The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-02/20/2013 James F. King, President Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President Dave Bergen John Bredemeyer Michael J. Domino Town H~l Annex 54375Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED MAY 1 6 2013 · ~. ' Minutes Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:30 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Robed Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 13, 2013, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday March 20, 2013, at 5:30 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, March 20, 2013, at 5:00 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of December 12, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, welcome to our February meeting. Once again, we are meeting a little on the early side to try and cope with the many applications that we have. When we get into the public hearings section, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself. Wayne Galante here will get everything on the record for us. Please try and keep your comments limited to five minutes or less. Please keep your comments directed at the project that we are talking about. Don't go off on a tangent. Last month we had people talking about pollution in the bay and oil spills and everything else. We know all about it but it didn't apply to the project we were talking about and it took a lot of our time and made things difficult for Wayne. Please direct your comments to the Board. If there is controversy between one Board of Trustees 2 February 20, 2013 and the other, don't go talking amongst yourselves and debating the issues. Talk to us. We really appreciate that. Thank you. I would like to set the meeting next field inspection for March 13th at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). The next regular meeting, hopefully things will slow down a little bit, so we would like to have a work session starting at five and our regular meeting will start at 5:30 on March 20th. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of December 12, 20127 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion to approve the Minutes of December 12, 2012. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January, 2013. A check for $24,136.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 20, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: TRUSTEE KING: We have a number of these. They are listed as follows: Robert E. Taylor - SCTM# 126-6-9.1 Charlotte C. Burkard - SCTM# 128-2-16 David C. Esseks - SCTM# 64-1-14.7 Charles & Janice Bovino - SCTM# 119-1-6.1 Warren & Nina Bernstein - SCTM# 59-5-3 Board of Trustees 3 February 20, 2013 John & Emily Breese - SCTM# 70-6-24 Fishers Island Development Corp., C/O Fishers Island Marina, LLC - SCTM# 10-1-9 Barbara & Seth Eichler - SCTM# 51-1-6 Fishers Island Yacht Club - SCTM# 10-1-9 & 9-2-3.1 Ralph Carbone - SCTM# 1-2-5 Hay Harbor Club - SCTM# 9-3-1 Norton A. Davidson - SCTM# 12-2-5.3 Suzanne Moyse, Mary Guerriera & Jennifer Blackhall - SCTM# 31-18-5 John Luscher - SCTM# 31-18-4 Barbara Koch cio George Koch - SCTM# 31-18-6 Kirk O'Farrell & Denise Cerasani - SCTM# 31-13-9.1 Soundfront Holdings LLC - SCTM# 51-4-8 Dean Stefanides - SCTM# 31-18-17 Valerie Michelsen - SCTM# 31-18-18 James A. & Nancy W. Clous - SCTM# 53-6-18 Andrea Parks - SCTM# 111-9-5.1 & 5.2 Ellen F. Emery - SCTM# 111-13-6 Daniel DeVito - SCTM# 81-3-26.1 Romeo & Ann Solon - SCTM# 31-17-13.2 Dina Masso - SCTM# 111-13-4 Jack Cipriano - SCTM# 87-5-23.6 Robed Horvath - SCTM# 81-3-5 Bruce Beaney - SCTM# 86-7-1 Joan M. Keating QPRT cio Stanley J. Keating - SCTM# 118-4-14.2 Michael & Grace Ann Griffin - SCTM# 37-4-15.1 Shelter Island Sound, Inc., cio Mark Miller - SCTM# 81-3-25.2 Mark Miller - SCTM# 81-3-24.2 Caroline & Douglas Fraser, Jr. - SCTM# 118-4-7 Mary McFeely - SCTM# 128-2-9.1 Stephen & Elizabeth O'Shaughnessy - SCTM# 128-2-9.2 Frederick de la Vega & Lawrence Higgins - SCTM# 23-1-6.1 Cynthia O'Leary - SCTM# 123-7-7.3 Sal Varano - SCTM# 86-7-4.3 Ruth E. Miller Residence Trust - SCTM# 86-7-2.2 Matthew D. Volpe - SCTM# 80-5-1.1 Henry Goetz - SCTM#135-3-5 Manning Credit Shelter Trust Mannviewe LLC, cio Philip Manning - SCTM# 117-10-11 Joseph O. Brusco - SCTM# 117-10-12.3 John W. Bellando - SCTM# 117-10-10 Bert A. Collison & Glendinning Family Trust, cio Kopen & Collison, LP & cio Port of Egypt Island - SCTM# 56-6-13 Sean McCoyd - SCTM# 87-3-66.4 Barbara Kelsey - SCTM# 128-6-2 Fred Young - SCTM# 114-12-13.6 TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 4 February 20, 2013 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We have a few cancellations here, postponements. I would like to just go through them so no one is sitting here waiting for us to do something we don't address. On page six, number seven, Patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE, requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7200 for the storm damaged part of the dock; replace 6'x9.6' wood dock with 4x18' wood dock which will enable to use shorter aluminum ramp; replace 28' permitted aluminum ramp with 20'x30" aluminum ramp; add two tie-off piles on east side; relocated existed float. Located: 3698 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed. On page four, number seven CONSTANCE C. VlCKERS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #11-88-113-6-11 from Gerald Wood to Constance C. Vickers, as issued on April 4, 1989. Located: 900 Holbrook Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number eight on page six, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUGLAS & KATHLEEN FOLTS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7837 for the existing foundation to remain; new first floor to be at elevation 12; the south screened porch and its foundation walls will be removed and replaced with new deck piers and decking; the north bedroom and its foundation walls will be removed and the proposed foundation installed to support existing basement will be filled in with approximately two feet of sand with a new concrete slab. Located: 90 Oak Street, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Page 15, number 32, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct and realign a 5x50' dock which was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy by constructing a 5x30' elevated timber walk; a 4x100' timber walk on grade and to remove and dispose of existing wood walk and to connect proposed walk to existing walk as required. Located: 990 Fox Avenue, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Page 15, number 33, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 9x131' timber fixed dock and 26 supporting piles; and to construct a 5x76' timber fixed dock supported by 12 piles, a 4x20' ramp with railings and an 8x40' float secured by four piles. Located: Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Page 15, number 34, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., cio FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge 8,650+/- cubic yards of sandy silt over 63,000+/- square feet with a one foot over-dredge allowance of 2,400+/- cubic yards by clamshell bucket for open water disposal; including the temporary removal and subsequent reinstallation of floating docks A & B as necessary to facilitate dredging. Located: Central Avenue, Southwest Corner of West Harbor, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 5 February 20, 2013 Page 15, number 35, JAMES A. & NANCY W. CLOUS request a Wetland Permit to rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged fixed pier and to extend it from 22' to 40' to move the docks to deeper water; add four new 12" pilings set apart from the floating docks (two on each side of the floating docks); 3x20' seasonal ramp; and two 6x20' seasonal floating docks; rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged stairs to beach and stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier and related pilings; and to repair the existing 100'+/- long storm damaged bulkhead by replacing the top cap-boards and approximately 15' of a 4x4 transverse beam on the bulkhead where the fixed pier was ripped off in the storm. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, has been postponed. Page 15, number 36, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber dock (4.0'W x 31.0'L) and extend an additional 38.0+/- to result in a new catwalk measuring 4.0'W x 69.0'L, supported by eight timber pilings (4"x4") and fourteen timber pilings (6"x6"); construct a hinged ramp (3.0'W x 15.0'L) and a floating dock (6.0'W x 20.0'L) off the seaward end of the new catwalk; the floating dock is to be secured by four timber pilings (6"x6"); all materials to be non-treated; all catwalk top-decking to be of an open-grate design (i.e. Thru-Flow or similar); all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized. Located: 3300 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold, has been postponed. Page 16, number 37, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BERT A. COLLISON & GLENDINNING FAMILY TRUST cio KOPEN & COLLISON, LP & cio PORT OF EGYPT ISLAND, requests a Wetland Permit to construct a brush jetty (500+/- overall) along the southwesterly shoreline (seaward of AHW) of Port of Egypt Island in order to protect same and the shorelines to the northwest. Located: Off Bay Home Road, Southold, has been postponed. Page 16, number 38, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DIANE MACARI requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 30'x15' pool with decks and patios; retaining walls for all structures; 75+/- from edge of wetlands for structures. Located: 465 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed. Page 16, number 39, 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 4x28' hardwood dock consisting of 60% open deck a minimum two feet above grade; a new 3x12' seasonal ramp and a 5x18' seasonal float; construct a 4x38' set of stairs from top of slope to fixed dock; a proposed 10x4' 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, has been postponed. Page 16, number 40, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of FRED YOUNG requests a Wetland Permit for pedestrian access and kayak launch, 4x245' Iow-profile catwalk with open deck, two Board of Trustees 6 February 20, 2013 foot above grade with kayak rails/braces at 4x14' open deck platform with steps down to creek; and hardwood piles 10' on center. Located: 780 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. Page 16, number 41, 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 four-foot wide access path to stairs consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base. Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. Seeing that we are starting early tonight, there have been a couple of requests. On page five, under Amendments, number two, we have been asked to hold that off to at least 5:30. So if it comes up before that, we'll just skip it. And on page seven, number one, was asked to have this hearing happen after 5:30. There, again, we'll hold that off, too, if we get to it before 5:30. We have a resolution concerning older emergency permits. There has been some controversy over them. I would like to read it. It begins on page two. IV. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER WHEREAS, the Town Code of the Town of Southold, pursuant to Section 275-5(C) reads as follows: "The Trustees may issue a temporary emergency permit where specific exigent circumstances exist that may result in personal or property loss or damage. Upon expiration of temporary permit or before the date of expiration, the applicant must apply for a permit as set forth in Section 275-5, 275-6, 275-7; and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees issued permits between 1990 and 1995 for storm related emergency work, recognized as "emergency permits" and those permits were, by definition, temporary in nature; and WHEREAS due to Super-storm Sandy, exigent circumstances exist that may result in personal or property loss or damage to some applicants before this Board; and WHEREAS, applications to repair or rebuild structures described in permits issued between 1990 and 1995 recognized as "emergency permits" would be required to apply for a permit pursuant to Sections 275-5, 275-6, 275-7 and include the requisite Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) review, Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) review, notices and stamped plans and public hearings; and WHEREAS the Board of Trustees recognizes the need for expedited review of applications to repair or rebuild due to Super-storm Sandy; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees hereby finds that permits issued between 1990 and 1995 as "emergency permits" shall have full force and effect of a wetlands permit Board of Trustees 7 February 20, 2013 issued pursuant to 275-5(A), 275-5(B), 275-6 and 275-8 of the Town Code. Does anybody want to move this? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to have a little discussion on this. TRUSTEE KING: Does anyone want to have any discussion on this? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Two points. One of institutional memory. I was Chair of the Trustees at the time. I actually saw it through the lens of the way the Board currently conducts Chapter 275, we view these types of permits as being temporary, but at the time I think we reviewed these as emergency authorizations as necessary to protect the shoreline, which was rupturing very similar to what happened under Tropical Storm Sandy. So to give you an analogy, if you go to the dentist and he has sufficient time and you need an emergency repair, you have the choice you can either get a temporary filling or if he has the time he'll give you a permanent repair. I believe for the sake of the institutional memory of the Board at the time, and there may be even be individuals here who were before the Board at that time, all the approvals were given based on protecting the public safety and the coastal, and we viewed them at the time under the authorization we had as being emergency repairs. But they have permanence. There was a notion of permanence to them since the structures in most places were replacement bulkheads that had no permits because they predated the Town Wetland Code. Now through the eyes of the updated code which I believe occurred when you were on the Board Jim, in 1996 and 1997, they tended to change the manner in the procedure in the manner which the Board looked at those permits. So I wanted to provide some clarification for this, and I would also like -- that's the first part. I would just like to provide that as clarification, as far as institutional memory, since I had the benefit of having been Chairman of the Board at that time. I would also like to bring this forward to the next work session because I think we have to have some discussions as far as the level of compliance, inspections, how we'll handle some emergency authorizations we just granted. We had a difficult situation here, understandably, the coastline was, again, put at risk, and I think for the good and welfare of the office staff and the Trustees going forward, I think we have to have some discussions as far as how we'll handle compliance inspections whether we want to require them or not or require additional paperwork to follow after these current group of authorizations. So that said, I just want to bring those points up. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I honestly had some concerns about this. I'm not trying to be a mind reader. I think back when those decisions were made it was recognized those were a legitimate bulkhead. But by today's standards, there was no real review on it. I have Board of Trustees 8 February 20, 2013 seen some of the emergency permits, there were no plans, we really don't even know what was there. Like I said, I think we need further discussion on this. I think we need, in my mind, I would have rather gone the route to go for say an administrative wetland permit for these to recognize them at this time as a wetland permit. The difficulty is some of these are coming in for amendments and I don't think we have ever in the past amended an emergency permit. So it's kind of a tough situation. I know our legal advisor says these are not really wetland permits. But that's up to the Board. I think we should just take a vote on it if there is no further discussion. Is there anybody else? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point, agree, Jim, things have certainly changed. I would think that notions of improving the recordkeeping, I mean these permits were all granted before we had municity, before there were strict requirements for licensed land surveys backing the plans, so I believe we could probably have a proper governmental process that would be able to protect the property rights that individuals acquired by virtue of those permits. Because those permits were granted at a time when permits ran with the land, and I believe that we probably need further discussion. I think this is a good resolution to start, but further discussion where we could protect the property rights of people that acquired those permits absent an actual resolution from a prior Board that met here that said they were not permits. I would hold these are proper permits that ran with the land, that the people who applied to the Board came in in good faith, and in most cases they were building simple navy bulkheads that replaced prior structures that went back to the '20's and '30's that had been torn apart by the perfect storm and the Halloween storm of the subsequent year. Anyway, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree with what John has said here. I know, and I apologize, I meant to bring it today, but I have a copy of one of these permits that was given in 1993 and in no place on the permit did it say "emergency." It was a regular permit. So as the owner of the property there was nothing there to indicate at all that it was anything but a valid, full, wetland permit. So I agree that I think we need to have further discussion regarding this, involving emergency permits that we are granting today, and we can have that at a later work session. But I would like to move forward with a vote on this resolution tonight to recognize all the permits given at that time as valid, full, Trustee permits. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). We'll make take a roll call vote. Trustee Domino? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. Board of Trustees 9 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote nay. I can't support this as written. I think it needs more work. Trustee Ghosio? TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Resolution passes four to one. V. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of MICHAEL & DARYL MALTER request an Administrative Permit to replace existing block cesspool with new upgraded one inkind. Located: 4450 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Did you look at that, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I went out and looked at this. It's actually replacing a septic system where the pre-existing septic system was, and it's almost non-jurisdictional. So I would move this forward to support this application, this resolution for an Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, K. Russell Glover, Architect on behalf of ROBERT OXNAM requests an Administrative Permit to construct a 10x20' approximate stone slab patio on-grade to replace existing stone patio torn up during Hurricane Sandy, and behind existing bluff retaining wall. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. We all went out and looked at that. As a matter of fact we talked a little bit to the property owner, and the patio that is there is quite a bit larger than the 10x20 I think it measured out at about 40 feet, if I remember right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Roughly, yes. TRUSTEE KING: And the notes just said we want to make it 10x20, which was applied for. So if they want to cut it back to 10x20, I don't think we had an issue with a deck that size. We all felt it was too large the way it is right now. They had some mulch, I guess would be to the east side of the stairway. Part of a non-turf buffer. They'll probably continue the mulch just to the west of the stairway, the stone patio, in this application. So as long as we keep it to 10x20, I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: It was found inconsistent with the LWRP but I think by downsizing it from what it is to the 10'x20' -- and the land slopes landward. It doesn't slope toward the bluff. So if there is any drainage issues, it will be sloping toward the property owner. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could we condition that the 10'x20' be located adjacent to the upper landing for the stairs so it's pulled from that west property line? It was going very close to the Board of Trustees 10 February 20, 2013 neighboring property. TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter here that came in on the 14th. I think they are asking now to increase the size to what it is at the present time. I don't think the Board had any interest in keeping it that size. I would like to stay with what we decided in the field, to keep the patio at 10'x20'. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: What about John's suggestion? TRUSTEE KING: On the west end of it? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What did you want to do, pull it off the west end? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Pull it off the west end so it was not so close to the neighbor's. The question is, it's in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and it's a question of the code required protection, lateral support protection, that was very impervious and so heavy rainfall is going to be running water over toward the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE KING: So do you want make it 10'x20' starting at the west side of the steps going down to the bluff? That would slide the whole thing to the east. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it would slide the whole thing to the east. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: It makes sense, really. TRUSTEE KING: I think we'll do that, then. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If we allow it to the west, he'll need a walkway anyhow, so by moving it eastward we avoid that need for a walk. