rubble and get it out of there because it doesn't belong there. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: There is quite a bit of damage there from the storm. Any thoughts to adding a splash pad behind the bulkhead? MS. SKOPAZ: The existing bulkhead or proposed retaining wall? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think the existing bulkhead. MS. SKOPAZ: Could you define what you mean by a splash pad? TRUSTEE KING: It's usually fairly heavy surge stone. It's like a 25-50 pound stone. We have seen it used quite a bit on The Sound for the nor'easters. It stops the overwashing of the bulkhead from getting eroded. MS. SKOPAZ: So you are saying directly behind the existing bulkhead? TRUSTEE KING: It's something to think about. Everybody is gun shy now with the severe storm that we had. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It helps keep the scouring so you might not lose the retaining wall next time. MS. SKOPAZ: Right. Well, we'll certainly look at it. At the present time they are hoping that the multi-flora rosa that is there behind the bulkhead, which did an extraordinary job holding on to the sand, comes back. We are hoping that it comes back. If not, we'll -- TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So you plan on doing some revegetating there? MS. SKOPAZ: Well, what had been there, I thought it was rosa rugosa. It turned out it was multi-flora rosa, a combination of that and rosa rugosa. And we would like to stick with that. It's indigenous, it's salt tolerant and -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it looks nice. MS. SKOPAZ: It looks fabulous. Low maintenance, mean, you couldn't ask for better cover, and it looks great. So that's the idea. Board of Trustees 12 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). It's straightforward in answering the questions. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. SKOPAZ: If I may say one thing, I just want to acknowledge your staff. Elizabeth and Amanda were extraordinary examples of grace under fire the week after the storm. I was in that office many times. As you know, I have been in government a long time and it is not always easy dealing with frantic phone calls. I was quite impressed by both of them and I think you should be very proud to have them on your staff. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, we appreciate that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. I agree. I think the public knows, could imagine, we were inundated with calls, people in person and understandably people very upset, angry, you know, exhibiting all the emotions in the world. And it was very tough for everybody in the office. So thank you, very much. MS. SKOPAZ: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KING: Number five, ROBERT & SUSAN GATEHOUSE request a Wetland Permit to replace the existing +/- 148' lower storm damaged bulkhead and construct it 18" higher than original to match height of neighbors with a +/-12' return using vinyl sheathing; replace the existing +/-148' upper storm damaged retaining wall and construct it 12" higher than original to match height of neighbors with a +/-15' return using vinyl sheathing; construct new +/-180 square feet of decking destroyed by the storm; construct upper and lower beach stairs destroyed by the storm; fill with approximately 500 cubic yards of clean fill and restore a 10' wide non-turf buffer between the bulkhead and the retaining wall; replant with native sea grass. Located: 2870 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf vegetated buffer landward of the retaining wall. Asks to consider a steel bulkhead rather than vinyl. As you can see, there was extensive damage. A lot of places along Peconic Bay Boulevard really got beat up. I think this is pretty straightforward repairs. How do you feel about that non-turf buffer? I don't think it would be a bad idea behind this one. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On the other side of the retaining wall, land side of the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it looks like -- is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. GATEHOUSE: Bob Gatehouse, I'm the applicant/homeowner. Basically it's to replace the existing bulkheads which have been there since the '40s. The reason for the easterly portion to be so washed away is around 20 years ago when the bulkhead was replaced last time, our neighbors didn't put a return in. Actually, the marine contractor who did it, didn't put any return in, on either side. If he had put a return in we would not have lost the upper. That's why we are putting a return in now. TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes when you have the adjoining bulkheads, it's really not necessary, but in this instance -- MR. GATEHOUSE: We are doing it this time. No matter what our neighbors do, we are doing it. Board of Trustees 13 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: I don't blame you. Like I said before, this was a very severe storm. I have been here a while and I have never seen this much damage. Anybody else? Any other comments? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Wasn't there a new bulkhead behind it? TRUSTEE KING: We recommended a ten-foot non-turf buffer ourselves on the field notes. That's a good idea behind the retaining wall. MR. GATEHOUSE: Behind the retaining wall. So we'll have the buffer between the retaining wall and the bulkhead? There is a buffer there also, which we planned. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a good idea to have a ten-foot behind the retaining wall also. MR. GATEHOUSE: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other recommendation that I would make is, again, I think you heard it with the last application, to put a filter cloth and possibly a splash pad down there between your bulkhead and retaining wall. Again, what we have learned from this storm, just like everybody probably sitting in this audience has learned from this storm, with a filter cloth down there, it really helps when wave action stads coming over the bulkhead and starts scouring out, the filter cloth does help with retaining the fill or any other material that is there, and might help prevent the failure of the structure. So I just strongly recommend to this applicant as well as anybody else who is thinking of doing a bulkhead is to put filter cloth, at the very least, at least a foot below, in this case you have sand, or the possibility of installing rocks also. It's really a benefit of everybody to do that. TRUSTEE KING: It's very inexpensive. It's not a costly item at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The filter cloth is very inexpensive. MR. GATEHOUSE: That had been mentioned, but the question was would you approve putting the stones in. I guess we were told it had to be clean sand fill in back of the bulkhead. I mean, that's fine, I'm not opposed to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't want to speak on behalf of the Board, but myself I have no problems with stone going in thero. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely. We allow it all the time. TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact we recommended it in some areas where they have problems where they are getting overwashed and eroded. Especially on the Sound and Hashamomuck area. And they work. They work. Any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. GATEHOUSE: And I would like to reiterate the last lady's feelings. Your staff is great. They helped two ignorant people. And we drove them crazy. TRUSTEE KING: The sad part is we don't hear from a lot of people that aro happy. It's the people that are unhappy that complain. And it's too bad. So we really appreciate those comments. Thank you, very much. MS. CANTRELL: Me especially, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, LAURA A. YANTSOS requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing approximately 52' long storm damaged bulkhead using vinyl sheathing; construct a Board of Trustees 14 December 12, 2012 minimum of a 13'- 15' return on the south side and a minimum of a 8'-10' return on the north side; replace existing stairs to beach damaged by the storm; and backfill with approximately 95 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 3455 Bayshore Road, Greenport. MS. YANTSOS: Laura Yantsos, applicant and owner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. This was reviewed under the LWRP with a recommendation that the consideration of the installation of pervious filter cloth landward of the bulkhead. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and the CAC supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And that the applicant consider aligning the bulkhead with the neighboring bulkhead to provide a more durable protective measure to the shoreline. MS. YANTSOS: Yes, as a matter of fact the contractor just told me that today, that is what we should do. He also said I don't need any returns. But I was just listening to that gentleman over there and I was going to withdraw my question that I had about those returns. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, you can certainly do that, or if you like, you can retain the returns in your application, then if you choose not to put them in. MS. YANTSOS: Do I have that flexibility with regard to those returns? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a consideration, obviously, you want to talk to your marine contractor, if the age and condition of neighboring bulkheads might have them aging out or subject to storm or wave action that might undermine the lateral support of your new structure, it may be advisable to keep the returns in your plans for construction. That's where you want to get the advice of a competent marine contractor. MS. YANTSOS: I have gotten a little contradictory advice, but most of them are saying I don't need that return if it's braced with the adjoining bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, what you are counting on then is that your neighbors will maintain that adjoining bulkhead and that adjoining bulkhead will not fail. MS. YANTSOS: Well, that one is a brand new one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I'm just trying to give you all your options here. That's all. MS. YANTSOS: Do I have that flexibility, though? Because I really don't, I'm a little confused at the moment, because the first contractor I talked to, we just talked about the returns and the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You have the option. That's what I'm saying. If we leave them in the plans here, it gives you the option. You are not required to put them in. But that gives you the option to construct them if in the opinion, based on information you receive from contractors, you want to go ahead forward with those returns. It's just the last thing we want to see happen is you take them out and then later on discover you need them, have to come back to us again to amend the permit, you know. We are trying to avoid that for you. MS. YANTSOS: Right, I see. Okay. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, we had a recommendation that corresponded with the recommendation from the Conservation Advisory Council for a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind this bulkhead. MS. YANTSOS: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, just like you heard me talk about with the last applicant, we strongly recommend your consideration of the use of a cloth behind that bulkhead, use filter cloth down below your non-turf buffer that will help maintain in the event of another storm. It will help maintain the material that is in there and not have it wash out. It's just a recommendation we are making. MS. YANTSOS: A filter cloth. Will the contractor know what that means? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Anybody else in the audience have any comments regarding this application? (No response). Board of Trustees 15 December 12, 2012 Any other comment from the Board? MR. SMITH: My name is Thornton Smith. I'm a resident of Peconic Landing and probably will speak later on another application. I'm a retired professional engineer in New York, still qualified in three other jurisdictions. And I have a problem with returns, on one other application here, and I urge you to put in the returns. If you don't have the returns in and even 40 years later the other guy's new bulkhead may go, if you don't have a return in, you are going to have a condition like this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from the audience? (No response). If not, I'll 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 Laura Yantsos with the condition of the inclusion of a ten-foot non-turf buffer immediately landward of the bulkhead. And this was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I just picked up here, I apologize. We had one postponement, number 19, at the end of the night here. We won't be addressing that one. And number 18 also. Sorry. They read as follows: Number 18, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 9'x131' timber fixed dock and 26 support piles; and to construct a 5'x76' timber fixed dock supported by 12 piles, a 4'x20' ramp with railings, and an 8'x40' float secured by 4 piles. Located: Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island, has been postponed. And number 19, Eh-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, has been postponed. We won't be addressing those. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, LOUIS & ELIZABETH MASTRO requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing approximately 105' long storm damaged bulkhead using vinyl sheathing; construct two (2) returns each a minimum of 12' in length; replace existing stairs to beach damaged by the storm; and backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean fill; and for the existing split-rail fence, existing stockade fence, existing dwelling with screened porch, existing brick patio, existing covered steps and existing bilco doors. Located: 3505 Bayshore Road, Greenport. The application is deemed consistent with the LWRP. The program coordinator did queue the Board to the possibility of the use of filter cloth and splash pad. I think there is a theme developing here. And the Board did discuss it briefly in the field. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. They are recommending a ten-foot non-turf buffer, which is also the recommendation the Trustees made based on their field inspection. The CAC felt that you should consider a drainage plan for the dwelling and they are recommending aligning the bulkhead with the neighboring bulkhead to provide a more durable protection measure to the shoreline. I'm not entirely sure, I think the bulkhead in this case was in a bit from the one neighbor. MR. MASTRO: I'm not understanding what you are saying. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council I guess was requesting considering moving the bulkhead out seaward from the existing location. MR. MASTRO: Toward the water? My bulkhead? Board of Trustees 16 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To match the neighboring bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that's a great idea. MR. MASTRO: I don't think we are going to do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was their recommendation, but I think it would fail. The DEC would probably have problems with that. MR. MASTRO: I would like to leave it in the existing spot and I like it the way it is. I'm a little protected in there. I know the bulkhead is old and was in tact before the storm, and after the storm, as you could see, it did a little more damage. But everything is actually in its place, so. I'm not moving anything. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this project? (No response). Or against this project? (No response). The Trustees felt it was very straightforward. It's very much keeping with what we have -- MR. MASTRO: Exactly, that's what we want to do, to replace what is damaged. We are not asking to go forward or backward. Just stay in place. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The recommendation for the construction of the filter cloth and splash pad, that can serve also as part of the non-turf buffer requirement that usually accompanies these approvals, so your splash pad could be the entirety of the non-turf buffer. It could also include vegetative materials also. I think that's a discussion you might want to have with your contractors. There is a pretty considerable wave fetch coming essentially from Orient Harbor right through Greenport past the breaking waters, so you might want to consider stone splash pad over filter cloth. MR. MASTRO: We never had a problem. I'm there over the past ten years. The water actually never even reaches the bulkhead. Even the nor'easters. I'm really very well protected, better than my neighbors, being further back. So this storm actually just did the damage. Because we had actually little cracks inside the tongue and groove. But it was not even tongue and groove. It was just board pieces together in front to look like tongue and groove. That's the way it was constructed many years ago. But I think if it was in better condition, I think it would have stood still. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 requirement for a ten-foot non-turf buffer and the recommendation for the incorporation of a filter fabric and splash pad. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, JOHN R. CORBLEY requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing house from 6.5' first floor height to approximately 10' first floor height; raise the existing second floor in order to build a new frame construction first floor and lower the existing second floor onto new first floor; no change in house footprint or footings, and no excavation or fill will be required. Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to suppod this application. The folder includes a permit from the permit number Board of Trustees 17 December 12, 2012 1-4738-03672/00005 from the DEC. And our field inspection, the Trustees found this to be okay as submitted. And fairly straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CORBLEY: John Corbley, homeowner. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments? MR. CORBLEY: I would like just like to protect my home from the next storm. That's all. I had a foot of water in the house and I would hate to rebuild the first floor and not think ahead for the future, so. It's on a slab with sleepers and basically going to go to a more traditional floor framing with a crawl space, about two-and-a-half foot crawl space. And just jack the house up and set it back down on a higher foundation. And no excavation or fill or anything like that will take place. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I have no issue with it at all. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of LEWIS TOPPER & MARGARET SAVERCOOL requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 55 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and up to 18" higher than) existing storm damaged timber bulkhead; construct a +/-10' easterly return; and backfill bulkhead and storm eroded area with approximately 100 cubic yards clean sand/loam fill, with existing stone armor and covenanted 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of bulkhead to remain upon completion of the bulkhead reconstruction. Located: 120 Terry Path, Mattituck. The Board was out there and we didn't really find anything too objectionable. It's pretty straightforward. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The owner should consider replacing existing timber bulkhead using steel rather than a vinyl bulkhead. LWRP finds this to be consistent. Although, like the other ones, is recommending a filter cloth and a splash pad behind the bulkhead. And that's it. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The buffer mentioned is included in the plans and application as that was a previously covenanted buffer from a prior action application. Other than that, it's as you described, pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). It's a straightforward replacement. (No response). Hearing none, 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. Board of Trustees 18 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of LEWIS TOPPER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-74' Iow-profile vinyl groin in place of existing +/-78' timber groin; construct approximately 90 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and up to 18" higher than) existing storm damaged timber bulkhead; construct a +/-10' westerly return; reconstruct +/-3'x23' wood walk and +/-3'x6' steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards clean sand/loam fill, with existing stone armor and previously permitted 7' wide non-turf buffer landward of bulkhead to remain upon completion of the bulkhead reconstruction. Located: 3605 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Even though this is a different address than the previous application, they are right next door to each other. MR. HERMAN: It's all part of the same structure, same project. TRUSTEE KING: It was found consistent with the LWRP and consider requiring splash pad and filter cloth landward of the bulkhead. The CAC supports the application with the following recommendations: The house is lifted on pilings, the bulkhead is constructed using steel rather than vinyl, and the groin is Iow profile and extends no further than mean Iow water. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. As Jim noted, this is the adjacent parcel to that which was the subject of the prior hearing. It is all to be constructed as one continuous project, although this part of the project for this address, including the groin, is for the most part a replication of a prior Trustee permit. There is no urgency to deal with the groin but the groin replacement had been previously permitted by the Board as it's drawn. So we wanted to include that since we have to go through the full permit process anyway. Also, in the prior permit there was a seven-foot non-turf buffer which we have shown on the plan. At the time the Board had allowed it to go a few feet less than ten feet just because of the proximity of the house, and the bulkhead. With the exception of the fact we are raising the wall and the fact that we'll need more backfill than usual, as you can see in that photo, to renourish the storm eroded area, it is basically we are seeking to reactivate the prior Trustee permit. TRUSTEE KING: Did water get in that house, Rob, do you know? I think it was close. MR. HERMAN: I don't think so. It took some of the concrete patio off the corner of it but didn't get into the first floor. But it was close enough that Lou was at the house and I think the first person who called me. I don't think the storm had barely passed and he was already calling. Because he had it in his mind to get this done previously, and things just got a lot worse, obviously, so. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else, any other comments from the audience? Yes, sir? MR. SMITH: My name, again, is Thornton Smith. I'm a resident of Peconic Landing and a registered engineer in New York and several other states and one province in Canada. I have been a resident on this beach area since 1932 and have seen the results of the 1938 incident here and also the results of this one. I have two suggestions that I think might be helpful. The first is that just east of the second site -- this site is east of the first one -- is a vacant house which is expected to be torn down and reconditioned, currently owned by Eugene Dinari (sic). And it's got a bulkhead that is as bad as this one, that will have to be replaced. Further east of that are 270 feet of well-constructed bulkhead. I constructed half of it myself. And it has existed through the storms since 1938. And with returns, I might add, and is in good shape now. I suspect that what would help here would be if the elevation of the new bulkhead should be sited to be at the same height as the 270 feet of bulkhead which is, again, just shortly to the east. In that event, when Mr. Dinari puts in his bulkhead, he'll have matching elevation on both sides Board of Trustees 19 December 12, 2012 and we would have in the area about close to five-hundred feet of bulkhead that would all be at about the same elevation. The only other suggestion I would like to make has to do with the groin, which is on this particular site as opposed to the other one. I'm not sure what your experience has been in groins but I watched this beach for a long period of time. And the groins that are put about six to eight inches above the existing final grade that you would like and are slanted down into the water, which allows for the sand to just get over the, and the water, just get over the groin and then drop its sand on one side or the other, those groins look very well and they do a very good job of maintaining the beach. When you get a groin which is higher, particularly this one, that is higher at Iow tide, above the water, in my experience on that beach they are not as effective in maintaining the beach. We have to the east of this particular groin you are looking at, two or three groins, one of which is on my sister's property, next door to mine, that adhere to the beach and are esthetically attractive, and I think help to control, to maintain, the beach. Incidentally, I'm not the owner of the property now but I'm the agent for the family. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. May I ask you one question, how do you think that this storm compared to the '38 hurricane? Do you think it was as bad? MR. SMITH: I was kind of young in '38. TRUSTEE KING: It was before my time, that's why I'm asking. MR. SMITH: They are about equal. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Mr. Smith's comments are well received. They are actually consistent with our plans. In his initials comments I think he may have been mixing the properties. The application prior was actually the one that is adjacent to Dinari. This one is to the west, one more to the west and just east of the road end. In the application, which is one difference that I alluded to from the original permit, as we are proposing to raise the elevation a foot-and-a-half to match the elevation of that bulkhead. I was actually surprised, Mr. Dinari, I mean, I met him out there. I think he has other stuff going on at the property. But that bulkhead does need to be replaced, which is why we do show a proposed return on that mutually shared property line with Dinari on the prior application. We also show a proposed return on the west side of this piece by the road end. So it will be raised, as he mentioned. The returns will be added, as he mentioned. And the groin is about as described. Again, this is a groin we worked on with the Board together, it shows to be about a foot higher at the beach max, both at the beginning and end, it was cut back a few several feet. So I would say it's all consistent with the comments and with the prior discussion. MR. SMITH: One other reason for the fact that my existing bulkhead, which has been in there 30 or 40 years now, survived, is it's right very near where the fellow is taking the picture here. My existing bulkhead has a return and the return saved my house from looking something like that. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). MR. HERMAN: Thank you, sir. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'd like to make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 20 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 11, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock 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. This property was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council in November. It was inspected and the project was not staked. And Doug Hardy inspected the property and supports the project. Just to clarify, this had come before us the month before. It had not been staked, so we asked for it to be staked, and it was staked for our visit this month. It was reviewed under the LWRP and the LWRP found it to be inconsistent. And if you'll bear with me, I'll go through this rather lengthy -- I'll summarize this very lengthy report from the LWRP. Found it inconsistent under 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Noting the Dam Pond -- the location of this dock by the way is in Dam Pond -- Dam Pond is a New York State Environmental Conservation Critical Environmental area and a New York State significant fish and wildlife habitat area. So under general conditions, there is denial for certain operations that could be a threat to human health, to a natural setting, to agriculture, social, cultural, historic, archeological, recreational, educational values are inherent, ecological, hydrological sensitivity to change that might be affected by any change. And again, he's noting this is in Dam Pond. Also inconsistent under Docks. Docks is listed in a significant fish and wildlife habitat area. Not recommended under LWRP. There is then a lengthy narrative as to why this is, Dam Pond is included as a significant fish and wildlife habitat area. And he's also recommending or, excuse me, stating the use of any preservative in this area, in a Iow tidal flow wetland area as determined by the Trustees, would be a violation of standards. Therefore, it is recommended the Board deny this application for three reasons: Number one, does not meet policy 6.3 protect and restore tidal and wetland area; two, provide consistency in the management of a high value wetland system; and, number three, protect and preserve the purpose of Dam Pond maritime reserve. Currently renamed the Ruth Oliva Preserve at Dam