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to specify square footage instead of 10'x20', since it's an irregular shape, make it 200-square feet, that way he can pick whatever shape he wants, however he needs to revise it, starting at the west end of the stairs going west. TRUSTEE KING: All right. Ill make that motion. I'll make a motion to approve a patio beginning at the west side of the stairs going down the bluff to be no larger than 200-square feet. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, what we try and do if they are not very complicated at all and there is no issues, we try and lump some of them together to move things along a little quicker. What I would like to do, on page three, one and two; and on page four, numbers four, five and six and ten; and on page five, 12 and 13. I would like to lump those together. They are listed as follows: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of HENRY MAZZONI request the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7277, as issued on April 21, 2010. Located: Stoney Beach Road, East Marion. Number two, KENNETH & ELIZABETH LESTRANGE, request the Last Board of Trustees 11 February 20, 2013 One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7256, as issued on March 17, 2010, and Amended on August 18, 2010, and Amended again on December 12, 2012. Located: 960 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck. Number four, ANTHONY & SUNMI WONG requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6433 from James & Eileen Buglion to Anthony & Sunmi Wong, as issued on August 23, 2006. Located: 2520 Clearview Avenue, Southold. Number five, ANTHONY & SUNMI WONG request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5938 from James & Eileen Buglion to Anthony & Sunmi Wong, as issued on June 24, 2004, and Amended on October 20, 2004. Located: 2520 Clearview Avenue, Southold. Number six, ROCKCOVE ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6015 from East of Eden, LLC, to Rockcove Estates Homeowners Association, as issued on October 20, 2004. Located: 1380 Sound Drive, Greenport. Number 12, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7804 to include a proposed approximately 3/4 acre wetland mitigation pond. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island. And number 13, Eh-Consultants on behalf of FOR THE LOVE OF FAMILY, LLC, requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7279 for the as-built gravel over asphalt driveway; masonry fire pit; and walk. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. I make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: So we'll start with number three on page four. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, TIMOTHY MOYLAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1579 FROM Lawrence D. Byron, Jr., to Timothy and Mary Moylan, as issued on February 5, 1983. Located: 1075 harbor Lane, Cutchogue. I went out and looked at that. I had no problem with the transfer, I just want to make sure the condition on this new permit matches the condition that was put on the original permit by the Trustees back in '83, that the dock cannot go any further seaward than what was issued back on February 5th, 1983. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, John N. Blakely on behalf of RJJ PROPERTIES LLC, requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #-4203 from Warren Augenthaler to RJ Properties LLC, as issued on July 29, 1993; and an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4203 to install +/-100'x6' of vinyl skin onto existing sheathing of bulkhead. Located: 7225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. It was a straightforward application, they just want to put vinyl on the front of the existing bulkhead to support the existing bulkhead. It's consistent under the LWRP. So I would move to support that application. Board of Trustees 12 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We have another one, number nine, .ANTON BOGOVlC, requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1273 from Peter Bogovic to Anton Bogovic, Danielle Bogovic, Josip Bogovic and Sanja Floricic-Bogevic, as issued on November 28, 1977; and an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #1273 to legalize the existing structure into the current dock dimensions which comprises of a 3x22' fixed dock with four-foot wide steps to beach; 3.1'x12.3' ramp; and a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 1980 North Bayview Road, Southold. This is for the transfer of an older permit, and I know there was a newer permit issued for a bulkhead there. So I think what I would like to do on this one is to approve the transfer and also transfer the newer permit -- I don't have the number here -- from what it was, but I know it was fairly recent for a vinyl bulkhead. So I would like to transfer both permits to the family. I guess it's transferred to the kids. There is actually two permits; this older one and there is a newer one. So we would, we should just transfer both of them. And this was found consistent with the LWRP. That is my resolution. There are two permits on this property that should be transferred, not just the one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 11, JOHN S. WHITE requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7818 for the as-built 8" diameter pilings instead of 4" diameter pilings on the fixed dock; and to add two smaller pilings and abut each of them against the two farthest existing pilings that hold the floating dock in order to strengthen them. Located: 4324 Westphalia Avenue, Mattituck. I think there was some misunderstandings on this plan because the piles indicated on the plan are already indicated at eight inches. And I think we wanted to make a couple of minor changes to this to kind of improve this permit. So it will be eight-inch pilings. What we want to see, we want to see six-inch pilings through the wetland area, then go to eight-inch pilings when you get out into the water. So it would be three sets of six-inch pilings and three sets of eight-inch pilings. And I think, like I say, we are trying to make this a little better application. The ramp on the plans is 14-feet long. I'm very familiar with Mattituck Creek. We have about a five-and-a-half foot rise and fall of tide there. A 14-foot ramp really is not long enough because at Iow tide it gets so severely steep you can't even walk up and down it. So my suggestion would be to change the ramp length to 20 feet and shorten the catwalk by six feet. So the overall length remains the same but you have a much more gradual slope at Iow tide down to the float. And as far as Board of Trustees 13 February 20, 2013 the two pile dolphins, we have been staying with one pile on each end of the float. We have not been doing the two-pile dolphins in quite a few years now. So I would recommend approval for this, with those stipulations: Six-inch piles for three sets, the rest eight-inch out into the water; shorten the dock by six feet and increase the ramp to 20 feet from 14. So the overall length stays the same. And it will be two eight-inch piles holding the float in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to go off our regular hearing and into the public hearing section. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: Like I said at the beginning of the meeting, if you have any comments, please keep them brief. Keep it restricted to what we are talking about. If it's something controversial, a dispute going on, please don't discuss it amongst yourselves. Talk to us. Thank you. Number one, under Amendments, ROBERT TAYLOR requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #4241 to extend the existing +/-30' return/bulkhead another +/-10' to meet proposed Marlene Park bulkhead. Located: 2995 Sigsbee Road, Mattituck. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has voted to support the application, with no other comments. I went out and looked at this. It's very simple. There is a new bulkhead being built to the east of this project and he just wants to extend his return in to meet that new bulkhead on the east side of his property. It's a very simple application, just an extension of the return to meet the new bulkhead of the neighbor. Any comments from anybody? (No response). I'm I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so everyone knows, I turned the heat off. For some reason the thermostat is not working, tf you start to get cold, let me know, we can turn it back on. TRUSTEE KING: Number two, we'll come back to after 5:30 as was requested in the beginning. Board of Trustees 14 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7891 to relocate the proposed dwelling and to construct a smaller dwelling with attached deck on seaward side. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. Basically this is an application to amend a wetland permit that we spent an awful lot of time on a couple of years ago. It took us quite a while to work through it. Anyone familiar with the area, this is the property just east, on the south side across from the town beach. It's a sunken lot. It borders Hashamomuck. They are looking to move this further and relocate it so it gets closer to some of the wetland areas that we had originally set aside as non-disturbance areas, as I understand it. We all took a look at it. The original was inconsistent under the LWRP, just to make a note of that. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application to relocate. Now, it is possible when they went out there to take a look at it they didn't realize that we had other stipulations from the original on this. So is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this application? MR. DROUZAS: Vlassie Drouzas. We were wondering if there is any problems with the go ahead on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That remains to be seen. We have to vote on it first. Are there any other comments? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think field inspection revealed that the proposed amendment would have the house located closer to the protected wetlands than the original, and the original which had, my understanding, had a lengthy approval, would have been brought into consistency under the LWRP plan by providing the home further away from wetlands during that initial application process. So that puts us in a difficult position to grant an amendment that would remove, would ostensibly put the project back into being inconsistent with LWRP, and would actually, I think before we would even be able to act on such, we would have to have another LWRP review. It would seem it would have to come as a totally new application with a new LWRP. It certainly would seem to be going contrary to the previous consistency that would have been granted by moving the project further away from the wetland. (Inaudible). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically what we are discussing up here is the changes being made actually takes and encroaches the project into the non-disturbance buffer that we had set at the original hearing on the original permit and that's not something that the Board is going to support, I don't think. The contour is up here. This is well past it. It really does increase the size of Board of Trustees 15 February 20, 2013 the disturbance in that whole area. The whole parking area is changed, the driveway is changed. The house has been moved closer to the wetlands. And again, we had, there was a lot of comment in the original hearings. This went back and forth for quite a while and I don't find myself in a position to support it. I don't know about the rest of the Board. TRUSTEE KING: I'm very uncomfortable with moving it that much closer to the wetlands. We are looking at 20, 25 feet moving it closer. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: We had a lot of trouble figuring out what the elevations were going to be in terms of height. Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application? MR. DROUZAS: Can it be moved a little more toward like the area where you'll be comfortable with? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The quick answer to that is you can apply for anything you would like. We issued a permit we were comfortable with after a number of months working on it. We are not in a position now to tell you exactly where to put it. You already have a place to put it that we worked on. As far as, aside from that, if you would like to work on that to get another amendment through, it's your right, but we can't tell that now. MR. DROUZAS: So we have to make another amendment toward that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think what you are hearing from the Board is if you want to amend it in some way so it's closer to the road, in another direction, feel free, but I don't think this Board is going to support any application that the structure is moving toward the non-disturbance area. Again, I agree with what has already been said. This was worked on for several months, this application, and I know there were neighbors there were very, very concerned about how this was encroaching on a small wetland area. What people in the audience have not seen that is on our plans, it's not just Hashamomuck Pond, there is a wetland area to the east -- excuse me, to the west of where the proposed house is, was going to go. So if you want to amend something that prevents the structure from going any further seaward than what was approved already, I think there would be a greater tendency for a favorable reaction to that, but not a favorable reaction for any application that would move it seaward of where we approved it already. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody else who would like to speak to the application? (No response). 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 deny without prejudice the application. Board of Trustees 16 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DAVID ¢. ESSEKS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5974 from Jennifer & Philip Stanton to David C. Esseks as issued on August 18, 2004, and Amended on May 18, 2005, and Amended again on December 16, 2009; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5974 to maintain the original %" configuration of the floating dock; and install two mooring pilings (8.0" diameter) with Slide-Moor Systems off of the seaward end of the floating dock. Located: 522 Town Creek, Southold. The project has been determined to be consistent with the Town's LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because the pilings may prove to be a navigation hazard. This is the offshore pilings that are proposed. And the floating dock currently sits on the bottom. There is a question of the need for the additional pilings. The Trustees during the course of our monthly field inspections also raised questions concerning the safety of navigation in the creek, and Trustee members who had been familiar with the application previously had raised the question as to the need for the tie-off piles. Those were the issues surrounding, similar issues surrounding both the Conservation Advisory Council review and the Trustee review. That said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental for the applicant. To give you an idea of how far the piles stick out in the creek, this is scaled directly from the plan itself. And the reason the owner wants these piles is because apparently his boat is taking a beating from southerly winds. Again, this is scaled directly off what is in the drawing. These piles sit a maximum 14 feet off that floating dock. Again, you can see, the dock to the east, that actually encroaches a little further. I measured most of the docks in the area. This dock, inclusive of those pilings, the extension, is very similar to the docks on both shorelines north and south. There are some instances where docks are exceeding the length of our dock overall. There is also numerous examples of tie-off pilings, as you can see. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because the record can't reflect what we are looking it, it does appear from the photograph and the scale, the addition of these two piles would seem, in scale, in comparison to the dock, that it doesn't appear to go beyond the neighboring dock, nor does it appear to go a third of the way across, which is the general standard that we have to abide by. MR. WANS: That's correct. I think the distance across is about, I have about 215 feet directly across. And we are about 65 feet from the high water mark, full extension, including the proposed pilings. Board of Trustees 17 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only question I have is the adjacent property owners and how the plot lines run as far as navigation approaches to neighboring properties. TRUSTEE KING: What's the distance between those two piles? It looks like it might be close to 20 feet? MR. IVANS: It's about 14 feet. TRUSTEE KING: What size boat is he planning on tying to those? MR. IVANS: That, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I doubt it's a 14-foot boat. MR. IVANS: I would doubt it. TRUSTEE KING: So that would mean the vessel would be extended out further. I'm uncomfortable with these tie-off piles that are put out. It just takes up more of the public bottom. MR. IVANS: Do you want me to get information on the boat the owner has and I can scale it onto a drawing? TRUSTEE KING: There is no way you can tie to the float itself? Supposing they had a couple of piles on the seaward side of the float that he could tie to, with the sliders on them. We did that in Mattituck. It was successful until we had the hurricane and the guy left his boat on I windward side and he had a problem. MR. IVANS: I think, again, he's worried about the southerly winds banging his boat against the dock itself. TRUSTEE KING: If we put a pile here and a pile here with the sliders and tie his boat here, it works very well. I mean you are not going way out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My concern also was the proximity of these tie-off piles to the extended property line. In the code it has to be 15 feet offthe adjacent property line and I have a feeling -- and again, I don't have a survey here. Actually the -- I think I would ask if you could go back to the client and see if the client would be willing to consider what Jim has recommended here. MR. IVANS: Let me just see, I want to make sure I have this right. You are talking along the side of the float? TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating) MR. IVANS: That's what I'm saying, he's afraid, the boat is getting beaten up with the southerly wind. That is his concern. That is what he's worried about. That's what I'm afraid of going back to the client. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm trying to figure out what orientation the boat will be here. What is he trying to do? MR. IVANS: I think with the sliders, you see here, you can basically go right up against these things. The sliders go up and down with the tide, so you basically connect this. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess my point being whether the sliders are here or there, what's the difference. MR. IVANS: That's what I'm saying, I think because this keeps the boat from banging into the dock on a southerly wind and I think, I mean in a normal situation, two tie-off piles on the outside, but I guess, apparently this is the way to go. Maybe I Board of Trustees 18 February 20, 2013 can do a schematic of the boat. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Maybe have all this in there. MR. IVANS: And I can get an idea how big this boat will be. (Perusing). All right, we'll wait and see what they want to do. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Jim, he was just saying he would be more than happy to have a schematic drawn in with a boat drawn on it so we could see what it looks like in total, which would be helpful to me. TRUSTEE KING: Fine with me. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We could table it to see. TRUSTEE KING: We can table it. Whatever you guys want to do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I'll move to table it then, and bring in more information. Any other comments with respect to this application? (No response). Hearing none, I would make a motion to table this application and afford the applicant an opportunity to bring in more information regarding tie-off of the vessel. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of CHARLES & JANICE BOVlNO request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7978 to replace inplace the existing two 12-foot returns at the northern and central portion of the property, and one 23-foot return at the southern end of the property. Located: 9775 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This is to amend a permit that was just given in December because they want to include returns at the property line and in the middle of the property, which we had, by the way, had recommended for people to think about after Sandy is returns, so that if a neighboring bulkhead blows out, your property is protected. So they are helpful. They definitely are. So it was found consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental, if there are any questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: None from us. Does anybody else have any comments for or against this application? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I11 make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Charles and Janice Bovine as described. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. Board of Trustees 19 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, John Berg on behalf of WARREN & NINA BERNSTEIN request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7540 to restore the driveway to original dirt and gravel condition, pre-construction; and to include the installation of new four-inch aggregate base and new gravel at upper driveway and parking area. Located: 2095 Lake Drive, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to restore the driveway to the original dirt and gravel condition and install a new four-inch aggregated base and new gravel in the upper driveway parking area. They made no inspection -- clarify, they made no recommendation. The Trustees visited the site. Our decision was that the recommendation there be no aggregated base or crushed cement, which would be virtually impermeable, and recommended beach stone or pea gravel so that it will allow water to percolate through the driveway. Is there anyone here to speak to the application? MR. BERG: Hi, John Berg, Berg Design Architecture. That sounds perfectly acceptable, as long as we are also able to put the aggregate in the upper parking area with pea gravel on top of it TRUSTEE DOMINO: The plans show the aggregate in the upper area. Our concern was in the lower section. MR. BERG: Understood. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KING: I think our concern was the area going through the wetlands itself; to remove that aggregated from there and just have the gravel. MR. MANOS: Charles Manos, I'm speaking on behalf of my father James Manos who owns the adjacent property. The reason for concern is there is a common apron on the driveway, if you look at the plans. If I may refer you initially to Mr. Berg's sketch and you see the lower part of the driveway, which is on the top of the diagram, and for definition of terms, it's where it enters Lake Drive. And the hatch area ends and there is actually an area between the hatch area and Lake Drive which is a common driveway. If you will imagine an upside down letter "Y." So Mr. Bernstein's driveway represents one half. Actually, maybe you do have a picture of it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have anything down looking the other way toward the driveway. That's all I have. MR. MANOS: Okay, not a problem. I gave you some pictures, just by way of description. If you imagine an upside down "Y" shape, and Mr. Bernstein's driveway is one leg of the "Y," my family's driveway is the other leg of the "Y," and the stem of the "Y" goes into Lake Drive. So in other words there is a common area. If you look at the pictures I provided. MR. BERG: I have a diagram, it might be helpful. MR. MANOS: If you look at a picture I provided, number one is Board of Trustees 20 February 20, 2013 standing in the driveway of 2147, which is the adjacent property to Mr. Bernstein's. And you are staring at Lake Drive. Now, if you look to the left of that, excuse me, the right of that picture there is some trees, and you can actually see Mr. Bernstein's driveway through the trees. If you flip to picture number two, you are standing on Lake Drive and looking at the driveways. So here the perspective is reversed. To the right is my family's driveway, to the left is Mr. Bernstein's driveway. And I'm guessing approximately where that post is, is where the, on the submitted plan, the hatch area ends. So in other words if you look again at that hatch area, on the amendment, to the left of it is a curve. That curve is my family's driveway. Then there is an area, I guess ten, 13 feet, that extends from that hatch to Lake Drive. That's a common apron. So there is egress and ingress. I should also mention to the left of this, to the left of the family house driveway is all wetlands. So for to us extend the other way is you go into wetlands. Then if you switch to number three it's just another perspective of the common apron. And four is the same thing. It's standing on the Lake Drive. You see the common apron on the bottom and now you are looking up the Bernstein's driveway. So, you know, the reason my father is concerned is he just wants to ensure that the grading stays the same there, that there is no obstruction, because it's necessary for emergency vehicles to get in and out. And also what you don't necessarily see from these diagrams is as you go from either driveway exiting, if you made a right on to Lake Drive, there is like a hill, and it actually obstructs vision. So, again, if the common apron is not preserved then my father, you would have an 86-year old man making too wide of a right turn and going into oncoming traffic, which i don't think is in the public interest. Part of my humor. Nobody got it. So, we would like the Bernstein's to be able to get this done. Spring is almost upon us and I'm sure they would like to enjoy the property as soon as possible. So our only concern is there is some restoration, you know, that the apron be preserved. And my father mentioned to the Bernstein's whatever common expense for material in that area, he's willing to chip in for as well. MR. BERG: I have met with James Manos on behalf of Warren Bernstein and listened to his concerns and have taken them to Warren Bernstein and we have assured Mr. Manos that we will render that apron to be level and that there will be no migration of any new gravel on to Mr. Manos', the shared portion of the apron. And I have a letter here from Warren Bernstein making those assertions that were sent to James Manos on January 22nd Mr. Manos has also met with Fred Seifert of Seifert Construction who has also assured him that we will do whatever it takes to render the apron to his satisfaction, once the weather becomes, once we are able to do the finished gravel. MR. SEIFERT: Fred Seifert. I spoke to your father, Jim, on the Board of Trustees 21 February 20, 2013 site and he walked me down to the apron, showed me his concerns. We, at the time, had the apron completely level but it was a different material than what your father, your father's apron is. And in the essence of trying to cooperate with him and satisfy him, I told him we would extend the gravel that is in Mr. Bernstein's apron over to his apron to make it looks like one harmonious, continuous apron. He thanked me for that and thought that was a good resolution. Since then he's asked me to make it a little wider because we didn't get his whole apron, and I told him we would, once the weather cooperates. And that was the last conversation I had with him. He seemed completely fine with that, and our intention is to make sure that Mr. Bernstein, I mean Mr. Manos is satisfied that the apron is passable for everyone. That's just our intention on that. MR. MANOS: He takes them at his word. His only concern was that it's not reflected on the diagram, so. MR. BERG: I could amend the diagram MR. SEIFERT: We already extended the common apron area. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It appears to me most of the discussion is happening off the property itself, correct? MR. BERG: Excuse me. I didn't hear what you said. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Most of your concerns is on the property not owned by Mr. Bernstein, that's my question. MR. MANOS: It's actually like a common area. There is common egress. MR. BERG: So what the diagram reflects is the area that is zoned solely. There is -- this is the area of non-easement. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the point is we can't stipulate to them to do something to your property. MR. MANOS: It's not our property. There is a common area. I should say it's not solely. It's an area -- MR. BERG: I think there are two issues; one is the Board issue, one is the issue with Mr. Manos. We are trying to satisfy both issues. TRUSTEE KING: We can't make you do something on somebody else's property. MR. BERG: Right. So our issue with Mr. Manos, we have given him our word we will take care of that, which we have already done, but we'll clean it up a little better to satisfy him, and the with you, if accepted, not to use the aggregate, that is fine, too. TRUSTEE KING: That was our concern. MR. BERG: And both issues we plan on resolving. MR. MANOS: I think the property line extends beyond this diagram, and there is a common area. So it's not, as you are asserting, outside the property line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the bottom line here for me is that this is all outside of our jurisdiction of the Trustees. This apron that is being discussed right now. Our jurisdiction is 100 feet from the wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: Technically it is within our jurisdiction because it is within a hundred feet. It's jurisdictional, but it's on Board of Trustees 22 February 20, 2013 somebody else's property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think our concern is get rid of the aggregate and make it a gravel driveway like it was. MR. MANOS: That would be fine then. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I11 make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the driveway be restored to the original grade and use either gravel or pea stone so that it remains permeable. MR. MANOS: If I may, grade and elevation because then it creates an obstruction. I know it's a minor point, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want to put that in your motion? TRUSTEE DOMINO: The motion says restore the driveway to the original. That should satisfy the condition. MR. SEIFERT: The elevation was the same. MR. MANOS: If it's uniform, it's fine. And the owner pledges to make it absolute level across the apron, so there will be no obstruction. TRUSTEE KING: All right, that's the motion. Is there a second on it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Well go back, we held off, on number two, on page five, CHARLOTTE C. BLIRKARD requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6661 to include a proposed 12x18' return running south to north attached to the existing bulkhead to prevent further erosion to the southeast corner of the property; add fill to re-establish eroded area and re-vegetate with beach grass; and to include the repair or replacement of the existing 20x10' deck with three-foot wide stairways on the north entrance to existing dwelling. Located: 5360 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This was exempt under the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. They are recommending an engineered bulkhead design due to the fact the previous bulkheads failed. I believe the bulkhead that failed was not on Mr. Burkard's property. I think it's on the adjacent neighbor to the east. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. BURKARD: I'm here. Thank you, for the postponement. I had to drop my wife off at work today and I just got here. I'm the husband of Charlotte C. Burkard. TRUSTEE KING: I went out and looked at this. What happened, the neighbor's bulkhead failed and where it meets Mr. Burkard's bulkhead, it blew a hole in and went into Mr. Burkard's property Board of Trustees 23 February 20, 2013 and did a lot of erosion in front of his home. In front of the cottage. So this amendment is to extend the return a little further landward to protect that from happening again. I didn't have any issues with it at all. Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response). Any Board comment? (No response). It's pretty straightforward, pretty simple. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BURKARD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there anybody here for Barbara and Seth Eichler? (No response). They are not here yet. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Moving into Wetland and Coastal Erosion permits, we'll go to number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of BARBARA KOCH cio GEORGE KOCH requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the remains of existing wood walk, stairway to beach, and 73'+/- of bulkhead; construct 73'+/- of new bulkhead inplace; fill eroded area with clean trucked-in fill (approx. 100 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct 10'x20' wood deck. Located: 270 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This is one of the homes on Rabbit Lane in East Marion. There will be a series of these coming up, pretty much all in order, as was the same case last month. Most those homes and those bulkheads were completely wiped out in the storm, so this was just repairs to those bulkheads. And also the decking and some of the housing that were damaged in Sandy. This one has been found to be inconsistent and consistent by LWRP. It's inconsistent because anything larger than 10x20' foot deck located in the coastal erosion hazard area is inconsistent. And of course he also lists being in a beach area, there is really no development permitted in a beach area. Of course we know that, but this was an existing home. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, though it does have a concern about the location of Board of Trustees 24 February 20, 2013 the sanitary system, which we'll probably find on almost all of the applications because all the sanitaries are fairly close because of the proximity of the beach area and the homes. TRUSTEE KING: What he is noting there about the decks, I don't know -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What the LWRP coordinator is noting here is the deck is supposed to meet the 200-square foot of unregulated activity, but the deck is not removed in the Fall of each year and does net therefore meet the definition. TRUSTEE KING: I disagree. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I disagree, too. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was under 200-square feet or removed in the Fall. That's my understanding of the coastal erosion law. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think your understanding is correct. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't have to be both. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was to capillaries that had a regular erosion rate and to allow minimal use of the shoreline. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That is the premise we were working on. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, or which are removed in the fall of each year, less than 200-square feet. So if it was nominally less -- TRUSTEE KING: Se it would be an inch less. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think that's what we also pointed out in the field, looking at all these, is the fact that we need to keep those decks 200-square feet or less in order to be consistent with the code, and I think that was primarily the only concern we had with most of these. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. Sounds like you are doing fine. We reduced it to 200-square feet. That's the only thing being done. And it's not going to be removable. You pretty much already said everything. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: They all got beat up pretty good. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is a retaining wall there. The notes here are pointing out a retaining wall. I wanted to know if we were going to add that as an as-built. Let me see if I have another picture on there. TRUSTEE KING: That's the retaining wall up back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This retaining wall here was recently built. Do you know anything about that? MR. COSTELLO: There was a permitted return. The bulkhead was left at a higher elevation, that was one the of the reasons it failed, but all that new vinyl was permitted four or five years, it's not a very old application, I don't think. And this is just coming back and basically fixing the damage. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. It looked fairly new. I was just curious because it was not on this application. I don't think any of us had a problem with it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. The only thing, I'm a little fuzzy whether it was this property or not there also appeared as though the Board of Trustees 25 February 20, 2013 downspout that was there from the house also was, which had been removed because of the storm, there was a hole in the bulkhead that met the diameter of the downspout, so it looked as though the water coming from the downspout prior to Sandy was being directed through the bulkhead and on to the beach. So I would just ask that it be noted in the record that when things are rebuilt, it has to comply with the Storm Water Runoff Code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Leaving the water on their own property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Aside from that, I don't have any further comments. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Ill make a motion to approve the application and to just stipulate once again that any rebuilding of the decks not be any larger than 200-square feet. With that we would deem it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of SUZANNE MOYSE, MARY GUERRIERA & JENNIFER BLACKHALL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and replace 86 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead; install new 12' bulkhead return; and reconstruct decking all in same location as pre-Hurricane Sandy. Located: 150 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This is the same situation, I believe. Storm damage, once again. It was found inconsistent and consistent. The proposed replacement to reconstruct the decking seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area is inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends ail runoff is contained into drywells. The Conservation Advisory Council has a concern with the location of the sanitary system also. I think we wanted to see the new bulkhead put as close to the concrete as it can get, with the vinyl up against that concrete. If I remember right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have that in my notes. TRUSTEE KING: That was the game plan there. Once again, with the decking now, we want to see a deck 200-square feet or less. Other than that, ~ don't think we had any questions on it. We want to see that tight to the concrete. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll want to specify removal. TRUSTEE KING: The old bulkhead has to be removed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Remove existing and replace bulkhead in exact same position. It won't be. It will be a little bit landward, because there is quite a bit of space between. That's going to be removed and the concrete. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you understand what we are talking about? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And as far as the decking goes, you'll have to go Board of Trustees 26 February 20, 2013 with the smaller decking. Is there anyone here who wants to comment about the application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And we have no problem moving the bulkhead as close as we can, from a construction standpoint, to the retaining wall. We can't remove the concrete retaining wall, it's going to cost more than the value of the house. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. We understand that. MR. PATANJO: And it will be in line better with the house to the east, which will be fine. We still want to do that return. That is shown on the plans. There is no problem with that, I assume. And I will modify the drawings to limit the area of the deck to 10x20', or 200-square feet, within the Coastal Erosion Zone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification, the regulated beach area includes the entirety of the property zone of Rabbit Lane because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act defines the beach as 100-feet landward of the unconsolidated zone~ So that the overall decking on the property to be unregulated has to be less than 200-square feet. And we, this Board, as does the reading of the Town Attorney and those of us who worked with Coastal Erosion, we don't have the authority at this level, it would have to be at the appellate level to go more than 200-square foot deck on these properties. That's our understanding. MR. PATANJO: My understanding, and you guys know more than I do, but, I thought it was on the water side of the Coastal Erosion Zone on the plan. So this Coastal Erosion Zone line is not, doesn't mean anything. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the LWRP coordinator, in his determination of inconsistency, spelled it out very specifically on all these properties as well after review with the Trustees Town Attorney Lori Hulse, that that is a limitation on the deck size in the beach area. The homes are pre-existing There may be additional discussion concerning homes through the Building Department if they come in for additional work, but as far as the code, the coastal erosion hazard act specifically favors properly built coastal erosion structures, such as bulkheads built to a 30-year standard, but there is a limitation in beach areas to less than 200-square feet for decks, and the entirety of the property by definition is beach area, it's what we have. It's not something that we have any choice in when the town took these codes from the state. MR. PATANJO: So 200-foot from the rear of the property? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 200-square foot of deck on the property in totality, unless you were to go to the appellate and appeal to the Town Board. MR. PATANJO: Does that include walkways around the house? TRUSTEE KING: They would not include walkways. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Walkways are typically grade level. They are not part of the deck. TRUSTEE KING: There is a process to appeal this. Board of Trustees 27 February 20, 2013 MR. PATANJO: 200-square feet. TRUSTEE KING: If you so desire. Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the deck is 200-square feet or less and the new vinyl bulkhead is placed as close to the concrete retaining wall as possible. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: And give us a set of plans showing that. MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number four, Jeff Patanjo on behalf of JOHN LUSCHER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace 28 linear feet of Hurricane Sandy damaged bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; replenish sand fill behind bulkhead and replace 28.2'x12' timber deck lost during storm to pre-storm dimensions and location. Located: 110 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. So essentially in all other manners this is the same as the ones we just discussed. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application also outlining their concern for the sanitary system. I don't know if these issues will come up during the course of Building Department reviews on some properties that may have to come in under issues surrounding Building and Zoning that we will not see until after they go to those departments. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. Again, we agree with moving the bulkhead closer to the concrete wall, in line with 150, and agree to 200-square foot of decking. One thing the applicant came to me too late before I could get to you guys, they would like to do a 12-foot return on the west side of the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I had spoken to Lori before, so we did know about that when we went out on the field inspection. She E-mailed today and said you couldn't get the drawings fast enough. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we could get drawings that would show that and the 200-square foot deck. It seems straightforward and seems in keeping with what everyone has seen. Any additional comments? Board members? (No response). Okay, hearing no additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. Board of Trustees 28 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application subject to submission of a new plan which shows a deck not greater than 200-square feet and the addition of a return of 12 feet. And that would bring this application into consistency with the LWRP. So moved. TRUSTEE D©MINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, En-Consultants on behalf of KIRK O'FARRELI_ & DENISE CERASANI requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 131 linear feet of vinyl or fiberglass bulkhead partially in the same location as, partially landward of, and up to +/-12" higher than existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) concrete seawall to be removed; construct two 16' returns; maintain as stone toe armor at south/west end of proposed bulkhead the existing stone previously emplaced pursuant to Wetlands Permit #6841 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit #6841C; maintain or remove as necessary existing concrete retaining walls exposed by storm erosion at south/west end of property; reconstruct storm damaged 12.5'x14.5' deck and three-foot wide stairs landward of new bulkhead; reconstruct storm destroyed 3.5'x3.5' platform and 3.5' wide steps to beach on seaward side of new bulkhead; backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 500 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; and plant restored sloped embankment to north/east of reconstructed deck with native vegetation. Located: 11292 Main Road, East Marion. This was found consistent and inconsistent under the LWRP. Which, just bear with me, it's a long determination from the Conservation Advisory Council. It's found consistent, the construction of the bulkhead, 131 feet of bulkhead. The two 16-foot returns, three-foot wide stairs, the reconstruction of the platform, and the stairs to the beach. Re-nourishing, backfilling behind the bulkhead. Again, this is all found consistent. Found inconsistent is, under the LWRP, specifically the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, that the decks subject to less than 200-square feet should be removed annually. Therefore the deck as proposed is inconsistent. And no decks or platforms shall be permitted near the bluffs. On or near the bluffs. So that's what was found inconsistent. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. The CAC had a concern with the location of the sanitary system. The Board did go out and look at this. We have received two letters. The first letter is from Vicki Papson from Stamford, Connecticut. It's short, so I'll read it in its entirety. It is Board of Trustees 29 February 20, 2013 dated February 15th, 2013. My property, 11120 Main Road, is west of the subject property. We share an adjacent wall on the east side of the property. The O'Farrell side has large rocks against my wall. The previous owner has the same wall, which was not sufficient, as evidenced by Storm sandy. As a result of storm, my adjacent wall collapsed and brought down a portion of my retaining wall. I would like to recommend a better option to protect my walls. The second letter is from the desk of Debra Kusa, 11360 Main Road, East Marion. It is rather lengthy, so I'll stipulate the entire letter will be entered into the record. What I'll do is go through this and try to highlight the points. That there was a site visit there on the 13th of February. She states that she did not receive notice of the hearing that was taking place. So she has not had sufficient time to review the application. Her concerns, her one, the request to build the entire 131' shoreline structure and new vinyl bulkheading and 16' returns at either end, how can the Trustees justify the approval of ripping down the remaining still-standing eastern wall which withstood Sandy's wrath, and replace with modern vinyl that can only be accomplished by digging out earth that is very much intact and abutting my property. How can the placement of 16' returns at the property line possibly be installed without compromising the integrity of my current shoreline structure. The proposed 16' return would be very disruptive to the integrity of the existing intact embankment which still stands on the eastern property line. The construction of 16' returns will most certainly damage the integrity of the still-standing portion of the remaining structure. The remaining seawall on the eastern end of the O'Farrell shoreline, although it appears to match O'Farrell's, may very well be partially on my property if you strictly observe the meets and bounds of the property. I strongly object to removing the remaining portion of the seawall and to the construction of the return on the eastern end of the proposed structure. With regard to meets and bounds, I don't see a surveyors mark on the remaining portion of the seawall itself showing where the ©'Farrell property actually begins. The only onsite surveyors mark is well above the seawall and the angle of the actual meets and bounds up to the seawall itself is not apparent. My great-grandfather and his brother cooperatively connected the walls, and the definition of where the O'Farrell wall begins and ends on the eastern end is not clearly marked and should not be mistaken simply by using a visual observation. I respectfully ask that the Trustees strongly suggest to the ©'Farrell's that they re-apply instead to install rock revetment to secure what remains of the remaining seawall to ensure its integrity. Thereafter allow partial rebuilding of the structure revetment, of the shoreline structure, far removed from my property line. It is more than obvious that the rock revetment Board of Trustees 30 February 20, 2013 in front of the main part of my seawall is the major reason my seawall is still standing and the partial rock revetment protecting the Papson property is the reason why that wall is mostly in an intact condition. The 16' return on the eastern property line would be hard to create without certainly damage to my property integrity and would require a senseless removal of the still-standing portion of the O'Farretl seawall. In closing I feel that the fact the O'Farrell's did not consult with me on their application and specifics were perhaps intentional. I previously had a conversation in Autumn 2012, pre-Sandy, regarding their plans to rebuild their waterfront structure prior to Sandy. I clearly explained I would be objecting to any plan that would compromise the integrity of my seawall and potentially create an expense that I would be unable to afford to fix any damage caused as part of a chain reaction of heavy earth movement, and three, potentially cause de-evaluation of my property by erosion and damage if my shoreline structure was damaged. Signed by Debra Kusa. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Good afternoon, Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. Both Kirk O'Farrell and Denise Cerasani are here, as is Angelo Stepnoski of Greenport Dock. Let me try and summarize the project quickly and then I'll try to respond to the various comments that Dave has outlined both from the LWRP coordinator and the two letters. Some of the details I will defer either to the owners or to Mr. Stepnoski, but I'll cover as much as I can. Before we prepared these plans or filed an application, as the Board knows, we invited the Board out as part of a formal pre-application field inspection to look at this property. We had discussed the plan that we were setting forth. We did the same thing with staff in the New York State DEC, and basically appeared to have favorable feedback both from this Board and the DEC for the project that has been put in front of you. It does have a complication to this site because you are trying to tie into two concrete seawalls on either side of the property with a new structure. So no matter what kind of structure you put here, you have the issue of having to remove remnants of the existing failed seawall, and it will include some substantial footings beneath it. And you also have the trick of trying to tie in as best as humanly possible to both seawalls. In fact that's one of the reasons why the vinyl or fiberglass bulkhead is proposed as opposed to a revetment, in pad because it will allow at least something close to a marrying of the two structures that the stone is will really not going to afford you the ability to do. And also the fact that excavation that would be required for revetment would actually be more substantial than putting in what has been proposed here. There is obviously a great deal of urgency to this application Board of Trustees 31 February 20, 2013 as there has been to all these similar applications where it looks like a surface to air missile hit the properties, and the Board has been looking at them by the dozens over the past couple of months, and more will come in next month. One of the things the O'Farrell's tried to do here was to meet, first of all, the requirements of the New York State DEC Hurricane Sandy General Permit Requirements, which would include the replacement of the structure in place and/or landward of an existing structure, without any seaward encroachment or new structure seaward of what was there. That's what we have done and that's the permit we have already obtained from the DEC. So at the moment the O'Farrell's ability to move ahead lies with this Board. With respect to the LWRP review, I think the Board just addressed this in a prior application. It would not be in my professional opinion a correct interpretation of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law that you would have to actually seasonally remove a deck. The purpose of that section is to allow up to 200-square feet of permanent deck. This is roughly 180 or so. The Board pointed that out while we were at the site and in fact left us with the caveat to make sure the deck was less than 200-square feet. I'll mention that Jim and I did the dimensions and came within about a foot of being correct. With respect to the two letters from each neighbor, one saying we are doing too little, the other saying we are doing too much. I think Ms. Papson may be confused as to what is proposed, because a number of years ago before property was sold this Board granted a permit to put in effect a small sandwich of stone between a portion of the wall and the property that had failed at that time and the Papson wall. I think Ms. Papson feared that our proposal was to do that again and then we'll have the same result. She may not -- and I don't know if she is here tonight -- but she may not be seeing in the plans the proposal for the bulkhead itself and then simply re-using the stone that is already there, in effect leaving it more or less in place as toe stone, where this wall will tie into a somewhat landward section of her wall. So I think the more substantial approach she is asking for is in fact what is being proposed here. With respect to the letter written from the neighbor, I think you said Ms. Kusa, to the east, notice was sent to her as is required. A certified letter was sent out on February 8. We of course have proof of that receipt from US Postal Service. We can submit it if needed. The notion that we should maintain any part of that wall that has failed, I'm not going to get into a long discussion. I think it's clear to the Board, anyone with a professional eye for that wall that we would not want to leave the wall on this property standing. It failed. It failed pretty miserably. And I think the O'Farrell's are doing what is ultimately going to have to be done with both of the adjacent properties at some point, Board of Trustees 32 February 20, 2013 to replace those walls. The stone on the property to the east that covers virtually the entire beach from the bulkhead almost out into the tidal waters certainly provide protection for that wall. I don't know when that stone was placed, if there were ever permits issued for it, but it's not a viable option here. We would never obtain permits from this Board or anyone else to completely cover the beach here with stone. So we have to do something here. We have to replace the wall. The letter writer raises certainly an understandable concern about the integrity of her wall, because it's in pretty awful shape. I have various photos that I11 hand up in connection with my next response with respect to the markings of the property line, but that wall, as I'm sure the Board saw in our field inspections, has been patched, patched again and re-patched. There are new cracks in it right near the property line. It's a matter of time before that walt fails itself. I think the concern probably from the letter writer is that that would somehow be accelerated due to the construction here. Which does leave us in a difficult spot. But the only option is, the other option would be do nothing. And what is adjacent to the property line now is a failed section of concrete seawall with no fill behind it. Which is obviously one storm away from becoming an even bigger problem for the neighbor to the east. Again, we have brought Angelo here, if there are questions that the Board has about how we'll try to tie up there. Certainly if there was damage to that seawall during a connection, it would have to be repaired and it would have to be repaired at these owners' expense. That I'm not sure creates a difference here from any other application that is before the Board every month where you are trying to tie into an adjacent structure there is some risk of disturbance of damage next door, and the common practice that the owners would pay to repair that damage; if there is fill lost, they would replace the fill; if vegetation is disturbed, they would replace the vegetation. And I'm sure the Board can include conditions to effect in the permit. With respect to the question of the survey markings, when we were made aware of the concerns we did, the O'Farrell's had Peconic Surveyors go out and set some markers, which you don't have the benefit of seeing. I saw them today for the first time and I don't know what the easiest thing to do, here are several pictures. And I can try to lay them out on the table, then I can hand them up and you can pass them around. This is the O'Farrell seawall and that is the property line to the east. That's marked in pink. You can see the damage to that wall. This is a shot from behind it, which actually shows one advantage that we have here is the storm actually receive moved so much of the fill behind the wall that Angelo doesn't have to do as much excavating as he would normally have to as a lot of that has been done for him. This again is the general condition of the O'Farrell wall. Now I think probably -- here is the picture of Board of Trustees 33 February 20, 2013 the adjacent wall. This is the Kusa seawall. You can see the cracks and various cement patches in it and stone in front. This is a picture I just took this afternoon. You'll remember this is not a return. This is, I mean it's not an engineered return that is part of the seawall. It's like a Iow-lying wood -- I'm not sure what you would call it. TRUSTEE KING: Whose property is that on? MR. HERRMANN: It's on the Kusa's property. You can see right where this buttress is to the seawall there is a survey mark set here, which you can see from the back side right here. So it goes six inches up right after that buttress in front of the wall. And the pink marker referenced in her letter that you saw when you were out there is farther up. What Kirk is doing in this picture is running a tape back between the two survey marks that shows that wood wall is about a foot or so on to her property. So the way the plan is drawn now is the return would basically run up here and end about where Kirk is sitting. Which again, is this whole area. You can see the sand bags here. This whole area has already been excavated out. It's already scoured back to the landward end of the return. In fact that's the philosophy behind where the return would end. So we are not trying to go in and disturb her property but if the O'Farrell's make the investment in this wall, which as you know won't be a small one, and they don't put in any kind of return that is a shore perpendicular return, then Ms. Kusa's wall fails, the same thing will happen not only to her but to this property again. You have heard it tonight over and over again, you heard it last month, all these applications are either extending or adding returns along the property line because so many people suffered catastrophic damage because of a failure not of their own wall but because of a neighbor's wall. And it would be wonderful if everybody could hold hands and invest all at the same time and put a wall in all in one continues stretch, but the reality people are seeing after this event is they have to put in a return on their own property. It's an additional and otherwise unnecessary expense, but it's necessary to protect this property. So other than to say the utmost care would be taken to make sure there is not damage to her property and that if there is it would be repaired at the O'Farrell's expense, I'm not sure what the alternative is for the O'Farrell's. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a way to work around that buttress and leave the buttress there? MR. HERRMANN: That's a perfect segue where I'll ask Angelo to respond to see how he would marry into that corner. We stared at this for quite a while today. MR. STEPNOSKh Angelo Stepnoski, Greenport Dock. Perhaps when we dig it out we'll have a better understanding of what the footing is, the shape of the buttress. The buttress is in bad shape. You can tell from the pictures. We'll attempt to tie into it, not disturb it. We'll crib in front of it before we do anything Board of Trustees 34 February 20, 2013 so it doesn't push seaward. And once you get it apart and start working on it, then you'll know. But to that point there is no way of knowing whether you can attach to it, use it, whatever. If we don't have to, we'll replace it with something that is comparable or better. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would anybody else like to comment? MS. KUSA: Yes. I'm Debra Kusa. I live to the east of the O'Farrell's and I wrote the objection clearly because the seawall was never marked until today. I was not invited to even look at that marking. The plans were never shared with me. I received a letter a couple of days ago after the Trustees actually showed up to my property asking if they could look at the O'Farrell's because the O'Farrell's don't have an address marker outside of their home and so they came down and I welcomed them because I wanted to express. My concern. This is not showing the wall, so it's very hard -- I mean this is showing, I don't even know. I know what it's showing, but for anyone else how could they see the wall. The wall should be taken, the photograph from below to clearly understand that it was not marked, and I would like to have the opportunity for John Ehlers to update my survey so I could agree to this kind of clear-cutting of the seawall. Angelo says he can do this tie in but clearly he said "if we can." And "if" is not really something I'm interested in. I'm interested in him bonding himself to anticipate there is going to be a problem here. And I mean this is a cement seawall that continues without damage for several feet past my property line. So do they have a system where they know how to cut a wall and they are not going to damage my wall? I never heard of a machine like that. Is there a machine that can cut a seawall in half? TRUSTEE KING: They have machines that can do about anything. MS. KUSA: I want to know if he has a machine that can do that. If that's where it's going, I need to know it's not just a demolition crew coming in and removing the cement and burying it, is my understanding, from the application. You know, it says 131 feet. So clearly they are saying they are going to do the entire stretch under this application. There is no mincing that 131. I see it in front of me. Vicki Papson's objection, I believe, has to do with the fact that the O'Farrell's western wall collapsed under the previous owner after her wall and her excavation and the pile drivers led to a very weak section and it collapsed soon thereafter. Robert Ungerly (sic) is not here to confirm that but it was always his suspicion because it collapsed right away after the work was done on Vicki Papson's. So she is probably terrified of the pile drivers because she knows her own work led to a failure to the structure next door. I don't have the means to repair a seawall even one foot, okay. I live here full-time. I have two children. So if that matters at all, if there is some way to bond the construction to protect me, I'm all for it. But I'm not for tearing apart something that is still standing and then being told it may or Board of Trustees 35 February 20, 2013 may not be able to be removed correctly. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I would welcome you, since we just saw these and you have not had a chance, to come up and take a look -- MS. KUSA: I haven't. I was home trying to prepare for this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I wanted to give you an opportunity to see these pictures. As you can see they've marked, surveyors came out and marked exactly where the property line is. MS. KUSA: And I would like John Ehlers to also confirm that. I had a survey done 17 years ago. He's out of town, I called him right away, can you come to my office. He left on a trip with his son. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Referring to what? Sorry. MS. KUSA: This line on the wall. These are not my surveyors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: She is questioning the survey done to the wall. MS. KUSA: If you want to approve 131 feet, I want to confirm it down to the inch, quite honestly. I'm just disappointed that the O'Farrell's did not include me in this, sharing the plan, because we would not be wasting time and I would be on vacation with my children this week. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. KUSA: Thank you. MR. O'FARRELL: I'm Kirk O'Farrell. I'm not sure which pictures actually -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you like to take a second to look at the pictures? MR. O'FARRELL: I have some other pictures as well. I want to make sure they show the state because she is making a comment that our wall -- well, here is a picture that shows the section of wall that she says is intact, which clearly is not intact. This section of the wall here, this is the one whole section between this buttress and that buttress, which is hardly in tact and certainly very old and weak structurally. You can see, I think this picture, which is taken from the other side, you know, it's cracked there, it's got other cracks. It's in the same shape that the rest of the wall was that washed away all at once in that other storm. So, as I said, I think as we were looking at it, and Angelo commented you know that's just not a salvageable piece of our seawall, we can't really continue to retain that. So we are trying to put up a wall that will adequately protect our property as well as try to minimize any damage on our surrounding property. I think a couple of other points, I think one reason why we have not been consulting with our neighbor is that, I mean the very first time we met her, which we bought the property in July, and I think the very first time I met her was probably in August, she asked us, this was pre-Sandy, and we were already realizing we needed to do something about our seawall. And she asked us what we were doing, and we told her, and she said well, I'll fight you on that, without ever really asking us what our plan was. We didn't have a plan at that time. And so it didn't seem like the kind of thing we were dealing with somebody who Board of Trustees 36 February 20, 2013 was going to be very cooperative with us since she was already talking about fighting us even before we came up with any sort of plan. You'll note in the other letter you read from our neighbor to the other side, which I think there was a sentence you left off at the end, where she said we are very forthcoming about sharing our plans with her and we have been in discussions with her. You know, and again, I think she is telling us she thinks we need to do more than just put rocks. I don't think she is terrified we are coming in with construction equipment. She is terrified we are just going to put rocks and everything will wash away again, as it just did a few months ago. I guess the other thing I would like to just say, we have been now four months since Sandy, completely unprotected, and I think these pictures here and I think the pictures you have don't really do justice to the amount of damage there is, that the chunks of concrete scattered all over the place, and a good portion of our property already washed away, and we are probably looking at at least another two months after we receive approval before we can get the work done. By the time we have contractor lined up. And so, you know, every storm that comes in just has the potential to make problems worse. And the next storm could wash away the rest of our already damaged seawall and then stad eroding our neighbor's property as well. I mean we are all kind of at risk here. So we need to come up with a solution to protect ourselves and protect everybody else. Unfortunately, from the first time we started talking with our contractor, with Angelo, which is again, probably sometime in September, we talking about wanting to do things in a way wanting to be respectful to our neighbors and not cause problems, so we have kind of considered a number of different possibilities, but this seems the only one to be a viable option. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I want to first off clarify a couple of matters that were brought up under the LWRP. MR. O'FARRELL: Sorry, if I can just -- we did a survey done in July when we bought the property. So it's a brand new survey. It ties in with the marker you saw on the property, the stone marker that has been there for I don't know how many decades. So what they did today is came down and ran from along our property line to that marker, which it goes right over that marker and down to the wall. So it's just basically a very recent survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Just for the record, who was the surveyor that did the survey, Rob? MR. O'FARRELL: It was Peconic Surveyors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Now, before we get back to some of the questions that the property owner has brought up, just to address some of the LWRP issues, you are absolutely right, Rob, we have in the last couple of hearings ago did resolve the issue regarding it does not have to be a removable deck to be consistent under the LWRP. Second, the deck that is proposed, I see is proposed to be Board of Trustees 37 February 20, 2013 landward of the bulkhead, so it's not going to be cantilevered out in any fashion of a bulkhead. MR. HERRMANN: No, it will be a small platform but the deck you are describing is behind the wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see the platform is associated with the stairs to the beach. So that would address those inconsistencies. I wanted to get that on the record to start out with. Now, first, is there anybody else who wanted to speak -- then if one of the previous speakers wants to come back, that's fine, but is there anybody else who wants to speak for or against this application first? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also as a paint of order can I request the chair limit some of the discussion if it starts to be repetitive because we have a huge agenda tonight and I think some of the issues have been very cogently presented already. MS. KUSA: It won't take me any more time than it took to fix my driveway the other day. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, I need you to be a little more clear. I didn't hear that. MS. KUSA: Sorry, the driveway you guys muddied up. Anyway. Sorry, it was a joke. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, go ahead. MS. KUSA: Is there a way -- I know the permitting process is different from the contractor? Is there any way to compel the contractor to indemnify me with some kind of concrete bond to protect -- this is a different type of seawall than you'll see mostly around anymore. This is not any small shakes. Despite the fact everyone says it's in terrible condition, quite honestly it's over a hundred-years old and I think it looks great for a hundred-year old anything. So what it looks like and what it is underneath are two different things. It's re-enforced rebar, as far as I know. My great-uncle was an engineer. So this is not just a bunch of sand mixed together. And I cannot afford to fix it, as I said, if it becomes compromised. I would like to know where the new structure is going to be relative to what is still remaining. I don't see a drawing that is actually showing me that. I see a line that follows a seawall saying that's where the new structure is going to be exactly as opposed to landward. I have looked at it quite carefully. So I just, I like the O'Farrell's. I like that they are going to restore the house next door. I need to protect myself and I need to protect my children and I need to protect my property. That's simply why I'm here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. The agent Mr. Herrmann already put on the record that if there was any damage to your retaining wall -- if you let me finish - if there was any damage to your seawall or to your property as in if land fell down or whatever, that the agent has already said that they would make the necessary repairs at his client's expense. He's already said Board of Trustees 38 February 20, 2013 that in his presentation. Am I correct on that, Mr. Herrmann? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. "They," of course, refers to the O'Farrell's, the homeowners. Not me. MS. KUSA: That's the point. A verbal guarantee -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ma'am, we are not going to get into an open discussion here. You made your point on the record. I asked a question now of the agent. He's responded on the record. And just briefly, also, I want to also state, because I know the returns have been brought up here, that you already heard me in a previous hearing state the returns are beneficial here to protect the property owners on both sides. All of the property owners in an event of another catastrophic event where a bulkhead falls down, the return can be beneficial to both sides. I have a question for Mr. O'Farrell. Mr. O'Farrell, would you back what your agent Mr. Herrmann stated with regard to taking financial responsibility for any damage caused to your neighbor's property as a direct result of the construction of this bulkhead and the return? MR. O'FARRELL: Well, I think, you know, the answer is yes, we would feel responsible if during the construction process. I mean the problem is that buttress is partially on our side of the line, partially on her side of the line. According to our surveyors, anyway. And it's going to be difficult to do work -- we were never planning to take that buttress out. We were always planning to leave the buttress there. Because even before we had the surveyors come in and show us exactly where the line was we realized that buttress was kind of essential to the integrity of our neighbor's wall. And so which actually, you know, it just complicates our job really, makes it more expensive, but we always felt we would do everything as responsible as possible. I don't know if whether as part of the permitting process, I mean this is my first time going through this and hopefully my last, but, you know, is that a typical thing you can ask one owner to actually indemnify the adjacent owner? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't ask you that. I was very specific in my question. You answered it so I'm satisfied with your answer. MR. O'FARRELL: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm concerned about the lateral support also. The Board has a process where they could compel bonding, but the fact is, and generally I think this is a tool to be considered as we go forward in some difficult situations. But it would be much more beneficial if the adjacent property owners and neighbors would work something out, because the time necessary to properly execute plan modifications and go through a bonding process essentially leaves both neighbors at the disadvantage for the next large coastal storm that may come along so that it would be sort of the thing that surely I would, I feel uncomfortable without seeing a little bit more of a work plan concerning the lateral protection of those properties, but for the fact if the neighbors are both willing to quickly work Board of Trustees 39 February 20, 2013 together and work out issues surrounding a surety or a plan that, where they work together, I mean, the process goes quickly. But if it bogs down, and people may not be aware of it, but this recent Coastal Storm Charlotte had initial tidal projections by the National Storm Weather Service that equalled Tropical Storm Sandy. We only got lucky again. So this is something, I lived it in '91 and '92 as a member of the Board. I don't appreciate living it again. But I also don't appreciate where neighbors can't work together as a common interest. That's what I would like to say. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In terms of bonding I'm not so sure we can insist on bonding to protect the neighbor anyway. We can only insist on bonding to protect Trustee and town and public interest. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. And unfortunately tonight due to another commitment we don't have the benefit of our attorney here. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MS. KUSA: Does that include me? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, if you have something new. And come up to the microphone, please, so we can get it on the record. MS. KUSA: Okay, so a direct question to Mr. O'Farrell. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ask us. MS. KUSA: Okay. Directly to Mr. O'Farrell via you, he did not directly say, yes, he would be responsible. He said he would consider being responsible. Is he going to be responsible? He has deep pockets, I do not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, that question was asked and answered at this point. MS. KUSA: Well, he didn't say it directly. He qualified it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's really not an issue for us. MS. KUSA: Okay, so it's not an issue. Is that correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on just a second, Denise. I just want to make sure you were through first before we went to another speaker MS. KUSA: He said it's not, Mr. Ghosio said it's not an issue. So if it is, then I'll -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's not an issue that we can legislate or make part of our contingency to the application from the Trustees whether or not he'll be financial liable to you should there be damage to your wall. That would be a civil matter. MS. KUSA: So what if I have to wall sit, like tree hug? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be up to you. MS. KUSA: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. If you would just introduce yourself for the record, please. MS. CERASANI: Denise Cerasani, the property owner. I'm sorry to belabor, this has taken a great deal of your time and those behind us. I just would say 1 think we have tried to be very, very thoughtful and deliberate throughout this process. We tried to do the steps in a very concerted way. We think we have Board of Trustees 40 February 20, 2013 the right plan. We think it's respectful of not only protecting our property but of our neighbors', and we welcome after hopefully you being inclined to approve this, we are more than welcome continued discussion with our neighbors as it's every interest of ours to do this the right way for all of us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close -- I'm sorry, go right ahead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. Maybe it would be beneficial to stipulate that that last buttress, the one we are talking about, would be preserved as part of the project. I know that, you know, it seems to be where the crux of the matter is. I mean the less work that is done that can encroach on the existing wall to the neighbor, I think the happier they'll be. I see the return coming up the side will protect that other so-called return that we see in the photograph here, which is on Ms. Kusa's property. So I don't have an issue with that. But I think cutting the buttress may be a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. For myself, I'm not an engineer, I'm not a professional dock builder. I want to leave that up to the professional, that being the successful contractor on this job, to make that determination. Because I think he or she is the best one to make that type of determination. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, is Mr. Stepnoski going to be the contractor on this job? MR. O'FARRELL: That's our plan. We have been talking with him. We have not signed any contract with him or anything, but we have been talking with him since September. So that's our plan. TRUSTEE KING: Well, we have had problems in the past where we had contractors come in here where we had a lot of experience with and they are very knowledgeable, then sometimes the owner chooses somebody else and the work is nowhere near as well as what we expected to be done by the contractor we assumed was going to do the job. I have seen Mr. Stepnoski's work for many years now and I have never seen anything fall apart that he's built yet. So that's just my kind of a, I have a concern sometimes. This has happened to us on more than one occasion where a very credible person comes in with plans and everything for us and the owner picks somebody else and everything falls apart. That's just one of my concerns. MR. O'FARRELL: I mean I can only tell you I have every intention he's going to be our contractor. We have just not signed a contract yet. He's the only person we have been talking to since September, so. And I think he's come out to our property a number of times, he's here today. That shows he's committed to do the work. I think you can expect he'll be doing the work. TRUSTEE KING: I can only tell you what has happened to us in past issues and sometimes it turns into a nightmare when another contractors come out. MR. O'FARRELL: We have heard good things about his work and we want someone to do a good job and we don't want to have someone Board of Trustees 41 February 20, 2013 come back again for more permits because of something that was not done right, so. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I'm kind of getting hung up on the buttress. Rob, can we save the buttress? I mean half the buttress is the Kusa's property and half is on O'Farrell's property. I'm not a seawall engineer, but I'm in construction. It seems to me something with a big footing and a buttress that's been there for a 100 years is not a bad thing. Can you tie up to it? MR. O'FARREI_I_: We always planned to leave that buttress in place. If you want a stipulation we are going to leave it in place, that, you know, the one difficulty is, and again, let me see if I could show you. Well, I mean here, this is the buttress. You can see it's cracked, cracked, cracked. If you look at it from the top down, here, you can see this is from the side. You can see it's cracked. If you look from the top down, this is actually a hole in the top. We want to do everything we can to preserve this buttress but I think what we are hearing from Angelo is he's going to be taking the rest of this concrete out and he's going to support this and, you know, I guess we would try to probably do something to re-enforce it after the work is done. But I guess what I have heard from Angelo is you can't say what is going to happen to the buttress while he's doing the work. Just that our plan is to leave it in place. I'm not sure how we can promise that it won't be. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The problem with that, correct me if I'm wrong, is that if it can't be saved and you go to cut it, then you are impinging on your neighbor because you could be breaking part of what she owns. And I kind of do have an issue with that. MR. O'FARRELL: We are not planning to cut it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you can't cut it, what are you going to do? If you go and disturb it, it will fall over, right? MR. HERRMANN: This has been the difficulty with, an unavoidable difficulty from the start. And I think what Angelo -- everybody is trying to be as honest about this as possible. I think that's the reluctance to make the promise about the buttress. Because they can state they'll keep the buttress, and if Angelo brings the wall up and the buttress fails because the footing underneath collapses, they don't want to end up in violation of two permits due to an unavoidable act. So then what's the alternative. If you just leave that wall and that section of wall there, it's going to fail. You have, I don't know how many dozens of feet of previously-standing concrete seawall that we are all celebrating the hundred years of life of, that is gone. Literally gone. I don't even know where it is. So that buttress and that section of wall, and with all due respect to Ms. Kusa's great uncle is eventually all going to go. Everybody sitting up at that table knows that to be true. It will eventually go. So each owner can only do what they can do within their property boundaries. If there is damage to her section of wall, they will replace it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about the consideration, I'm not an Board of Trustees 42 February 20, 2013 architect or marine construction person either, but what the consideration of a goodly distance, eight, ten feet from that buttress, the bulkhead there then have an angled return so that the remains of the wall at the property will in fact live out their life as they might. I just think -- MR. HERRMANN: We had discussed today ali sorts of alternative options in terms of how do we just stay away from that section. And when I mentioned that to Angelo he said, well, the problem is if you leave that section of wall standing, it's going to fall and it's going to bring down her section of wall, and then now instead of repairing, you know, a couple of feet of her wall now you have to bring her concrete wall eight or ten feet on to the O'Farrell's property. I mean otherwise you leave either a gap or notch or step out. They also talked about what if we went landward. Just pull the whole wall back. Now, if we did that, then that leaves that notch, which this Board is always trying to make a point of removing as much as possible. So we understand it's a difficult situation, and we are not trying to, you know, I feel like there is some air in the room the O'Farrell's are trying to get away with something. They are not. They are just trying to replace the wall. And as with every other property, they be going to go from corner to corner and build a return. The difficulty comes with the fact that we are trying to figure out how do we not accelerate the collapse of an already deteriorating structure. That is the main problem here. And Ms. Kusa has stated on the record that that is frankly her concern. Because if it fails she doesn't have the means to replace it. Which is completely understandable. And I don't think the O'FarrelFs would question that for an instant. But they on the other hand can't be held hostage because of that. I'm not a professional engineer, so I can't answer Bob's question any better than any of you can. I can only rely on somebody who has been doing this for a tong time. So for one last shot, let me ask Angelo try to respond to Bob's question and see what the Board wants to do. MR. STEPNOSKI: We'll attempt to save the buttress. Everything that is humanly possible to do, we'll do. But the buttress is in bad condition and there are definite engineer flaws in this wall. They didn't use rebar, they used pipe. The pipe filled with water, the pipe rusted. Everyplace the wall failed is where the pipe rusted. So if the buttress is secure, we'll attach to it, make a tight closure. That's what we'll do. But if we can't, we'll have to do something else. Like I said before, we'll put something back either as good or better than what was there originally. And we'll take every precaution not to hurt Ms. Kusa's wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have something new you would like to provide? MS. KUSA: If the buttress comes down, they are now doing a return on my property. Let's be clear about that. Because you Board of Trustees 43 February 20, 2013 are saying it has to be on continuous line. So if the buttress is down, now you are on my property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That would be a civil matter between the two property owners to resolve. MS. KUSA: Well, I like Mr. Ghosio's suggestion, maybe having the continuation of the ten feet, as he suggested, would be a better idea, so they don't come near the buttress. Because I think that it's a 50/50 here. I see them 50/50 saying that, yes, it just might have to, you know, fall down. But yes, it is the neighbor's and oh, well, what can we say. Then you are having a return that is on my property. So maybe I would like to suggest the return be at least five-feet into their property. And keep that remaining wall there. And maybe allowing a stone toehold there in front. MR. HERRMANN: The problem is if we construct, if we end the wall and construct the return five feet inside the property line, or however many feet, the remaining section of wall is going to fail, and then there will be a gap between the two properties and there will be absolutely nothing to prevent all the fill on Ms. Kusa's property from getting sucked right out through the O'Farrell's property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. O'FARRELL: Sorry, she keeps saying we'll put a return on her property. Under no circumstances are we putting a return on her property. We are not going -- we are going to be putting a return along our line. And that buttress, as we said, is shared between the two of us. We won't go over our property line onto her line to put a return in. It is just not going to happen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Kirk O'Farrell and Denise Cerasani, as described, and noting that the deck is going to be landward of the bulkhead to address the consistency issue under LWRP. That will then bring this into consistency under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 65 linear feet of steel bulkhead with 20' and 10' returns at toe of bluff inplace of (and +/-12" higher than) existing storm damaged concrete seawall t be removed; remove existing collapsed steel sheet piling wall from behind concrete seawall; construct approximately 47 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall with +/-9' and +/-10' returns at top of bluff and backfill with Board of Trustees 44 February 20, 2013 approximately 15 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove collapsed steel sheet piling retaining wall from face of bluff and re-use materials to construct retaining wall landward of proposed vinyl retaining wall to retain upland soils during construction; construct timber terrace retaining walls on face of bluff to retain proposed fill and plantings; re-nourish bluff face with approximately 130 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; re-vegetate bluff face with native vegetation; remove collapsed stairway and construct new 4x50' stairway with landings down bluff face; construct 5x6' landing and 4x12' steps to beach off proposed bulkhead; replace collapsed brick patio on grade behind proposed retaining wall; and establish approximately 10' wide non-turf buffer seaward of Coastal Erosion Hazard Area boundary. Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The memorandum was received on February 13th, and in his findings we noted, I would like to state this for the record, that due to the property size, the relocation of the existing structure is not practical. The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support this application and recommended that the house be moved back, landward, 25 feet. The Trustees visited this property on the 13th of February and noted the application is well described and straightforward. It had one comment, and that would be that we questioned the re-nourishment of the bluff at 130 cubic yards, if that would be sufficient. It looks to us as if that is quite optimistic. Other than that, as I said, it was straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. The owner is also here. I'm going to try and make up some lost time from the last application and just state that I would agree with what Trustee Domino has just described. It is a straightforward application. It is actually an application that was in affect approved to some extent by this Board in the past. You can see there has been failure that we are looking to correct. A similar job was just done on the property next door to the east. The volume estimation, Mike, came from Jeff Butler Engineering, and that is based on their calculations based on the topography of the bluff. There has not been a lot of soil that has actually been lost. I mean the place looks like a bomb hit it. But the actual failure, the crack, the opening, if you will, of the concrete seawall at the bottom, is just actually recent. They have been contemplating how to deal with this property for a couple years, actually. The DEC has been out here a couple of times. We have a DEC permit for replacement of the seawall. Most of the rest of the stuff behind it is out of their jurisdiction. I'm happy to have the Board allow, provide some allowance in the permit for an additional hundred yards of Board of Trustees 45 February 20, 2013 fill or something as needed. But again, the calculations on this one were not my own but from Butler Engineering. I mean, without Jeff here I would have to defer to their calculations. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted. TRUSTEE KING: Can we just put plus or minus on the 130, Rob. MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to say at least 130 cubic yards or as needed to properly backfill the terraces, something like that? Obviously there isn't going to be any fill here except on the bluff face. So there would not be any fill other than at, you know, at the very top where that retaining wall is. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other comments? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No next door neighbor? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this as submitted, with the note that if 130 cubic yards is not sufficient, that we, the Board, would welcome the addition to bring the bluff to the correct angle. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DEAN STEFANIDES requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing timber bulkhead that was catastrophically damaged during Hurricane Sandy, with a new timber bulkhead; extend the returns on either side of his property in order to increase the structural integrity of the bulkhead as a whole; in total there will be 130'+/- of reconstructed bulkhead and returns; after construction has finished, roughly 200 cubic yards of clean sand fill will be deposited behind the bulkhead; re-establishing the grade of the property to pre-Hurricane Sandy specifications. Located: 780 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This again, we are going back to Rabbit Lane, and it is the same situation as we found with the other homes we've had on Rabbit Lane. This one is to replace the existing bulkhead. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Again, noting they have a concern with the location of the sanitary system. As I noted on other applications that will be the case on all these homes. The Board was out there. And again, we are going to stipulate a maximum 200-square foot decking. Aside from that, it's pretty straight forward. Is there anybody here who would Board of Trustees 46 February 20, 2013 like to address this application. MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental All I want to do is clarify on the plans that were submitted, with the old timber bulkhead going to new timber bulkhead, we would like to have that as vinyl. That was an error on our part. So I would like to submit more plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I haven't done the measurements on the wood deck. Is this more than or less than 200-square feet? MR. IVANS: At this point we are not dealing with the deck, we'll take care of that in a separate application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so this application, just to be more specific, is just for the bulkhead. You'll be coming back for the house and for the deck? MR. IVANS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: And extension and returns. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted noting the change of wood to vinyl. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of VALERIE MICHELSEN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing timber bulkhead that was catastrophically damaged during Hurricane Sandy with a new timber bulkhead; additionally the applicant proposes to repair the damaged deck that abuts the damaged bulkhead; in total there will be 162+/- of reconstructed bulkhead; after construction has finished, roughly 150+/- cubic yards of clean sand fill will be deposited behind the bulkhead, re-establishing the grade of the property to pre-hurricane Sandy specifications. Located: 860 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This is a house in the same vicinity on Rabbit Lane. The construction here also should be amended to reflect a new vinyl bulkhead as opposed to a timber bulkhead. The application had a prior permit on this. This was considered consistent by the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support it with the concern that they have advanced for all of Rabbit Lane concerning sanitary systems. As a matter of fact that concern is one we all have had, and recent discussions on approved water treatment we actually advanced the notion that some of these areas in the town such as Rabbit Lane and/or down at Fishermen's Beach or the Park Avenue Extension, could possibly have new systems or systems elevated so there is better treatment. That's Board of Trustees 47 February 20, 2013 a different subject. I just wanted to mention that. I know there has been concerns of Trustees attending meetings as part of the discussions concerning better water treatment. And this project has a small amount of damage to an existing deck so that it was, the LWRP has not raised the flag concerning as it relates to the deck. I want to bring that to the attention of the Board. Otherwise this essentially remains the same as all the other applications we saw for Rabbit Lane. So is there anyone to speak to this application? MR. IVANS: Again, Matt Ivans from Suffolk Environmental. Again, we have to clarify the timber bulkhead will go to vinyl. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can verify the damage to the deck is fairly minimal. I ended up cataloguing all the damage all along Rabbit Lane fairly quickly after the storm because I was concerned we did the proper thing with the Coastal Erosion Act. And I was there for a compliance inspection on the second floor addition. I was not able to get out two weeks ago, so I just completed a compliance inspection under the prior permit there, so. Any additional comments, concerns of the Board? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application with the amended description that it will reflect a new vinyl bulkhead. I would so move. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND YACHT CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install a sub-surface sewage disposal system; existing leaching pool to be pumped out and filled with sand; new 1,500 gallon septic tank and a 500 gallon pump station tank to be installed; and new tank and leaching field; and plantings to provide visual screening of area for abutting property. Located: Central Avenue, Fishers Island. This was an application we reviewed a long time ago, for the septic system. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we did, during the summer, on two occasions. TRUSTEE KING: There were some questions from the neighbor on it. There is a letter in the file. The original, it was originally found inconsistent, I believe. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There were some concerns about archaeological materials. TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter in the file here. There are plantings to be proposed, so the neighbor doesn't, it doesn't Board of Trustees 48 February 20, 2013 interfere with the neighbor, and also they have agreed on an archeologist will be present during the excavation because of the question of possibly artifacts being in this location. A lot of this quite frankly is out of our jurisdiction. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just from JMO Consulting, on behalf of the applicant. The project is basically the yacht club is used very heavily during the summer. The existing septic system is outdated and is located probably less than 20 feet from apparent high water. TRUSTEE KING: The new system itself is basically out of our jurisdiction. It's just a lot of work taking place within our jurisdiction. MR. JUST: Right, filling the old system in. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think the Board had any issues with it. It's an improvement over what they have now. MR. JUST: Like I said, they agree to have an archeologist during the digging, and fencing to screen off the adjacent neighbor. TRUSTEE KING: Does anybody else have any comments on this application? (No response). Board? (No response). No comments, I'll make motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of RALPH CAREIONE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove approximately 335' of concrete seawall and approximately 30' of exposed CMU wall damaged by Hurricane Sandy; install on filter fabric, crushed stone and compacted granular fill approximately 400' of rip-rap revetment; a portion of the bank will be excavated, several layers of compacted 9" thick lifts of granular fill will be installed and galvanized wire forms with filter fabric will be installed; the forms will then be filled with plantable soils and then planted forming a reinforced vegetated slope. Located: 6227 Castle Road, Fishers Island. This is found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. The Board did not have a chance, we have been trying to get to Fishers Island for two months now. The weather has simply been killing us. We have not been able to get over there. This place was severely damaged. It's to the point where something has to be done. I took everything home with me over the weekend. Board of Trustees 49 February 20, 2013 Very extensive plans. I don't have any issues with it. MR. JUST: They got hit really bad, the whole portion of the island. At this site is actually a built-in pool, that the retaining wall, underground retaining wall is exposed now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the plan with that? Just to rebuild it? TRUSTEE KING: It's a very extensive rock revetment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I figured. Are they going to lose the pool? MR. JUST: I don't think so. At the bottom they want to build a rock revetment up above, I think like the 19-foot contour. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). Board? (No response). No other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Fishers Island, number 11, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of NORTON A. DAVlDSON requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to re-stabilize a shoreline damaged by Hurricane Sandy by removing and stockpiling existing rocks, re-grade and place geotextile material on grade; provide a 2-4' layer of crushed stone and then place the stockpiled stone (2' minimum) on top of the crushed stone layer creating an armored rip-rap revetment; place native material fill and plant with native grasses and shrubs. Located: 806 Wilderness Point Road, Fishers Island. Same thing here; severe, severe storm damage. This was also found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection so they don't have any comments. MR. JUST: I don't know if you could see from those photographs, there were these concrete slabs probably 3x3x10 feet long that just got rolled right over by the wave action, that had been fortifying the property initially. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: We'll take a ten-minute break before we get into the Wetland Permits. Board of Trustees 50 February 20, 2013 (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, BARBARA & SETH EICHLER request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the in-place replacement of the existing retaining wall. Located: 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this application. During the field inspection on February 13th, the Trustees had questions concerning the seaward bulkhead on the western end of the property, which was leaning out a little bit. We were wondering if that were to be rebuilt also. Other than that, it seems straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. EICHLER: Seth Eichler, 17915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. My wife and I are here for a permit to replace in-kind the retaining wall on the bluff which is collapsing. We are also very concerned about the erosion taking place on the bluff and, not just on our property, but affecting the very long line of houses. In some properties stairs are washed away and erosion is serious. What kind of guidance can you give us to prevent further erosion which jeopardizes our own stairs to the beach and can the town help with vegetation or on our own place vegetation as an attempt to decrease erosion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We can address your application but I'm not sure we can give you guidance or design a system in that regard. TRUSTEE KING: I think as far as the erosion goes they could contact soil and conservation in Riverhead. They can help you out on that, show you some different ways to help the situation. MS. EICHLER: I'm Barbara Eichler. Do you need a permit to do plantings? Do you need a permit to plant on the bluff? TRUSTEE KING: We would probably want to see some kind of planting plan if you went that route. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What about the question on the other wall you had mentioned? I thought you mention the field notes there is another wall that was bowed out a little bit. Is there an intention of-- MS. EICHLER: There are two walls, the right and left. We are doing the entire thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The upper wall. MR. EICHLER: And the lower wall, too. We are doing both. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it's actually two retaining walls. What you could do is just put an "S" at the end of the wall on the project description. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And are both walls on the plan? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, both walls are on the plan, but the plan only shows that the existing, the northerly wall is to remain. It doesn't specify -- if you approach, I'll show you. It's to be Board of Trustees 51 February 20, 2013 replaced. It says existing. MS. EICHLER: This one. TRUSTEE DOMINO: This one you are saying replace it right here. So what he's suggesting is you make it plural, but the plans don't reflect that. MR. EICHLER: So what do you want us to do? TRUSTEE DOMINO: This plan says existing bulkhead to remain, see? This is the one -- TRUSTEE KING: This is to be replaced inplace. You are also planning on replacing this in place? MS. EICHLER: I thought that's what he marked. TRUSTEE KING: Rather than have these all drawn up, I can draw this in and just put existing wall to be replaced. We can do that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So make this plural as per corrected plan. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, why don't we do that. It's just a simple modification. MS. EICHLER: Okay. All right, thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the correction of existing retaining walls, is plural, and reflecting the corrections that will be made to the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll now jump into Wetland Permits. Number one, ANDREA PARKS requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace existing failed bulkhead sheathing with vinyl sheathing; repair and/or replace top caps, timber pilings (12" diameter x20"), timber waters, stringers, tie rods, and deadmen; repair and/or replace existing 3' wide staircase and platforms (3x4'); and replace seasonal aluminum 3x15' stairway due to Hurricane Sandy damage. Located: 3925 and 3995 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application and recommends a bluff stabilization plan. Notes from our field inspection, we were all out there, the only notes I have here is suggesting less cutting of the trees on the bluff, letting those trees start to come back a little bit. Aside from that, again, another straightforward application to deal with Hurricane Sandy damage. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MS. PARKS: Andrea Parks. I just want to thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You're welcome. Any comments, questions from the Board of Trustees 52 February 20, 2013 Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Replacing what was there, essentially. There is no other comments or questions, Ill 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, Lark & Folts, Esqs., on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY requests a Wetland Permit to replace 100' of failed bulkhead with two 8' returns; replace 100' of failed retaining wall; and replace beach access stairs, all destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This is similar to many applications both in the area and elsewhere in the town that we have viewed. The project is considered consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application because the project requires a site plan. I believe that may have been an error in the part of separating the application and sending it out because we have a project plan here dated January 30th. If the two, Stein and William McDermott went and did the inspection. You could take a look at the plan here. The Trustees looked at this project and it may have gotten lost due to the large volume of paperwork going back and forth between the offices. Basically this is a request to replace what was there. The only thing I would note, I didn't see on the plans with respect to the bulkhead that it be vinyl. So, anyhow, I want to bring that up, we maybe need a point of clarification, because it says 100-feet of inkind replacement at the beach for the bulkhead. Anyhow, I11 open the hearing up. Is there anyone here to speak? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant. I didn't understand your question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, we had a little background noise. The project plan which was submitted by Seacoast Construction as part of the application indicates an inkind replacement for the bulkhead but the, only the vinyl faced bulkheads are currently permitted by code. So it could be steel also. CCA is not allowed. MR. LARK: They know that. I have talked to them about that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it would be a matter of getting that as clarification before we move forward. MR. LARK: That's no problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the Trustees during the course of our inspection, we were concerned that the, there is an area there in front of the fence, that it be left as a non-turf buffer that Board of Trustees 53 February 20, 2013 it not be maintained as lawn area. It had been the subject of a previous review when the fence was removed. MR. LARK: Other than the zoysia grass being white, that weathered Sandy quite well. That has not been fooled with forward of the fence. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's been cut. We can see it's been cut and maintained. And it was to be left to grow up naturally. MR. LARK: No, it was supposed to be left to grow up. That's correct. It's my understanding it was. When I looked at it, of course it was after the storm, it was white and all matted down, so I couldn't tell if it was cut or not. I couldn't get that close. But, yes, that should be. That was part of the permit for that one deck. That's correct. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Do you want to stipulate an inspection at some point? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we could stipulate an inspection. It was a straightforward replacement of the bulkhead and retaining wall. I don't think anyone had a problem here. Any additional questions or concerns of the Board members? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under the previous permit we had a question about the retaining wall that had been constructed already to the south. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had looked that up in the field. That was permitted. MR. LARK: That was approved. That was a subsequent revision to protect that portion of it on the southerly side. That's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was that, because turf had been planted in there also. Grass had been planted in there and has been maintained. MR. LARK: No, that was natural. Nothing was planted on the top there. That, I do know. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We could make it subject to inspection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can make it subject to inspection. Good point. Any further questions? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the stipulation that an additional inspection be ordered for the spring just to verify the non-turf buffer area is, in connection with this property, are being maintained as non-turf areas and not being mowed or fertilized. MR. LARK: In fact that will happen automatically because there will be another application to change the stairway construction from where it broke off on the lower deck down. That whole thing has to be reconstructed now. But it will be a separate application because you have amended the law and we are not constricted to the 32-square feet. So they'll extend that out, lower it and extend it, so you'll get all of that. I just don't have all that engineering done because they wanted to get this bulkhead in right toot sweet, then go from there after they get Board of Trustees 54 February 20, 2013 the retaining wall and bulkhead and we'll be back for that section. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so I'll move the application with that stipulation and presumably if we approve this you can then come in for an amendment. MR. LARK: We certainly will. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of DANIEL DEVlTO requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a 20x40' pool, pool patio and pool fence on the bluff; a 16x20' pool house; and selectively prune trees and removal of trees as per plan. Located: 750 Paradise Point Road, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP back in November -- excuse me. December 4th. And it was found to be inconsistent because it required ZBA approval. Since that time they did obtain ZBA approval, so that would address the inconsistency. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the application because the landscaping plans provided lack of sufficient information regarding stability of the bluff and recommends a geo-survey submitted for further review. Is there anybody here with regard to this application? (No response). I have looked at the ZBA's recommendation, as part of their decision there be a drywell associated with the pool and plans do depict a drywell associated with the pool. And the pool is 51 feet from, as we measured, from top of bluff to the edge of the deck. The pool is even farther landward than that. So I have no questions regarding this application. MR. STEIN: John Stein from the CAC. Dave, all of us in conjunction with, all seven of us, were just concerned, the only reason we raise this is because, (a), it's on a sloping bluff and it has some room, but a 20x40' pool, just doing basic math on this, roughly, is, you know, 5,000-square feet, and, you know, thinking that it's half eight feet, half four-and-a-half feet, a gallon of water being roughly 8.34 pounds, it's going to be about 42,000-square feet of surface pressure. What was submitted was just really a mere planting site plan for the hedges and screens. We were not privy to what the ZBA was reading on it. But not having that bluff supported and putting in 51 feet, roughly, 43,000 pounds against it, in three to five years that will probably be a spill way with that type of surface tension pressure, and I don't know what type of support or retaining walls will be put in there. And just as a case in matter, previously with one of the Fisher Island applications, you saw some of the retaining walls are now exposed. I'm not saying this could possibly happen but seeing that the property has that amount of feet, we were just concerned how close it was being that the 51 feet away from the bluff, and there is really Board of Trustees 55 February 20, 2013 an open end of pruning trees and removing trees and that being the root systems on that bluff. I don't have to go into what has happened with Paradise Point with the yacht club and the deck. I'm just saying not having a supported bluff area, putting that in, really would possibly be prudent to have a geo done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Sorry, I just want a clarification. What is the 5,000-square feet about? MR. STEIN: Just a 20x40 foot pool We were just doing rough surface area for that. That being four-hundred feet by eight feet is 32 hundred gallons. Just 20x4,800 square feet and taking half of that being eight foot, four-hundred feet times eight foot would be 3,200. Then four-and-a-half of four-hundred being 1,800 square feet. 3,200 plus 1,800 would be 5,000 cubic feet. Then a normal gallon of water it's another 1,500 pounds of sea water. A gallon of sea water is 8.55 and regular water is 8.34. That being all of 51 feet on the slope, even on a natural bluff having removal of trees and pruning selectively and a patio and putting in also a 16x20' pool house of 320 square feet, I think was a little bit too much and too much on the edge, we felt. That's why we made that determination. It's just for your consideration. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MR. STEIN: And has you had seen earlier, this was really just a planting site plan for the planting screen hedges and stuff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, Ill make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Daniel DeVito as described, noting that with approval by the ZBA and the conditions set forth by the ZBA of appropriate drainage for the pool that it will be found consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't want the Conservation Advisory Council to feel that we totally ignored you. It was outside 50 feet for a reason. Usually we look to push it past 50. They did make the effort to do that. I don't think you to think we totally blew you off but it is consistent with our policy. MR. STEIN: I just want to the put that on the record in three to five years if that does become a spill way and a two-tier system has to be put there, we should have been prudent enough to ask the homeowner to put it back another 30 feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number four, Meryl Kramer on behalf of DINA MASSO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing elevated deck; new one-story addition; construct approximately 100 linear Board of Trustees 56 February 20, 2013 feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of (and up to +/-12" higher than) existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead to be removed; reconstruct storm damaged 10x10' deck and associated 3' wide steps landward of bulkhead; remove and replace inkind/inplace lower portion of bluff stairway as needed, reconstruct three-foot wide steps to beach; and backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 325 cubic yards of clean fill to be planted with native vegetation. Located: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This again is to address storm damage from Storm Sandy. The LWRP has found this to be consistent, and the Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application because of lack of information. They recommended a stabilization plan for the slope and a site plan. When we were down there, we were all there, sorry, we were there the other day, we were actually looking to include the stairs and the platform. There is a question here about the beach house septic and electric. We noticed that the beach house that was there, we just wanted to stipulate it was not habitable I guess is the point we wanted to make, that the beach house was not set up to be habitable residence. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That there was no septic in it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Is there anybody here on behalf of this application? MS. KRAMER: Meryl Kramer on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to have to ask Rob Herrmann, who is not representing the client here tonight, but En-Consultants did do the drawings for the structures down on the water. As far as I know, there is no septic system for the beach house. Rob, do you have any information on that? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I don't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much, Rob. MS. KRAMER: As far as I know, but I would have to go back to the owner and check, because it was not in my purview, it was not having any construction associated with it, it didn't even come up in conversation. I just want to make sure that you fully comprehended the application because you didn't mention the architectural portion which has do with the house proper. It's a two-part application. It includes the one-story addition. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: The one-story addition, from what we could tell, is you were taking that small deck out, that triangular bump out area, taking that out and moving, I assumed it was the kitchen, but it -- MS. KRAMER: It is the kitchen and the adjacent den and extending less than the existing deck is projecting. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We didn't have any issues with that. We were mostly concerned with what was down in the damaged area. So I mean that would certainly be well upland of that. Being no other questions, the only question we really had was about the beach house and making sure it was not a habitable space. But that's not even being addressed in this application, really. Board of Trustees 57 February 20, 2013 MS. KRAMER: I know they have more than enough room in their house for all their family members, and it's never come up in conversation, but. MR. HERRMANN: I was just going to respond about the separate question about the stairs, and from speaking to the contractor they were just going to replace the bottom portion as it was necessary, but if the Board wanted to include the whole stairway in the permit so that at becomes a permitted structure, I'm sure the Masso's would -- TRUSTEE GHOSlO: It was one thing we said as we were walking down and I was getting splinters in my hands, that we would probably want to address this sooner than later, so. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: So, if there is no objection, we'll add that to the application. MS. KRAMER: I have no further comments. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any comments from the Board? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I11 make a motion to approve the application with the addition of the rest of the stairway going up to the top as depicted in the drawings that have already been submitted so that if they should need to or want to replace those, they can. MR. HERRMANN: Are you going to need a revised plan on that, Bob? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so. I think what we have here shows the whole thing all the way up to the top. MR. HERRMANN: It's just the note only shows to the bottom, but if you want to make a notation or use it as a condition, that's easier for us. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we stipulate the use, that there is no sanitary associated with the beach house at this time or we can't? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, we can. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The sense of the Board is that you should add that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The only reason I didn't bring it up is because I don't know if it's even a permitted structure at this point. There is no permit in the file here and they were not applying for anything on that. I would be a little nervous to stipulate something that may or may not be permitted, number one; and being able to use that to justify -- TRUSTEE KING: Let's not kick a sleeping dog. MR. HERRMANN: It was not damaged so there was no proposal to do anything, that's why we didn't really look at it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Ill second the motion as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JACK ClPRIANO requests a Wetland Permit for the construction of Board of Trustees 58 February 20, 2013 a single-family dwelling with covered porch, deck, drainage, sanitary and water line. Located: 8150 Main Bayview Road, Southold. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application with the condition of a hay bale line as designated on the site plan as well as creek detection plan during construction. There is a short letter here, I guess I might as well read it. To whom it may concern. I am conveying my concerns about the building construction proposed just south of "The Cove" condominiums on Bayview Avenue in Southold. Corey Creek is one of the cleaner creeks in Southold Southold has building ordinances requiring "green buffer zones" on the shoreline. These buffer zones protect the integrity of the creek as well as reduce flooding and damage from storms such as Hurricane Sandy. "The Cove" suffered almost no water damage in part due to these buffer zones. Unfortunately Southold has not enforced their own building ordinances and several neighboring structures exist nearby where grass runs right to the water. I encourage Southold to enforce their ordinance with regards to the buffer zone and also to ensure that septic systems in the new home are built to code. Finally, I would like to encourage the builders to landscape in a way that reduces the need for fertilizers and pesticides that can run into the creek. Again, my major priority is to preserve the quality of water in Corey Creek. It's from Charles Peck, a neighbor. I believe this is exactly the same plan that we approved previously when the permit expired. MS. MOORE: Correct. It's exactly the same plan, which actually does include a 60-foot non-disturbance buffer; drywells, before even drywells were required; and the sanitary systems more than a hundred feet from the creek. So it's just the economy tanked, the property, no one was interested in buying it, so. TRUSTEE KING: Probably what we want to see, Pat, is just a line of hay bales during construction. MS. MOORE: It actually, in the permit that was issued originally, I noticed that there was. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there was any requirement. MS. MOORE: No, they actually paid for two inspections, because it shows on the receipt, hay bale inspection $50, and final inspection, new plans, for final inspection, $50. So somewhere along the line this is, I'm reading from -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking in the old permit. It was not a requirement of the old permit. MS. MOORE: Somehow you must have included it as a standard construction technique that, because they certainly paid for it, so. TRUSTEE KING: There is nothing on the old plan either indicating a hay bale line, which we should have, really. MS. MOORE: We would need it at this point, just a storm water process, protection requires it. But. Board of Trustees 59 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a proposed limit of clearing line here? MS. MOORE: It already has -- yes. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we put hay bales on that proposed limit of clearing line during construction. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. Well, just along the waterfront, otherwise you'll be going all the way. TRUSTEE KING: On the seaward side. Maybe just wrap it up a little bit, maybe ten feet on either side. MS. MOORE: That's fine. Ten feet. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else have any questions on this? It was exactly what was approved previously. Any other comments from anybody? (No response). MS. MOORE: Do you want me to have Mr. Wolchik give me a plan for your files? TRUSTEE KING: I'll put it on. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. It will be a condition of the permit anyway, and we'll just carry over the fees that he's already paid on inspection, since it is still there. I assume you carry on the -- MS. CANTRELL: It's a common process for the office to not recharge an applicant for something they didn't begin. MS. MOORE: So they paid $100 for the inspection, so we would carry that on? MS. CANTRELL: The inspections were not made and the project has not begun and expired, we do not charge again for a fee. MS. MOORE: So we are both in agreement. So, I guess the answer is yes. TRUSTEE KING: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). Ill make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation there will be a hay bale line on the limit of clearing line on the seaward side of the house. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Mark Schwartz, Architect, on behalf of PHILIP MILOT requests a Wetland Permit to raise the house to elevate height of foundation by five courses of concrete block (40"+/-), and alterations to foundation for flood zone compliance; deck posts to be replaced with new concrete piers; replace stairs, adjusted for raised height; repair/replace any structural members of damaged interior/exterior materials as a result of raising house. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application with the condition of a non-turf buffer. Board of Trustees 60 February 20, 2013 This application was before us in January. There was a question at the time about ZBA authority or requirements that has been addressed. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. We did verify that the deck was legal as shown, so that took care of that issue. Last month we did bring up a question about the "V" zone and I went back to the surveyor and it actually is in a "V" zone so we altered our site plan to show we will design and construct a proper foundation for a "V" zone. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: A question I have when you say it will be redesigned to meet "V" zone requirements, what is being done to do that? MR. SCHWARTZ: Either a piling system or a reinforced concrete piling system. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I was just curious if it was going to be concrete block if it has to be some type of area, breakaway or whatever, to allow for water to flow underneath. MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes, we'll be hiring an engineer to take care of this in the "V" zone. TRUSTEE KING: I thought they could do it with blocks in this area. MR. SCHWARTZ: That's the "A" zone. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing in no further comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number seven, Mark Schwartz on behalf of ROMEO & ANN SOLON requests a Wetland Permit to raise the house and remove existing concrete at porch and locust posts supporting house and posts at back deck; construct new concrete piers for house, porch and rear deck; house to be elevated 4' more (6' high foundation), repair, replace and add new structural members and exterior work as necessary. Located: 485 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Unlike the other applications for Rabbit Lane, this was one on the north side of Rabbit Lane that fronts Marion Lake. The project has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has supported this application Board of Trustees 61 February 20, 2013 with concerns surrounding the sanitary system, and the Trustees visited the site and indicated that the application seemed in order at the time of the inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, to answer any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it was pretty straightforward. I think because of the extensive amount of work involved in raising a house, though, we would probably want to have a hay bale line at the lake frontage so it would prevent -- I didn't see it on the plans, I was not sure. It's a bit of a distance and it is sandy soils but it can be quite a bit of activity there. It shows on the survey that is marked up for the plan, that the deck is about 78 feet from the edge of the wetlands. If we could get a hay bale line that would be, let's say within 30 or 40 feet of the lake frontage, would allow for construction equipment to move around, do you think that would be a problem? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, no problem at all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or concerns from Board members? (No response). Therefore I'll make a motion to 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 this application subject to the installation of hay bale and silt fence some forty feet from the wetlands of Marion Lake to protect the lake. So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: Number eight, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of ROBERT BORVATH requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct inplace 125' of Hurricane Sandy damaged retaining wall; to construct two 10' returns; to reconstruct and relocated a 10x15' lower deck; to re-install utilities; reconstruct and relocated 4x25' stairs with landing; reconstruct and relocate 4x4' landing and beach access stairs; install 94' of deer fence; place ten cubic yards of sand on face of bluff and plant with native plants. Located: 4550 Paradise Point Road, Southold. This application has been found to be exempt from the LWRP and also found to be consistent with LWRP, and also found to be inconsistent with LWRP. We did hit the Trifecta. The inconsistency has to do with reconstructing and relocating the 10x15' lower deck; finds it to be inconsistent because it was not constructed pursuant to a Southold Board of Trustees permit, and generally, in this particular case, is not permissible under Board of Trustees 62 February 20, 2013 275 Wetlands and Shorelines regulations. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application and again recommends an engineered stabilization plan for the slope. When the Board was out there, we didn't really find there to be any issues. It was a pretty straightforward reconstruction of what was already there. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. JUST: Glen Just, JMO Consulting. I did go to the ZBA about the lower deck and they said it's something, a building permit is not needed, so it would not be an issue through the ZBA. As long as it was not touching the bulkhead, wasn't attached to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: We have allowed decks like that in the past. It's really not -- TRUSTEE KING: A it's okay with the new code. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On those decks I always recommend when you build the deck, you give a distance between the slats so the water will run through it and into the sand, but aside from that, how big is this deck? It's only 10x15. It's really not that large, so. Is there any other comments from the gallery? Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ill make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting that with our approval that would give the bottom part mentioned as inconsistent with LWRP, make it consistent by virtue of the fact we give it a permit. TRUSTEE KING: It's smaller than is standard now for decks attached to stairs. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, JMO Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of GWENDOLINE ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing single family dwelling, shed; and existing sanitary system to be pumped and filled with sand; and to construct a new single-family dwelling, shed, deck, porch, retaining walls, gravel drive, re-grade area, install drywells, utility and water lines, and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1140 Old Well Drive, Fishers Island. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council did not make inspection therefore they have no comments to make. We were over there a long time ago. We have not been over recently. MR. JUST: I believe that was June when you initially inspected it. TRUSTEE KING: Was it? I didn't see any issues with it. It's really quite a ways from freshwater wetlands. It will be a new Board of Trustees 63 February 20, 2013 septic system. You can see the original house is here. They kind of turned it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this the one on Barlow Pond? MR. JUST: No, this is on East Harbor, I believe. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I remember this property now. TRUSTEE KING: It's barely jurisdictional. I looked at the plans at home. I don't have any issues with it. The only thing, the LWRP recommended a non-disturbance buffer to the edge of the lawn area that is shown on it and I felt if you increase that, what we would like to see is just a 30-foot non-disturbance buffer from the wetlands. It's more and it's less in some places, but it would be a little more consistent with the wetland line. The edge of the lawn comes in tight here. If they just go 30 feet, follow that, it would be a better job of it. That's the only suggestion I had. Or the only change. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Does that make sense? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). I'll make -- I did draw it in. Here it is. That would be the new line. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation the non-disturbance area will be 30 feet from the freshwater wetland line as flagged by Rob Marsh from the DEC. I can draw that on the plans. It's just a very minor change. That's my recommendation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Michael Kimack on behalf of BRUCE BEANEY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead (100+/-) including existing wood platform (120-sq feet +/-), existing deck (200-sq ft +/-) and existing staircase from platform (4'+/-) and staircase to beach (4'+/-); replace two stepped retaining walls at approximately 66' in length each at approximately 4' in height from grade; repair slope and bank with approximately 200 cubic yards of sand, covered in burlap and planted with Cape Ann Beach Grass at 1'oc, with bayberry as needed; walls will be constructed with 6x6" pressure treated from and sheathed with Shore-Guard 225 O/E. Located: 6200 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This was reviewed under the LWRP and was found to be consistent and inconsistent. And I'm just reviewing the LWRP form here and all he says it's the above actions were consistent. He doesn't list what is inconsistent. So I don't know where the inconsistency ended up here. I do not see it in Board of Trustees 64 February 20, 2013 his report at all. TRUSTEE KING: Is this the one that work was started without a permit? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It started without a permit and stopped. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's not noted on his review. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with a condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer on the top of the bluff and a stabilization plan for the bluff. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, for the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, this was just to address the two retaining walls. In other words the bulkhead is not being rebuilt at all. MR. KIMACK: The bulkhead is fine and survived. Basically the permit includes all the existing facilities, the structures, in order to get them all permitted. MR. KIMACK: As a point, though, there is a planting plan in there for the buffer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking here for a size of either this platform number one or platform number two. MR. KIMACK: There are four-foot in height, 66-foot in length, approximately, and buried about a foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking for is the square footage of them, of the platforms. Platform one and platform two. MR. KIMACK: The first one is about 200 foot, the lower one just above the bulkhead, is about 200 foot. The secondary is 120-square feet on the top, I believe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now I'm asking the Board's opinion on this. This is a deck that exceeds 100-square foot, which is what our limit is, I'm talking about deck number one. Exceeds, the one up top, exceeds our 100-square foot of decks associated with stairs to the beach. It also cantilevers over the bank. You can see in the picture there. We have before said that those need to be back behind the landward of the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: This doesn't show top of bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I don't know how we could include them in the description when they don't meet code. See, we are looking for a detailed drawing of this. TRUSTEE KING: It might be less than 100-square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, sir, deck number one you said was how many square feet? MR. KIMACK: Deck number one is the one immediately above the bulkhead itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: On the plans here that I'm looking at, deck number one is at the top of bluff. Deck number two is right adjacent to the bulkhead. MR. KIMACK: Deck number one is 120-square feet on the top. That's the one at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Gotcha. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we are saying the upper deck is 120. Board of Trustees 65 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: It's probably about 120. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what it says in the description. MR. KIMACK: It's accurate. I scaled it off and it's also from the survey plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's already pre-existing How old is it? MR. KIMACK: I can't give you an answer to that one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: For 20-square feet, I don't know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think granting a variance as opposed to tearing the place up to try to reduce it would be defeating the notion of protecting the bluff by the construction needed to bring it down 20-square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was going to suggest not requiring the applicant to tear it down. What I was going to suggest is that because it doesn't meet code, we cannot permit it, so he can -- it's there. And when it gets to the point where it needs to be replaced, you know, we can address that. MR. KIMACK: To replace at 100-square feet or less. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it has to be landward of the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can stipulate that, I guess. MR. KIMACK: Fair enough. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But since it's not permitted, understand that means no work can take place. There can't be any repairs done to it. It's a non-permitted structure. You can only do repairs to permitted structures. MR. KIMACK: At the present time it is in relatively good shape. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't have any problem with the retaining walls down below. They looked fine. MR. KIMACK: At least you have a sense of what it's going to look like. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody else in the audience? MR. SCOPAZ: John Scopaz, I'm the neighbor to the immediate east of this properly. I just would like the Board to take a look at this plan in the context of in December you approved secondary bulkhead being built on our property, which is basically in line with the 66-foot fence that is being proposed here. But it leaves, between the existing deck number two and our secondary bulkhead, a six-and-a-half foot space of unprotected bluff on the Beaney property. So it appears to me that we would be creating a situation where if the water came over the original bulkhead, as it did with Sandy, that it would simply funnel in this six-and-a-half foot space and get behind both the new Beaney fence and my recently constructed bulkhead. So that, you know, the Beaney work should somehow be extended behind the existing deck and to our property line to ensure there is not unexposed bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, you had mentioned -- i'm looking at the plans here also. And I don't see where either of the proposed retaining walls extends over to your property. Board of Trustees 66 February 20, 2013 MR. SCOPAZ: It doesn't. You're exactly right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I thought I heard you say one does and the other doesn't. But neither one does? MR. SCOPAZ: Exactly. That's my first concern, it leaves a gap, water would just be funneled into that would be detrimental to both properties and both fences. MR. KIMACK: May I comment on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. KIMACK: I believe they stopped there simply because there was no damage to the slope beyond that staircase, going to the right, I imagine, to your property, Mr. Scopaz. And it was stopped there simply because there was no need to go further to rebuild the slope behind it. MR SCQPAZ: It's not a matter of rebuilding the slope but now you are building that fence and we have a bulkhead you'll create a powerful surge in that spot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Scopaz, the comments need to be addressed here. We don't get into conversations between people here. MR. SCOPAZ: Sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have heard your concerns and my question for the applicant, it is the applicant's property so it's up to him, but is the applicant willing to consider extending the one retaining wall that is at the same distance from the bulkhead as the Scopaz' so that it would connect into the Scopaz retaining wall to protect both your properties? MR. KIMACK: Is it the lower retaining walt or the upper retaining wall, Mr. Scopaz? MR. SCOPAZ: The secondary, the one further up the bank, yes TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that something your client would entertain? MR. KIMACK: I believe my client would entertain that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you want time to go back and consult with your client and come back to us? We would be glad to table this until you can talk to your client. MR. KIMACK: That would probably be preferable, to the March 20th meeting, and I can chat with my client. TRUSTEE KING: Just one question on the construction. On the plan it shows proposed 6x6 retaining wall with vinyl Shore-Guard 225 sheathing and cap. You are using both 6x6 and vinyl? MR. KIMACK: That's what he plans to do TRUSTEE KING: Wow. Is the vinyl going on the outside? MR. KIMACK: Yes. I know it's a bit of an oddball but most of the retaining wall is already up, so rather than tear it down, he'll put it back up again with that, and for the second one, too. TRUSTEE KING: He has a brand new vinyl bulkhead here, along here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm trying to see if -- MR. KIMACK: This will give me an opportunity to go back to the property and take a look at it to see exactly what Mr. Scopaz is referring to. TRUSTEE KING: The second retaining wall has not been built yet. MR. KIMACK: No, not at all. It was just the lower one. Board of Trustees 67 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why he wouldn't just go for vinyl like a regular retaining wall, that he wants vinyl, rather than ran than use 6x6, too. I don't understand it. MR. KIMACK: That's what the contractor told me. I asked what he wanted to do with the lower wall and upper wall. He said he would do retaining wall and sheath it. TRUSTEE KING: It just doesn't make sense to me. MR. KIMACK: It's pretty strong. It's not going anywhere. TRUSTEE KING: Does he have any type of deadmen behind that that has been built already? MR. KIMACK: Yes, he does. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is nothing in the cross-section to depict any type of deadmen supporting structure. I think what I would recommend for, in preparation for coming back to us next month, is a more detailed set of plans that has exact dimensions on the plans for the decks, and also details the backing system for these retaining walls. MR. KIMACK: So you are looking for a detailed plan of exactly how that wall is backed up with the deadmen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the backing system for the two walls that are proposed. TRUSTEE KING: I know what's there now, the ends of the 6x6 that protrude through. They extend into the bank, but I don't know what's under there because it's all buried. MR. KIMACK: There was something else you asked for, too? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also the plans would depict one of the retaining walls tying in the Scopaz retaining wall, if that's something your client is willing to do. And also the dimensions on the plans for the decks, both deck one and deck two. This will also give an opportunity to talk to your client about the option, he does have the option if he wants that deck up top to be permitted, he could move that back so it's on the bank, it's not cantilevered over the bank and it's 100-square feet. It's just something for him to consider. MR. KIMACK: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience? MR. SCOPAZ: Yes, you just touched on the second comment I was going to make. Maybe it's being clarified now. I was concerned, for those of you who have been there, there are six properties that were several impacted by Sandy. The easterly most property, two years ago, rebuilt their bluff face and built a retaining wall that looks similar to what was started next door here. That did not hold up in Sandy. And in fact all five properties were damaged by debris that came off of that most easterly wall that was not a bulkhead but simply timbers that were put there. And when you had the picture of my bluff there, before, you could see part of the debris that was down here that actually wiped out our stairway when it came through. So I just wanted to be sure that we were not creating another situation with the Iow-spec bulkhead that was going to break up in the next storm. Board of Trustees 68 February 20, 2013 But it sounds like more than what is shown, what has been built so far is being planned so, and, you have touched on that topic as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm requesting that the plans include the diagram of the backing system that's going to be put in place. Because I can tell you retaining walls are not meant to, they are not designed to keep the bluff from falling down in the event of a total failure of the bulkhead. You know, what we have found is in many places where there is retaining walls in close proximity to the top of the bulkhead, if the bulkhead goes, and all that fill behind the bulkhead goes, normally the retaining walls come down also. MR. SCOPAZ: Interestingly enough, the bulkheads east held. There was really no erosion on the top of the bulkhead, but the retaining wall that was built was rather flimsy, and as a result it broke up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Probably what happened, we found, where the bulkheads did hold up is the sea level rose so high that it was up above and it would do damage and scour the bluffs behind and it did not take the bulkhead out because it was so high above the bulkhead. And some of the bulkheads were built very well and that's why they didn't come down. Okay, with that there is no other comments, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Michael Kimack on behalf of JOAN M. KEATING QPRT cio STANLEY J. KEATING requests a Wetland Permit for the existing wood bulkhead (100'+/-) including return and stairway from bluff; replace approximately 18' of retaining wall approximately eight feet in height at tallest point using pressure treated posts and whalers with Shore-Guard 225 O/E sheathing; replace approximately 10x10' platform and inground support joists; decking of platform to be Trex O/E; joists to be pressure treated; replace damaged stairs and railing at platform with Trex O/E; replace landing and railing with Trex O/E; replace aluminum stairs from landing to beach. Located: 9275 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the recommendation a stabilization plan be developed for the slope. And the Trustees, in viewing the application, we thought that the applicant may wish to consider a new return on the south end of the bulkhead because the failure there seemed to be across the property of the applicant as well as the neighboring property. MR. KIMACK: That's the one we are looking at right now, sir? That's the south side? That's the 18-foot return. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are thinking you might consider that MR. KIMACK: That's the 18 foot. That's the 18. That was Board of Trustees 69 February 20, 2013 completely obliterated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we must have mistaken that for the other. Okay. MR. KIMACK: The slope has been stabilized prior with about 650 yards burlapped and planted one foot on center with beach grass. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: True. This was the property that had the very large tree that was still intact and had not blown over yet. MR. KIMACK: Surprise, surprise. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Other than that concern, which was addressed by the application, I don't know how we missed that. At that point we might have been freezing. It was Sunday some time, I think. We went out Sunday to make the inspection there. ©ther than that, we had no other concerns. Are there any additional comments or questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we did note there had been a restoration done, and unfortunately in the nor'easter some of that restoration went out to sea. In other words, you know, where that picture right there is showing, that was all restored and planted, and then the nor'easter took it away because unfortunately they restored the bluff before they had done the bulkhead and returns, so. MR. KIMACK: I'm only the messenger. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The previous restoration with the jute matting and I think American Beach Grass was certainly workman enough. I don't think we need to ask for a separate planting plan. MR. KIMACK: No, it's Timothy Coffey's work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much, t'll see you on the 20th. TRUSTEE DOMIN©: Number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of MICHAEL & GRACE ANN GRIFFIN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 4x50' seasonal catwalk; construct new 4x50' fixed dock inplace; install two eight-inch diameter anchor pilings for existing 6x20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 435 Pine Place, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. One of the comments, the plans failed to show the vessel and is concerned that it might impinge upon navigation. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. The Trustees during the inspection questioned there would Board of Trustees 70 February 20, 2013 be a letter from the property owners association in the file shows on February 16 we received a letter from the homeowners association approving the request provided that the dock does not extend any further than the previous dock into Spring Pond. The Trustees noted essentially this was a replacement in place of what was there and seemed straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. It is straightforward