Pond. Now, there are a couple of correspondences that we have received. One correspondence that was received by E-mail dated December 12, is very short, so I'll read it in its entirety. From Linda and Eugene Feigelson, MD. It states: Re, application to build dock. We live in neighboring Orient where nothing can be erected or touched within a few hundred feet of wetlands, as I understand, so why would be even consider such a proposal? We can't attend the public hearing tonight to voice our protest, so please count this as a vote against the project. Linda and Eugene Feigelson, MD. The other letter, which is very extensive, with supporting documentation, this is a letter dated December 7, 2012. It's from a Michael Delano, PHD, retired associate professor of physics at Hofstra University. And I do want to stipulate the entire letter as written will be entered into the record. I'll summarize. That he is voicing, on behalf of him and his wife, very strong objections to the proposed construction. Noting a couple of items in particular, the dock is to be equipped with water and electricity but there is no details on the plans regarding the specificity of the water and electricity. Number two, the structural timbers of CCA treated decking to be open-grate fiberglass reinforced composite; hardware to be hot-tipped galvanized steel. His objection is to the use of CCA structures that might come in contact with the water for the wetlands. Habitat fragment: In the area, he is noting that several rare species have been found in the area, fiddler crabs, see lavender, ribbed mussels. And finally would like to raise two final objections, again, first that the preservative used in treated timber are not just toxic to humans, they are toxic to aquatic creatures. And second, if the freshwater supply in the proposed dock ruptures and spills Board of Trustees 21 December 12, 2012 into Dam Pond, it will decrease the local salinity of the water and may lead to osmotic rupture of cells of aquatic structures. Again, also, attached to this, are some scientific studies. One of the environmental impacts of preserved and treated wood, from 2004; and another one, simple physical constraints and homolysis. Received July, 1994; revised, April 3, 1995. So again, that summarizes the correspondences we've received. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes, Rob Herman of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This is a project that had been submitted prior to the storm, and the storm conditions then made it impossible to put in stakes that would stay for inspection. So as the Board knows, when the hearing was originally scheduled in November, it just simply was not possible to get the stakes set in place for your inspection, and so the hearing was postponed until today. As you know, we had gotten some initial feedback based on the inspections you did, however, for the originally-scheduled hearing, and understood both from the public record and from your comments and certain things that were reiterated in the LWRP report, that there were various concerns about the dock as it was originally proposed. I will comment that the entire dock structure, it is proposed on Dam Pond, it is also proposed entirely over privately-owned underwater land. Nevertheless, the applicants, who are new to the area, have the utmost respect for environmental conditions here and have listened to the initial feedback from the Board, and we have redesigned the proposal, which I can very quickly summarize and then also respond to the comments from the letter that you were referencing for the record. I handed up several copies of a revised sketch to the Board that would eliminate all together the proposed ramp and floating dock, which was consistent with comments made primarily by J. Bredemeyer at the site. There is an understanding and recognition of the limitation of how the pond could be used for larger craft that would necessitate the use of a float, so that has been eliminated. The length of the catwalk has also been cut back so that the overall length of the fixed catwalk, including the portion upland, would now be a total of 82 feet. It would terminate around the -2' contour and then just have a 6x10 stepdown fixed platform on the side of it, so that the owners would have a place to use personal watercraft; not jet skis, but kayaks canoes and such, and enjoy the use of their property and their underwater land. As a result of that modification, the overall length of the structure would be cut back 31 feet from what was proposed, and so 31 feet landward of what the seaward limits of the stakes are shown in that photograph. Some of the concerns that were stated with respect to the environmental concerns, in particular there were a couple of concerns, I don't know how legitimate they are, about the use of water and electricity or whether water spilling out from a hose would somehow impact the biota living in Dam Pond. To me that's a specious argument at best, but we have or would eliminate from the proposal the connection of water and electricity and therefore eliminate that concern. Probably the most legitimate concern that was stated and appears to be echoed in the LWRP report would be the use of treated lumber. As the Board knows, there is no prohibition in your Wetlands Code against using treated lumber for structural framing. It is for docks, for decking only. That is typically what the Board requires. However it stated in light of the fact it's a critical environmental area that the Board may impose more stringent requirement, and the applicants are willing to do that. So they would construct the shortened structure completely out of untreated wood. I think the Board would probably still want to see the fiberglass reinforced open-grate decking. So that would remain the same, but basically we would eliminate any use of CCA or other chemically treated materials from the structure all together. So most of the concerns did seem to revolve around the overall length of the structure, the scope of the dock, Board of Trustees 22 December 12, 2012 the connection to water and electricity, the use of chemically treated materials and so the modified plan that I have handed up to you would eliminate all of those concerns unequivocally. I think that's really all we can do. There are other docks. I know they are old, but they are there. This would not introduce a new use to Dam Pond at all. There are other much larger floating docks that are sitting in water that is far too shallow relative to what today's standards are in other places along the shoreline. So we would just be looking for something here that would provide access down the bank and over the wetlands. And I guess the last comment, with respect to any notion of the habitat fragmentation of the wetland area, the dock has been under the use and best management practices sited in the area that is already cleared from historic use of that area. And even neighboring east end towns that have over the years contemplated the prohibition of docks all together had found they can't stop homeowners from walking and dragging boats through the wetlands. So using a four-foot elevated catwalk, as is typically allowed by code, is the most sensible way to deal with that. So we would certainly like the Board to consider approving the proposal in light of all of the modifications that would be made to the design based on all the concerns that were stated. Either by the writer, by the Board or by the LWRP coordinator. I can answer any other questions you have. The applicants are both here. And that's really it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. DELANO: My name is Michael Delano, I'm an adjacent property owner near Dam Pond and I have been there 21 years with my wife. I have not seen any of these revisions that are taking place and I would like to see those revisions before any decision made on this point. In terms of the original dimensions that were presented to me, in mail, it was 540 -- it amounted to 542 square feet of vegetated land. Dry, wet and submerged. Which means that all the vegetation under it would be shielded from sunlight. Pretty close. I bring to your attention the fact that my wife is a professor of medicine and professor of public health at the State University of New York in Brooklyn. My son is a marine biologist. In terms of a very crucial thing in all of this is that there are what is called ribbed mussels in this pond. And they help to clarify, to clear the water. They purify the water so other marine creatures can live there. This is a worldwide phenomenon and this dock will in fact impinge on their survival, by reducing the sunlight, by, if water does appear it, and En-Consultants says it's a specious argument. I don't think he knows anything about osmotic rupture of cells whatsoever. The mussels would be destroyed. And the habitat would be fragmented. I think it is a very dangerous project. In terms of floating docks, there was a floating dock, it has been put on shore. There are three, a total of three docks that were there before environmental laws were put into place. I know Dam Pond pretty much backwards. I've walked it probably 2,000 times with my dog, and there are all sorts of things on it. There are fiddler crabs on its shores. There is a rare form of sea lavender that grows there. I mean I could go on and on and on. But I want to bring up this point again about the ribbed mussels. And I urge you to read the enclosed paper. New York City's Department of Environmental Protection has started a project to try to reestablish ribbed mussels in Jamaica Bay, to clean the water there. Another dock, more activities in this pond, will hurt those ribbed mussels. They are an essential part of this ecosystem. I guess that's it for now. Do you want a second copy to -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If it's the same as what we already have in the file, we only need the one copy. Thank you, very much. Thank you, for your comments. MR. DELANO: Thank you. Board of Trustees 23 December 12, 2012 MR. MCNEILLY: Hello, my name is Alan McNeilly. We were quite concerned when we first heard of this application and the size of it. We were very much in support of Mr. Delano's concerns relative to it, noting in particular as he did with the CCA was in part one of your own code negates as far as being applicable or appropriate for these situations. Am I to understand, since -- and you know our concerns of anything that affects Dam Pond. You are well aware how we feel, have felt about that, as a body of water, and as our neighbor Ruth Alba (sic) as well. Am I to understand that this is a request for a revision in the permit or is it just stated that these are changes that we want to make. Or is it an actual defined revision, revised permit that is being applied for? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our understanding is that he has revised, the applicant or applicants, are revising their plans. They submitted a revised plan. The agent has provided a description of changes that are going to be done to the proposed application. So that means that if we get to the stage of approval of this permit tonight, we would be considering these changes as being part of the permit. So they would be a requirement of the permit. These changes would be included in the permit. If we get to that stage tonight. MR. MCNEILLY: If it concerns -- would that then bounce it back to another LWRP process? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MR. MCNEILLY: It would not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. MR. MCNEILLY: So it's either considered as a revised permit and no further action other than reviewing of the plans themselves would be required by the Board? Or what. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But as a point of clarification, the Board will usually, goes item by item on the LWRP to develop what is known as a determination of consistency. In other words we are obliged when the LWRP coordinator makes a determination of a proposal being inconsistent, the Board is obliged to address those inconsistencies using best management practices, altering plans or project specifications, calling for additional studies if necessary. We have different options to meet the requirements of the LWRP coordinator, and usually go point by point in addressing them. MR. MCNEILLY: We would hope so because we have been quite concerned when we saw this because of the size, initial size of it, and even 31 feet less is still 60-foot some odd extension into the pond. And you made note that it is over privately-owned land, but it is determined as an environmentally critical environment. I mean, by the DEC, and also Suffolk County. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, the first determination of a critical environmental area was done by the Board of Town Trustees when I was chairman back in the '80s. I'm quite well aware of the attributes of the pond, having grown up in Orient and having fished that particular body of that water, both commercial and for pleasure. And I could also tell you that the particular bottom that is private bottom was severely altered and was created manmade bottom. It was not in fact a natural emergent wetland, you know, cawed out, if you will, by the glacial process and by coastal processes. That's it. It was certainly, it's an absolutely pristine body of water and these concerns are all well met, and I have some additional questions for the applicant concerning the determination of inconsistency that possibly we could develop, answer some of the questions and meet some of the concerns, and I think still have -- MR. MCNEILLY: I'm sorry, I'm really having difficulty hearing you because you are so far away from the microphone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry. I have some more questions of the applicant to try to help with a determination of inconsistency and to see if the Board would be in a position to meet the requirements and concerns of the LWRP coordinator. MR. MCNEILLY: Okay. We remain concerned until we hear more from you then. Board of Trustees 24 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just to clarify, on the plans, the new proposed structure is approximately 39 feet, extending 39 feet over the water. I just want to clarify that. The total structure is approximately 39 feet of it. MR. MCNEILLY: According to the new plans submitted to you tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Any other comments, then I'll open up the questions from the Board. MR. DELANO: Will the notice to adjacent property owners of the new plans be sent? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, the notice to adjacent property owners took place for this public hearing tonight, for the public hearing. We are now tonight considering the new plans that have been submitted. MR. DELANO: If I further object to the new plans, how do I know what the new plans are if I don't have any copies of them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are right. You don't have any new copies of them. But you've heard it described tonight and you are welcome if you like to take a look at it. If you would like to do that. MR. DELANO: Can I get copies of it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's appropriate when there is this level of concern that the Board possibly could consider tabling the application after further discussions so these materials can be available to you under the Freedom of Information Act so the Board is not inadvertently creating an issue where you don't have the opportunity to review plans and specifications. And maybe with further discussion with the applicant and if the Board deems it appropriate, that the Board, I would recommend tabling the application after a little more detailed discussion, I still have questions, and then possibly those revised plans would be able to be studied by yourself and others. MR. DELANO: I'm -- could you just briefly repeat what you just said. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not in a position; at this point, I have some questions of the applicant and maybe after further discussion and questions from other Board members, I might be inclined to propose that we would table action on the application so that you as a member and a concerned citizen would have an opportunity to review those plans and consider them. We might also request additional project modifications that would result in a slightly different plan, even than what was submitted. MR. DELANO: Okay. I'm out here with my wife about 100 days out of the year. Our primary residence is in Brooklyn. How would I be notified? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point if the Board considers an action, it would be up to the chairman whether he would provide you courtesy copies subsequently, otherwise you could access records under the town's requirements under the Freedom of Information Act. MR. DELANO: Has the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation been contacted on this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's a good question for the applicant and we'll ask that on your behalf for the applicant. MR. DELANO: Okay, I should also point out that I intend to send this letter and my comments to -- and I have been in E-mail contact with him, just bear with me for one minute. Michael Scarano, Deputy Chief Regulatory US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, Operation Division. And he's interested in learning about what is taking place here also. And as I understand it, the New York DEC and the US Army Corps of Engineers must consult, must agree together on this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. Question for you, Rob. Where are you with the DEC with this application? MR. HERMAN: Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I'll tell you exactly where. We had prepared our original application to this Board under the gun to make it for the November meeting. Of course that didn't work out for us. The same proposal went out the door to the US Army Corps of Engineers and New York State Department of State Coastal Resources Division by mail. We Board of Trustees 25 December 12, 2012 were to hand deliver the application to Stony Brook a couple days later, which was the day that followed your field inspections and the day that I learned there were substantial objections to the floating dock. Thus we withheld making application to the DEC pending input from this Board, because it doesn't make sense to submit an application for a structure that we know in all likelihood we are not going to build. So that is what the status of all those applications are. As with every application for a dock, we require approval from several different agencies, all of whom must approve the exact same plan or all approvals are rendered useless. None of this information is new, of course, to you all, but for the benefit of the audience and for the record, that's the situation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it my understanding that the applicant is prepared to withdraw the request for lighting and the water or -- MR. HERMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a possible suggestion that might address some of the remaining, very serious concerns of the public speaking as well as LWRP coordinator. There are available now non-toxic piling materials that could be employed and the possibility of monopole construction with open-grating. And that would reduce the number of penetrations into the bottom, and then a site specific survey could be made along the track of proposed monopole construction that could look very specifically for ribbed mussels or any specific biota that would be identified as being critical to that habitat. And that would, it would reduce by a half the number of piling penetrations, it would reduce all toxics and it would then specifically address concerns of ribbed mussels. MR. HERMAN: What I had stated at the beginning of the hearing is that we would amend the application to use all completely untreated materials, whether those would be locust post or whatever, I mean the Board has had experience with similar, smaller fixed structures like that. We really don't have any issues with that. Again, I think probably the biggest concern here, ecologically, as it is with any dock, is that the structure be positioned over the area where the wetland are the narrowest and most sparsely vegetated. And we have done that. That can be not be improved upon. The revised plan that we submitted as we discussed in the field slightly rotates the orientation of the dock so that we can sort of minimize the seaward extent of it. But basically we would be holding over that same worn path that exists now. In fact Dave had made a couple of comments, we were looking at specific Baccharis Halimifolia shrubs to see if we could actually build this thing in a way that doesn't interfere with any existing wetland vegetation. For a structure that extends 39 feet from the edge of the water, mean depending on where the poles are located, if they are eight feet on center, you are talking about maybe four pairs of poles. This is really no different with respect to its physical bottom displacement as any other application that the Board reviews or approves. I don't know, we could probably study if there was a uniform bed of nothing but ribbed mussels from the shoreline out, how much mussels would be lost to the pole placement, but I think that probably exceeds what the Board would typically look at for the construction of a short walkway. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are fiberglass piling materials available now which are non-toxic. I just want to mention that. Another alternative -- MR. HERMAN: I think I check with the applicants but my guess is they probably would want to go with as natural material as possible. Untreated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm thinking about the monopole construction because of the additional tensile strength, that the use of fiberglass enables monopole, so instead of eight or ten piling penetration you could have four or five. That was the only, that's the only consideration, Rob. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is it doesn't have much impact. Board of Trustees 26 December 12, 2012 MR. HERMAN: Yes, I mean, my feeling is what you would lose with the esthetic of like a fiberglass structure over Dam Pond for what you are gaining, I mean a bayman can take out more mussels in one shot. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ribbed mussels are typically at the Spartina edge where it mingles with the bottom substrate, and that habitat can be bridged by the piling sets to totally miss that habitat. TRUSTEE KING: Ribbed mussels grow in the upper regions of the intertidal area. MR. HERMAN: Right. They are part of what stabilizes the edge of the intertidal marsh. So, I mean, I don't think we even have a problem with the condition that you would require that there be no posts going through that particular section of habitat. I mean, this is not difficult to avoid. TRUSTEE KING: It could be designed so that you span it. MR. HERMAN: The Trustees could even have, as you have done in other cases where there is a serious amount of concern over the actual construction implementation, you could have a pre-construction inspection where the dock builder would have to site the piling locations under the supervision of a Trustee. Again, I would have to check with the applicants, but they are, I mean obviously, I know that a lot of times when people come to a hearing ready to object, sometimes they are almost baffled by the fact that the applicants are willing to change the entire project to assuage their concerns that they don't really know what is left to object to. But that's what we are trying to do here. This is not a game. It's not a strategy. The applicants are responding to everything they are hearing and changing the plans completely, and if there are speakers here tonight that want to see the revised plans, we have to do more with them than what we just gave you. But basically there is a plan in front of you that if the Board felt that was an approvable way to go, obviously I would finish the details, I would include all the specifications we've stated, we would add a new date and they'd be available to anybody who wanted to look at them and we can deliver them straight from our office. We are not trying to hide anything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, sir?. MR. DELANO: The area is not sparsely vegetated as Eh-COnSultants asserts. The house and property was bought -- MR. HERMAN: Just the pathway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One person at a time talking. We are not going to have a back and forth. MR. DELANO: The house and property were bought from Ed and Joanne Barrett (sic). It was built by a contractor, Dino Servos (sic), who knows the area very well, and pointed out to me there were lots and lots and lots of ribbed mussels distributed where the dock -- not, he didn't know a dock was going to be built there, but there are lots and lots of ribbed mussels all over that area right there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. HERMAN: Sorry for interrupting Dave. In case ~ could avoid another five minutes, my statement pertains, I'm not saying the shoreline is sparsely vegetated, just the area where the pathway is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for or against this project? MR. MCNEILLY: May I? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, you may. Is this new information for us? MR. MCNEILLY: No, just a request, essentially. Having dealt with plans for the last 25 years of my life, it always is, talking about a contractor being willing to work under the supervision of the Board of Trustees in order to place the pilings appropriately, that was one of the reasons why I asked if the revised plans incorporating all of the changes that were being discussed were to be fully submitted and fully thought out prior to handing it over to a contractor so that that level of supervision might not be necessary, if everything else is approved, and if the DEC needs to see Board of Trustees 27 December 12, 2012 it or not see it relative to going forward, is that the issue. And if you are willing still to table it until those are provided, it would be very helpful. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak with regard to this application? MS. RIGDON: I'm Regina Rigdon. I'm a fellow consultant. I have been consulting with Glenn Just, formally, since 1989. As consultants we specifically design docks and bulkheads and other structures so they minimize the environmental impacts. I have a project very extremely similar to this, actually, over in Speonk, that was just granted. I firet actually went to the DEC, I believe this was this is Alexis Fournier or it could be Christian, actually, from the DEC helped me design it. He ended up, we designed it with a threugh-flow fiberglass open-grate decking which consists of a 60% open-grate so the sunlight can come threugh. The entire thing over the vegetated area of wetland was consisted of open-grate decking. We also used, instead of pilings, we used 4x4 posts over the vegetated areas, and a 4x6 over the area of the water. We actually had it cut back so the seaward end of the dock landed about where the apparent Iow water mark lies. There was no float. There was no ramp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is a project in Speonk you are talking about. MS. RIGDON: Yes, but very similar. What I'm trying to say is I think the DEC should have an opportunity to render their decision on the project because they most likely would be changing this upon what he -- making more revisions, is what I'm trying to say, under what he currently has, and it's possible you should pend it upon their decision making. Because they may have some other ideas. I do agree that I think it's better for someone to walk over rather than through the areas of vegetated tidal wetlands, if they want to go kayak, we call these kayak docks because the float won't rest on the bottom, they are specifically designed so you don't have to cut a path or walk over these primarily sensitive areas. They are designed this way for a reason. And with the smaller posts, they are jetted in or vibrated in causes a minimal one-time disturbance. I believe that Rob most likely would achieve what the DEC would be looking for right now. They may end up cutting it back a little more, which is why I'm saying 39 feet seems a little excessive going over the water. They may cut it back to say 20 and shorten it a bit. So I personally would go to the DEC firet before the Board make a decision instead of amending your permit after the fact. I think he did do his mitigation measures properly and I think that it's in the best interest to be able to walk over a grate that is suspended three-and-a-half feet above an area that is vegetated mareh rather than go through it, if you want to go kayaking on your own personal property. And everybody, as per the LWRP, has the right to access their preperty and use their waterfront for recreational purposes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. At this point what I'm going to recommend to the Board -- sorry, please come forward. MR. DELAVEGA: Hi, my name is Fred De La Vega, I'm one of the homeowners and the applicant. I just wanted to make a comment or two that we are very sensitive to the comments that we've heard from most of the members of the Board that visited the site last week, and as you can see, we scaled back significantly the size and the scope. And we have no interest in doing anything that would be environmentally damaging to Dam Pond. The reason we have our house on Dam Pond and we bought it is because we are attracted to the beauty of the area. And I want to make sure that's clear that we are not out here to try to wreak any environmental havoc, and we are very sensitive to what our neighbors' comments are, and some of the other folks, I don't know who they ara, are making comments tonight, we'll take those to heart. But, on the other hand, we do want to be given the same consideration that we see our neighbors, if you go areund Dam Pond as I have, kayaking or canoeing, our neighbor directly to the west doesn't have a dock, but then you have to go five or six houses before you find another house that doesn't have a dock. They are floating docks, they are stationary docks, they are long Board of Trustees 28 December 12, 2012 catwalks. So we just would like to be given the opportunity to enjoy the water, the wildlife, go kayaking, go canoeing, fishing, swimming, in a way that is not damaging, so we are not treading through, and also to enhance the property that we have that you have seen. And we are open to any comments that you might have, or the DEC or anybody else when they review the project. And we would appreciate your consideration. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. At this point what I'll do is recommend to the Board that we table the application so that the applicant can resubmit a new set of plans, complete set of plans that will reflect the changes that he had mentioned here tonight, and to address the concerns that have been expressed by both comments here tonight and under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob is approaching the podium. Hang on. We just approved tabling this, which closes it for now. So, Rob, is it okay that we are done, we are tabling this. MR. HERMAN: Well, only because I couldn't get out the question fast enough. When would you be tabling it to? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Next month. MR. HERMAN: I can't do that. I understand the hearing in January has been scheduled for the 23rd; is that correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERMAN: I will not be able to physically be here on the 23rd, so what I was going to suggest is if we could table it to the February hearing. What I would do is give you a completely revised set of plans based on what I handed you today that would indicate, notate all the various things we've discussed, at least thus far tonight, and maybe by then I'll have made some headway with other agencies. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to take a five-minute recess. (After a five-minute recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE KING: All right, folks we'll get going again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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. The project has been determined to have both an inconsistent component and a consistent component by the LWRP coordinator. And the comments, which I'll go into at length shortly. And the Conservation Advisory Council has made a recommendation to revegetate any areas disturbed due to construction of the new rock revetment and access area, removal of the grass from the top of the bluff to the northern pool fence line and revegetate -- I'm sorry. Excuse me. And they specifically requested that -- the Conservation Advisory Council supports the project with at least a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bluff. Doug Hardy inspected the property and found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommended the application be resubmitted after the bluff is stabilized. The Board of Trustees has been to the site several times. It is the subject of a pending Wetland violation. And going back to the LWRP coordinator's comments, I'll read them in detail so the Board may consider them in this case. The project is, based upon the information provided on the LWRP consistency assessment form that was submitted to the LWRP on coordinator, as well as the records Board of Trustees 29 December 12, 2012 available to him, it was his determination that the proposed action to remove the existing grass from the top of the bluff to the northern pool fence line is inconsistent with the policy standards and therefore is inconsistent with the LWRP. Although the existing grass is proposed to be removed and the area will be replanted, the native species to be planted have not been identified nor have survival requirements of the planted species been proposed. It is recommended that plant coverage of the buffer area is restored to a minimum of 90%. The proposed action to revegetate any disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment and access area and construct a four-foot wide access path to the stairs consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base is considered consistent. The project plan specifically indicates that the type of vegetation only to one species, American beach grass, for the portion of the project which is below the top of the bluff and the coastal erosion hazard line. But for the area that is on top of the bluff, the area that has, the grassy area that the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator refers to in his report, there is no specific reference to species on the project plan. So that comports with his finding. I did not have an opportunity to check with the legal department so I don't know if our attorney Lori Hulse has a word on the current place in the legal status of this particular one. Where are we at, Lori, with this, precisely, on Yatrakis? MS. HULSE: At this point we have an agreement for a disposition but we have not finalized that yet so I'll request the permit, if any be issued, that it be held until that has been done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Is there anyone here -- that pretty much covers status. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Seeing no one rising to the microphones, is there any Board members who wishes to speak to this application or request information from the file? TRUSTEE KING: I just would like to see a very detailed restoration plan for this. I would like to see some larger trees planted. This whole area was heavily vegetated right from the top of the bluff to where the fence is. We all went out there, explained to the gentleman what he could or couldn't do. He was not happy with what we wanted to do so he did what he wanted to do, which is whack the whole place down and plant sod right out to the top of the bluff. So we need to be very careful with this one. This is a case where you just do what you feel like doing, maybe there is a fine, I don't care. To me it's pretty disappointing. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: After having several meetings out there with him to decide what was going to be done, it was incredible. Um, I'm going to recommend that we have a bond. That a bond be placed on this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Definitely agree. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What's the maximum bond we could request? TRUSTEE BERGEN: While she is looking at the information regarding the bond, I agree with the comments that have been made from the Board, and I know for myself I'm going to be looking for a minimum of revegetation of trees eight inches in diameter and probably at least 20 of those trees on this area. Minimum. If not more than that. As well as the complete removal of the sod. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I couldn't agree more with what I heard also. And the LWRP coordinator is looking for 90% coverage, I would agree, canopy as well as plant coverage by species, the detailed project plan, and I think maybe as part of the bonding if we could require several inspections over a course of time that would be considered appropriate to the plant species that are introduced to make sure they are being cared for and that they survive. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm going to recommend a $50,000 bond. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under the circumstances, I think that's appropriate. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need to table it and tell Creative Environmental we need a very detailed plan with our recommendations on the tree sizes and so forth. Board of Trustees 30 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table this application and by reference incorporating all the requests and comments of the Board of Trustees in the letter to go to Creative, to go to Creative Environmental Design so that that can be addressed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Application 13, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MAUREEN MASSA & ALAN SCHWEITZER requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing window of garage to a sliding glass door and add a skylight; construct a 4'x28' hardwood dock consisting of 60% open deck a minimum 2' above grade; a new 3'x12' seasonal ramp and a 5'x18' seasonal float; construct a 4'x36' set of stairs from top of slope to fixed dock; a proposed 10'x4' slate (stone) on sand or crushed stone as a non-turf buffer area; and install irrigation landward of the top of the slope. Located: 460 Ruch Lane, Southold. The LWRP coordinator states the proposed action has not been reviewed to Chapter 268, waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold Town Code because the action is not permissible pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetlands and Shorelines Section 275-11, Construction and Operation Standards. Specifically, no new docks will be permitted over vegetated wetlands or such that it causes habitat fragmentation of vegetated wetlands in the following areas. And that includes Downs Creek, Hallock Bay and Hashamomuck Creek or Pond. The Conservation Advisory Council moved to support this application and is requesting the installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. Both of them are here today. We actually, I provided for you in your files a copy of permits that were issued back in '86. The existing structure needed a permit because it had deteriorated to the point where it needed to be replaced. There are still parts of the dock still in place. My clients just recently purchased the property and really nothing has been done yet with the property. It survived the storm very well, actually, with the only issue being that the dock from another property landed on their property. So you saw that there was a floating dock out of place, that is actually from another property. But otherwise, it was unscathed. In fact the staking was done before the storm, and it survived. To my surprise. So. This had been a permitted structure, issued a permit, so the LWRP coordinator should have noted that this property had the identical dock on this property. So. I'm happy to discuss this with you. It's pretty straightforward otherwise. That gate there was put on by the prior owners, That is not intended to stay there, but it has not been removed. So. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I do not see a permit in this, open permit in this file. MS. MOORE: Let me see if I have an extra copy of it here. It was Citrone wetland permit from July of 1986. Is that this property? (No response). It's not your property? It came up on the tax map on this property. So let me just double check with the design of the house. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to see that. As I say, it is not in this file. MS, MOORE: I'll just double check if this is the house. (Perusing). I'm sorry. I apologize. This is the neighbor, the dock, the permit is for an adjacent property. We have an old survey that had the dock on it that was pre-existing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Are there any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it may be an appropriate place for a stake and pulley. That might be something doable there to give them access, rather than docks, Docks are not permitted. We have to give them something. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There are lots of them. Board of Trustees 31 December 12, 2012 MS. MOORE: You are talking about getting steps down and then the pulley system to bring the boat in to shore? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. MOORE: You don't know what that is? Okay. It's a little difficult to maneuver. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A stake and pulley system enables you to have a stake offshore and you are able to have your boat out there so it's offshore and you can pull it in when you want to get aboard. This area, again, according to code, you are not allowed new docks over vegetated wetlands here. That is as per code. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a code restriction. The creek itself has very large rock bed underneath the bridge. So the creek has natural limitations to the size vessel you can take in and out of it, in addition. So a pulley system, piling and pulley system, comports very well with the available boat size that is usable in that creek. It's one of those creeks if you went, if you had head clearance to go under the bridge to get out, you then might find yourself destroying a propeller on a motorized vessel trying to come back in. So it sort of, the restriction for no docks in this case also works well with the natural lay of the land and what you can do with a boat, a small vessel in that creek. MS. MASSA: Hi, my name is Maureen Massa. We are the property owners. We also known 790 Ruch Lane which does have a dock and we do have a small boat, and are well aware of being in Venice and going under the railroad bridge at the proper tides and wanting to come back. I was just wondering whether the fact that, again, we had an old survey that showed the existence of both the steps and the dock from 1978, I believe. Would that mitigate the factor with respect to a new dock. There is also a floating dock immediately to the right of ours, also that got no damage during the hurricane, nor did our dock down and our existing property at 790 Ruch Lane. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would defer to the counsel. MS. HULSE: The LWRP coordinator is correct in the law that there is no new docks permitted at this point, irrespective of the fact there may have been one that existed in the '70's. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MR. SCHWEITZER: Alan Schweitzer. Do we have to make a decision now on the pile and pulley system? I want to explore it. MS. MOORE: What we could do is adjourn it. We would have to have it drawn up anyway, so it would give us a chance to look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, absolutely. MR. SCHWEITZER: Thank you. MS. MOORE: We still need the stairs, obviously, the stairs down, and if you could take a look at the drawing. What you are talking about is essentially the ramp and the float is eliminated, or to get to the pulley? Do you, how do we get to a pulley? You have to get down there. I guess that's the question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A set of stairs going down there, yes. MS. MOORE: Well, we have a set of stairs but then there is a flat -- so we go, looking at the cross-section, you go to the set of stairs, urn, there is the open-grate area that gets you to a certain point in the water. At what point are we talking about providing for a pulley. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The stairs goes down to the beach. That's it. Then the stake and pulley are at the beach. MS. MOORE: Okay, so at the bottom of the steps is where the pulley system is configured. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. MS. MOORE: We'll have to talk to a contractor to see if it's, if we could work there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It does. There are lots of them there, all over that shore. MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you. It would be easier for them to take a look. Board of Trustees 32 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At the end of Grove Road is also a mini launching ramp and I think one or two right at the end of Grove Road in Hashamomuck Harbor. MS. MOORE: Is there anything else that you want? TRUSTEE DOMINO: The other items. MS. MOORE: The other items being the stairs. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The skylight. MS. MOORE: That was not an issue, that's generally not included in your permitting process. I included it so if you saw activity, you would know. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The stumbling point is the dock. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was one other thing, I would just ask what that was. This looks like an exposed something. Drywell, cesspool. MS. MASSA: I know there is a cesspool. When the vegetation went away, that just became exposed. I believe it's an old well but we don't know. I could ask the prior owner. TRUSTEE KING: Is that some sort of right-of-way beside that? MS. MASSA: Yes, a right-of-way for the people on the other side of the street to get down to the shore. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought it was but we weren't sure. MS. MOORE: Also, do you want us to include, typically, for any non-indigenous vegetation we were proposing to add vegetation here. There are some weeds and so on. Is that an issue? Do you want us to specify removal of weeds and planting? Or -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: On the bluff itself? MS. MOORE: Well, at the top there. We were providing for additional vegetation but some of that is, you know, would need to be replaced. So, do you want a planting plan for that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should have a planting plan. MS. MOORE: We can provide that. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 14, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of TERRANCE SULLIVAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the exiting +/-97' navy style bulkhead in-place utilizing vinyl sheathing; construct a 20' return along the eastern property line; reconstruct the existing stairs inkind/in-place; backfill and stabilize eroded bluff using +/-1,000 cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and stabilize the bluff with plantings on staked jute fabric. Located: 4452 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application. It notes that the project was almost complete. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a non-tuff buffer half the distance to the deck, and gutters and drywells to be installed to contain roof runoff from the dwelling. The 20-foot return appears to be encroaching on neighbor's property. LWRP has found this to be consistent with LWRP, but like the others earlier tonight, suggests considering using pervious filter cloth landward of the bulkhead and stone to act as a splash pad. Obviously this was storm damaged. The Board went out there to take a look at it and the only notes that I have here was there was a question concerning the construction. Using the type of vinyl that was there seemed kind of thin to us. And penetration of the sheathing and the piles. So with that, is there anybody here who'd like to address this application? MS. RIGDON: Regina Rigdon, from DKR Shores. What were the questions again? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think it was just a concern. We noted that it was using the thinner vinyl rather than the thicker vinyl, and having seen the damage that was there prior, that this sustained, I guess we were a little surprised, maybe. Board of Trustees 33 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Who was the contractor for this job? MS. RIGDON: Chesterfield. TRUSTEE KING: Is Chesterfield doing the work or did they contract it out? MS. RIGDON: Chesterfield did the work. They use a vinyl series because the bulkhead was a navy style they felt it was supported adequately with that vinyl series. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, I'll just make a comment. I'm not an engineer. But certainly as a Trustee we have seen plenty of bulkheads under construction. And this one baffled me. To put sheathing in first and then tie rods and then lay logs or deadmen, whatever it was, it was covered up by the time we got there. And last to put pilings in is a very unusual construction standard. And the vinyl is a very thin vinyl. I'm just concerned for the property owner, that the property owner, we have seen some bulkheads recently put in that were destroyed in Sandy and part of it was because of the thickness of the vinyl. And I'm just really concerned for this property owner with what's happened here. I really am. So that's, like I said, I'm not an engineer. If they had an engineer design these plans or stamp approve these plans, great. MS. RIGDON: Chesterfield has a workmanship guarantee as part of their contract so, and they are the best of the best out there. They would not put in something that was not feasible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'm just saying this was a very unusual construction process. Very unusual. MS. RIGDON: I think the main concern was the fact that the blockage of the water, which is probably why the vinyl was jetted in first and then everything done after the fact. TRUSTEE KING: I have never seen one constructed this way. MS. RIGDON: I think he did it that way for a reason. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not an engineer either, but I have seen a lot of bulkheads built. MR. SULLIVAN: My name is Terrance Sullivan, I'm the property owner. I questioned Chesterfield about this and he swore up and down they do this all the time and that they used this in Bellport and they have a 300-foot one. I'm not engineer, I had the same concerns. And I am concerned. But he swore up and down. He's the engineer. I don't know what to say. Because I looked at the same thing and I said this is not how it's done. Why are you doing it this way. TRUSTEE KING: Are there two walers on this bulkhead now? Because there was only one waler at the top when we looked at it. MS. RIGDON: I think he proposed a drop wale, with a longer tie red. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually the waler that was them was not at the top, it was in the middle, and they had the tie red going from the waler through to I don't know what. Because it was covered up. I'm assuming deadmen, but I don't know because since we didn't see it, we don't know what. MR. SULLIVAN: They were basically telephone pole deadmen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Single poles? MR. SULLIVAN: I don't know, I didn't see the construction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What do the plans show? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, not the standard we are used to seeing deadmen either. Usually the deadmen are you have poles and you have lay logs associated with those poles to give structural supports. MR. SULLIVAN: Again, he said he had poles and lay logs but didn't see it either. TRUSTEE KING: Quite frankly, I was very disappointed with what I saw. Most inplace replacements of bulkheads, the old bulkhead is removed and taken off the premises. There is a lot of material here that was just left and buried. MS. RIGDON: If I could approach. The old original seaward faced bulkhead was of course removed and displaced properly. There was an old bulkhead that was there landward a couple of feet that he did leave some remnants. Board of Trustees 34 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Why didn't he remove that while he was removing everything? MS. RIGDON: I think he felt it was not necessary. TRUSTEE KING: It was all creosoted material. That's what bothers me. Now it's buried there. MS. RIGDON: It was buried before, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now is a good opportunity to take it out. We could specify they remove the old bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: It's all buried now. It's all covered up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is one of those instances where, this is one of the reasons that we can't give out emergency permits at times. TRUSTEE KING: That was another issue in my mind. This was given an emergency permit but did not meet the criteria for an emergency permit. And that kind of upset me. MS. SULLIVAN: I'm the other owner. My name is Sandra Sullivan, I'm his wife. I have been there through the whole thing. This is our only house. First of all, what was left there that he's talking about, the bulkhead that got broken from the storm, was taken out and replaced. I didn't even know that there was this lower thing a few feet behind the bulkhead. We have been there 19 years. We didn't even know that was there. And we only knew because the storm took out, you know, the bulkhead and a great big piece of the cliff and the house at the time, after the storm -- and my name is Sandy. Don't even go there. But we used to be 24 feet from a stable cliff. And we have been there 19 years. Now we were ten feet from the cliff after the storm, and then after the northeaster we were eight feet. The deck and the house. It was getting really, really scary. And I was watching every weather report. I was sure the next storm was the house. So I understand what you are saying and I apologize, but it was terrifying to live there. It was really terrifying. And some of the things you are saying about the construction now, are terrifying me, too. Because what do we know? We hired a very reputable company. He was a very nice engineer, he explained everything. So we believed him. But I do want to explain to you why it went the way it was. It's really scary to live eight feet from an unstable cliff when northeasters are predicted. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Perhaps I missed something. Can you clarify something for me. The contractor noted, Chesterfield, but the question was asked was this subcontracted out? MS. SULLIVAN: It was not. MR. SULLIVAN: It was not subcontracted out. Chesterfield did the work. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason we ask that is the trucks that were there were unmarked. And Chesterfield marks their trucks. MS. SULLIVAN: I could answer that. Lots of the trucks over this period of time have had Chesterfield on them and some of them have not had Chesterfield on them. Frankly, I think Chesterfield needed more trucks because they were doing a lot more work than usual. But there was lots of Chesterfield trucks. MS. RIGDON: They hired another staff of like 30 people to try to deal with the storm damage and help the homeowners. I have been working with Chesterfield for 20-some odd years and they are the most reputable firm out there. And I would recommend them in a heartbeat. And they stand by their work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know if it's entirely pertinent but I have heard of a number of people putting in vinyl bulkheads are considering armoring the face of them, the fascia, with I guess oak or, you know, hardwood, so to try to prevent future penetrations of floatables, of stuff moving in the seaway. I know Trustee Bergen, he unfortunately had a loss of his property and I think he planned on doing something similar. And we see particularly where there is a long wave fetch if there is any possibility, you might want to discuss that with Chesterfield given the fact of concerns of the thickness of the vinyl used, because if a dock piling or other structure breaks loose on subsequent storm, it may put your vinyl at risk. Boerd of Trustees 35 December 12, 2012 MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. And you can bet Chesterfield will be hearing from us tomorrow morning. MS. RIGDON: There has been some instances where the vinyl has been punctured in wave fetch action. The high water mark is a considerable distance, about 15 feet, approximately from. This is just a fluke, weird storm. I think that the structure will protect the property. In a regular nor'easter and regular storms from here on. This just happened to be something that Mother Nature created that no one expected. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the angle of the slope, what type of non-turf buffer were you proposing behind the bulkhead? MS. RIGDON: I spoke with my client. They are okay with doing the ten-foot splash pad that you recommended. They are okay with that. They are going to revegetate the bluff with rosa rugosa, bayberry and American beach grass that are 18 plugs, about 18 plugs on center. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the Board want to consider a five-foot non-turf buffer at the top of that bluff? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would. That's reasonable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That seems reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: I'm still confused about the construction. Is it nearly completed now? MR. SULLIVAN: The whole thing is in. There is still a lot of backfill and cliffs to rebuild and stuff like that that needs to be done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, you know, I think this is one of those cases where it was immediately after the storm, within two days after the storm. We try to be as compassionate and as liberal as we could in issuing emergency permits but, you know, when we went to see the site, I was the one who said it was okay for an emergency permit. But that you had to come in for a full, you know, wetland permit to permit everything. And I was basing it upon the fact that I had an old survey that showed an existing bulkhead, and obviously it needed to be done. And I saw the before and after pictures. So I kind of put myself out there a little bit for this. Then we show up and, you know, it's certainly a little bit unusual the way it's being done. So, you know, again, at a time where I thought I was trying to do the right thing being compassionate, now I find myself in a position where I have to defend my decision. And I think I have done pretty well of defending myself in this particular case, I feel comfortable with the decision I made. But these are concerns that the rest of the Board has. And at this point I would like to see some of it addressed in one way or another. MS. SULLIVAN: Excuse me. So you do understand that we thought they were doing it the right way, Chesterfield, I mean. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Absolutely. MS. SULLIVAN: We had no idea that some of those things -- TRUSTEE KING: Don't get me wrong, they are a well-respected firm, and I've seen some of their work before. But I never seen a bulkhead built this way, I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: You would know that. We didn't. We were supposed to do a bulkhead this winter so we interviewed a whole bunch of people and Chesterfield was so well recommended and the engineer seemed so nice. And fortunately we were in his computer or, I don't know when anybody would have gotten to us. And it's been really scary. But you say, sir, you are confused by the construction. I'm amazed at what you are saying tonight and very upset about it because I would want to have it done the safest way for my home. So it's very scary what you are saying. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. I do. TRUSTEE KING: I do, too. I don't know what to say. I'm very concerned about the whole project. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, what do you want to do? Board of Trustees 36 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Bredemeyer's comment about the oak batons in the front is a way to mitigate some of the issues. I would suggest that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Say that again? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Oak armoring MS. RIGDON: Horizontal oak. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 3x12 oak on the front attached to the hopefully two walers. If you don't have two walers -- MS. SULLIVAN: Could you tell me what a waler is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The cross-member across the front of the bulkhead. MS. SULLIVAN: Since you were there, they did a whole lot more of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MS. SULLIVAN: No, really. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe you. MS. SULLIVAN: Because the plan looks empty on top, now it has -- MR. SULLIVAN: The walers are on the other side. You can't see them. MS. SULLIVAN: Because they did something, again, what do I know, a cap, a great big cap across the top. That I could see from the house. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What is that, 3x27 TRUSTEE BERGEN: 3x12. MS. SULLIVAN: So the waler is in front? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a water structure on the front side of the bulkhead that runs behind the pilings, okay, and the sheathing is behind it. So you have a piling, you have the walers, then you have the sheathing behind it. MS. SULLIVAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. MR. SULLIVAN: That is our concern, too. There is no pilings on this. You could see there is no pilings here. MS. RIGDON: They are not finished yet, are they? MR. SULLIVAN: They said they are finished and they said they are not putting pilings. And I questioned it. MS. RIGDON: You know what, I'll go look at it. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, I have been around a while. I have seen a lot of bulkheads built. The normal procedure for building a bulkhead is if you are replacing an old bulkhead, lots of times we used to go in front, used to be called a bump-out. That's why you see the old bulkhead behind what you had. At one time there was a bulkhead, then you went out in front of that and put a new bulkhead in. But the usual procedure is you put the pilings in first. You draw a string for a straight line, you put your pilings in. And then the walers are bolted to those pilings. Then the sheathing goes behind that. Then you drill through the piling and through the waler to where your deadmen are. This was all built entirely different than that procedure. I have never seen it done this way before. I mean you have the sheathing, you had one waler and you had the deadmen already in place. It's just beyond me. MR. SULLIVAN: I'll contact Chesterfield tomorrow and get as good an explanation as what they are thinking. TRUSTEE KING: It's almost as if they are building what's called a smooth-faced bulkhead. I have seen them. But only in protected areas where you don't have pilings on the outside. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: The interesting thing here is that you could have come to us with this plan and we could have approved this or would have approved this under normal circumstances, and we may not have ever seen the things that we saw when we went out there, because typically we would not have done an inspection. MS. RIGDON: It was done in navy style. Board of Trustees 37 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: These are things we just happened to pick up on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The plan that I have has pilings in front of it. MS. RIGDON: Yes, it was designed to have pilings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And lay logs, not piles, but lay logs for deadmen. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I mean, we can approve the application as it's been applied for. MS. RIGDON: I'll go get it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But I would suggest strongly it be built to the specs. MS. SULLIVAN: If the plan was that way and we paid, and are paying so much money, I think we'll insist they do it the way they said they were going to do it. And I really appreciate that. Because we really didn't know. MS. RIGDON: I'll definitely go look at it. I designed it. It was designed to have native pilings, a minimum of eight inches. I'll check and see if there is additional walers as well, and if it needs any additional supports, I'll make sure that it's done. TRUSTEE KING: They'll need a compliance inspection. When this project is done you'll need a compliance inspection. Which we come down and make sure it conforms to the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's only what we can see above ground. TRUSTEE KING: We can't see that now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have no idea was what is there now. MS. HULSE: If you have misgivings, you can always leave the emergency permit in place and have some additional -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think there is a problem in the way it's been proposed, aside from the five-foot non-turf buffer to add at the top. MS. HULSE: It can still be remedied by the Board, obviously. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It can be remedied. TRUSTEE KING: If it conforms to this. I think one of our concerns is the thickness of the vinyl. But it's too late now to worry about that. MR. O'BRIEN: I'm Bob O'Brien, I'm a professional engineer. Why don't you just take a test pit and see if the lay log is there and if it's pinned. It's a suggestion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. RIGDON: That is the way I designed it. But I did design it with pilings. TRUSTEE KING: The tie rods don't go through the piling. MS. RIGDON: They go through a drop wale. TRUSTEE KING: But not through the piling, which is normal construction. MS. RIGDON: I don't know why the pilings are not there. I'll definitely question it and make sure they go in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We can beat this to death. MS. SULLIVAN: I certainly feel beat to death. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make an application to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer, noting it must have the two walers as it was designed. And that there will be a compliance inspection at the end to make sure it's been built according to plan. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 15, Tom Gabrielsen on behalf of JAMES & JANET D'ADDARIO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing storm damaged 93' long bulkhead and two (2) Board of Trustees 38 December 12, 2012 10' returns; existing 50' jetty to be replaced in place with the same pitch of 1' to 12'; existing stairs to be replace with new stairs to code including 2 ',&" cedar handrails. Located: 8960 Groat Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of 15-foot non-turf buffer. And the Trustees did go out and looked at this. We also wanted the consideration of a buffer. Then we had some questions regarding the groin. So is there anybody hero to speak on behalf of this application? MR. GABRIELSEN: Tom Gabrielsen on behalf of Jim D'Addario. Before we talk about the groin, I do have a couple of questions. Now, he asked if he could bring that up to the height of the neighboring, to the west. Which is about 18 inches higher. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The bulkhead you are talking about. MR. GABRIELSEN: Yes. That was one of his concerns. And another concern, when we drew the plans, we drew it from the east to the west as one straight line. Now looking on the survey, it goes out to that groin and slightly out toward the bay, and then comes back in. And if you take the east and the west point and put a straight line you aro probably about a foot, sticking out a foot. And I was wondering can we put that in one straight line. Because we want to build exactly what was there. And the third concern, just talking about the walers again, on the plans we had the double waler 6x8 and we would rather go to triple waler 6x6. And also we brought the pilings into six foot centers. We want the bulkhead to last. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understandable. With regard to the groin, what we have in the field notes is we wanted to see the groin not less than 48" from below the top of the bulkhead. So from measuring the top of the bulkhead down, 48" is where we would like to see the groin start. The elevation of the groin start. MR. GABRIELSEN: You want us to start there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. GABRIELSEN: What if we bring it up 18". TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was with the 18". Sorry. MR. GABRIELSEN: So you take the top at 48". TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. GABRIELSEN: And keep it the same one foot pitch. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that looks pretty good because from the back it looks exactly like a Iow profile groin. Keep what you have there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the length was fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Essentially that would preserve the existing confirmation that you have. Pretty much within an inch or two. MR. GABRIELSEN: When you say 48, it has to be right there? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or more. In other words we don't want that higher than 48 inches. 48 or lower. MR. GABRIELSEN: So we could go five foot. TRUSTEE KING: That would probably even be better. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 48 or more inches. MR. GABRIELSEN: How about the concern of building it straight. I'm just thinking when you put the walers in, if you stagger them it will be a lot more stronger than coming out a little. Is that a concern at all? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I didn't follow you. MR. GABRIELSEN: If you take east and west, it's actually sticking out, it's not an exact straight line. It's sticking out slightly. If you were to site that, actually, I think it's Pike about 28 foot to the groin. From that point it just angles back just slightly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is it your desire to straighten that? Board of Trustees 39 December 12, 2012 MR. GABRIELSEN: Yes, I think it will give it a lot more strength, because you could stagger the walers that way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I don't think that's an issue at all. It would be preferable because, as you say, as far as the structural integrity, it would be much better off to have it straight like that. And you are agreeable to a 15-foot non-turf buffer behind that bulkhead? MR. GABRIELSEN: Yes. Is that pretty much standard? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, pretty much standard, particularly given the slope you have there. And again, raising it up 18 inches will help the homeowner with that slope. So that combined with the buffer will really help. MR. GABRIELSEN: What does that have to be in, the 15-foot? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It just has to be nomturf. In other words sometimes people put in plantings, they put in gravel, sand. You know, just non-turf. So it's porous. So to prevent runoff, from anything on the surface running off and going straight into the water, instead it's being retained behind there. MR. GABRIELSEN: I know he has a patio up there. But I guess that's a little more than 15 foot. Up toward the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's toward the house. We are talking right behind the bulkhead. MR. GABRIELSEN: I'm saying I don't think it would infringe on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. Okay, is there anybody else in the audience who want to speak for or against this application? MS. HORTON: I'm Audrey Horton, with the CAC. I just wanted to clear something up with asking about the non-turf vegetated buffers. When we are asking for those we really do recommend certain kinds of plants that you can find out from any nursery that have a really good root system. That root system is what holds things together. And when you do have these storms, when we are looking for that, it's not just runoff we are thinking about but we really do think about how the root system that has pros and cons with the wave action and water damage so it doesn't eat through. It's like a whole natural netting under the ground. Does that make sense? MR. GABRIELSEN: Yes. Actually are them certain things you allow or don't allow. I know in Riverhead they had the same type of thing and we ask what could we put in and they didn't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any landscaper out here can tell you. Native species. TRUSTEE KING: American beach grass is gmat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. Rosa Rugosa, American beach grass. Those are some things that are great. And as you heard tonight, we are also strongly encouraging filter cloth. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Liz will mail you some information. MS. CANTRELL: General mail. It's too big for E-mail. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If there are no other comments, I'll 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 Tom Gabrielsen on behalf of Tom D'Addario with the condition that the bulkhead will be raised 18 inches, the groin will be 48 inches or more below the top of that bulkhead, and there is a 15-foot non-turf buffer included behind, immediately behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 40 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 16. TRUSTEE KING: I'll do 16. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of CHARLES & JANICE BOVINO request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the original lower timber bulkhead (+/-205.0'overall) in-place using vinyl sheathing; reconstructing original beach steps (4.0' wide x 6.0' long) and providing backfill behind (landward) of same, all to replace/rebuild damage following Hurricane Sandy. Located: 9775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was found to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application with the condition the bulkhead is replaced inplace and the bluff is stabilized. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. It sounds like everyone is in agreement with the application so let's, unless you have questions, there is probably not much more I need to say. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there were any issues with it, Bruce. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: You have the splash pad and filter cloth already on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing I would like to do, there is a second retaining wall. I would like to add that in to this. MR. ANDERSON: It's already covered by a grandfathered permit. TRUSTEE KING: All right, that was my concern. Because what we have seen since the storm, we have had some bulkheads that were approved and had permits, but the second retaining wall didn't, and the second retaining wall failed, so now they have to come in. MR. ANDERSON: The only reason we are here is because we could not find and there did not exist the original permit for the seaward wall. The rest it, including the decks, the stairs, the upper wall, are already covered by emergency permit. TRUSTEE KING: By emergency permit? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. We tried do the entire. So this is almost, this is a housekeeping measure, really. TRUSTEE KING: All right. MR. ANDERSON: With no specific designs. TRUSTEE KING: I see the notice of construction. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's completely different. This back here is different. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like it just - that's unusual. Usually they go through the pilings. I'm just looking at the tie rod to the deadman. MR. ANDERSON: What we have is a continuous lay log. We have -- TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't look like it goes through the piling. MR. ANDERSON: It doesn't. TRUSTEE KING: Here it is. I'm sure you heard all the discussion we had. MR. ANDERSON: Right. We spent a lot of time designing this. TRUSTEE KING: This is more of the type of design that I see and am familiar with. MR. ANDERSON: This is more than what you usually see because we were even concerned about lifting, we were concerned about, you'll notice the top grate is open so that if a wave hits it, it can travel, without popping the cap off it. The tie rods are staggered between the piles so that if they are lifted they don't tear the vinyl. Because we found, essentially what happened when the storm hit, myself and Joe Fischetti, we went from property to property and tried to figure out which design worked and which ones didn't. And then we tried to apply that in developing these designs. So we think it's a better design than probably most if not all that you see. Time will tell. But it features a splash pad because we found that to be a good idea. It has a filter cloth underneath it. It has the armor in front of it, that the idea there is to protect the vinyl from floating debris that could be smashed up against it, and we set the tie rods in such a fashion so that if there is movement in the wall or in the bluff, it doesn't tear the vinyl. Because Board of Trustees 41 December 12, 2012 a lot of these walls failed because there was a tear, the wall was somehow compromised. And once that earth was able to erode through the face of the wall, then the wall failed in its entirety. So these are the sort of design considerations that went into developing these plans that are in front of you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just an interesting side. I'll make it quick. Rabbit Lane, East Marion, 18 properties. One of the only properties that sustained absolutely no damage was exactly the standard, native bulkhead of vinyl construction with the splash pad. And had no damage to the bulkhead construction. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I have to tell you, what I found was as follows: The steel bulkheads always held up. So they are by far the best material you could use. But they are the most expensive. We found that where property had fronting beaches, they are generally better off. ,And I'll remind this Board in the old days when we built bulkheads they used to make us put in groins because they wanted some beach in front of that bulkhead. And I'm not here to lecture on you, all I'm here is to encourage you to rethink the policy regarding groins because having a beach in front of a bulkhead is good for the property owner, and I would argue good for the environment as well. So I know we have gone down this road, but we may wind up at a point going full circle back to the old days where we insist people maintain their beaches so that their property and adjacent properties are protected by that beach. So, enough of that. We found that two sets of bulkheads, an upper wall and lower, were generally better than one, because of the height and steepness of the bluffs. We found it was important that the sheathing be thick and be long enough so it would not be undermined. We saw bulkheads that were undermined because they were not driven deep enough into the ground. We found piles that were not long enough. We found walers, you know, we found bulkheads without walers. They almost always failed. They didn't have the basic native framing like the poor people who came in front of me. That's a real problem. So we are trying to take all this information and come up with the best design we can, based upon what we are able to learn in roughly a week-and-a-half. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? ,Any other comments? Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. Nice plan. TRUSTEE KING: Looks good. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Quick question. What would be the minimum depth in a typical bulkhead that the sheathing should be driven? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I would say if you are going to have a four-foot sheathing, you know, exposed above the beach, you should have at least eight below it. But don't get too hung up on the amount of exposed bulkheads because understand that the beach profile is going up and down, too. So over in this area when we first looked at it, we handled Mr. Bergen's bulkhead in our initial measurements based on him and his neighbor, the bulkheads were much higher than the remnants are now because there was actually some beach build up after the storm. So measuring, you know, the distance between the top of the beach profile and the top, that varies depending on what forces are, you know, that are, what forces are brought against the beach. So again, if you can trap sand by groins and other, by that means, and build up that beach, the bulkhead will appear to be not as tall, but the property will be better protected, in our opinion. TRUSTEE KING: Hearing nothing else, 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. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 42 December 12, 2012 (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, abstain). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note that I'll abstain. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing number 17, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JONATHAN P. WENDELL requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber bulkhead (+/-98.0' long) with a new vinyl sheathed bulkhead, and add two (2) bulkhead returns on either terminus (20.0' long & 28.0' long) utilizing timber pilings, timber wales, timber top cap, galvanized tie-rod, timber deadmen, and timber lay-log system; reconstructed bulkhead to be 2' higher than existing; all hardware to be galvanized; and to repair portions of the existing timber dock (4.0' wide x 288.0' long) where necessary; all decking materials to be non-treated; all hardware to be galvanized. Located: 355 Terry Lane, Southold. The LWRP has determined that the project bulkhead is consistent with LWRP and indicated that repairing portions of existing dock would be exempt under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application to repair portions of the existing dock. They did support the reconstruction of the bulkhead at the existing elevation and with the condition of a non-turt buffer along the landward side, and recommended removal of the non- functional docking facility which will allow for better lateral access for the public beach. The Trustees, on field inspection, felt it was, really no problem, that they thought possibly recommending the same height and consider a splash pad. But with respect to the dock, the Board's feeling was that it was way past due and that the dock should be considered on its own merits in a separate application where we would detail water depths and neighboring dock structures, if any. In other words look at it as a separate item. So those are the results of the various investigations. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant, John Wendell. The first thing you should understand is this bulkhead is going to be approximately 18 inches higher than the bulkhead that was there. The bulkhead that was built many years ago was an old creosote bulkhead. The area behind that bulkhead will be filled. And it needs to be filled because the footings that support the house are nearly exposed, okay. So that is the first thing that needs to be understood. You know, I think it's probably the applicant's intention to, we understand the non-turf area behind the bulkhead, and I don't know there is too much arguing about that. Turning to the dock, the dock was fully functional before the storm. What you are looking at there is storm damage. Piles lifted, decking was removed. This particular dock was a fully permitted dock, and in your GIS files you will see it was constructed by a Robert Dyre, that I have with me a letter dated November 12, 1985, written to Howard Katzenberg, who is actually on the west side of Town Harbor Lane, which reads: Pursuant to our conversation of November 8, 1985, regarding the above referenced matter, please be advised the bay constable inspected the premises and determined all necessary permits have been secured for the project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. The plan for the docks are on file and were approved by this Board. TRUSTEE KING: When was this, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: 1985. TRUSTEE KING: We didn't have jurisdiction there in '85. MR. ANDERSON: This is what was on the file. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would have been by Town Board action with the recommendation of the Conservation Advisory Council and the Trustees. We were both recommending bodies to the Town Board, at that time, I believe. MR. ANDERSON: That may be, but my point is this is a permitted structure that incurred damage as a result of the storm, and just because you have damage because of the storm doesn't mean you lose your dock. Even if your dock was built in 1985. Board of Trustees 43 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It could well be totally permitted by the town. Could we get a copy of that permit? MR. ANDERSON: No, we couldn't find them in your file. All we could find is an acknowledgment by your Board that this is a fully permitted dock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have that acknowledgement? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's in your file. I'll hand you a copy of the letter. TRUSTEE KING: I find it hard to believe that dock was functional before the storm. I find that very hard to believe. Come on. MR. ANDERSON: Well, what I suggest -- TRUSTEE KING: It might be some recent aerials that probably show what it really is. MR. ANDERSON: What I suggest we do is I heard earlier there was a desire to break up the two hearings. Let's do that and we'll take a look at it. We would like to fix up this dock. There is no question there is a value there and it was permitted. Now what kind of shape it was in a month before the storm, I don't frankly know. I do know this, at the time it was built it was controversial because it was a large dock in an otherwise shoreline that didn't have any docks. So that I do know. I acknowledge that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: A suggestion would be then if the applicant would be willing to remove the dock from this application so we could act on the rest of this application tonight and then resubmit for the dock under a separate application, or amendment to a permit, if you say there is a permit out there. MR. ANDERSON: Well, let's do that, for sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. ANDERSON: In other words take no action with respect to the dock tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what I'm asking you, are you willing to pull the dock out of this application so there is no mention of the dock. MR. ANDERSON: I would do so without prejudice to my ability to rebuild the dock. That's my answer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Without prejudice for your ability to re-apply for a permit to rebuild the dock. MS. HULSE: I'm right with you, Dave. MR. ANDERSON: Are you listening to this? MS. MOORE: I'm listening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to make a comment on this application? Board members? Any questions? (No response). Hearing no other comment, 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 the application for the bulkhead and to permit withdrawal without prejudice of the portion of the application dealing with anything with a dock for subsequent review and potential action by the Board of Trustees. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Counsel, is that wording -- MS. HULSE: You said remove. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll allow withdrawal without prejudice. MS. HULSE: That's fine, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Of the portion dealing with any dock for subsequent review of potential action by the Board. MS. HULSE: And future hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. Board of Trustees 44 December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Jam~es F. t< i~g, P~sident Board of Trustees RECEIVED MAR 7 2013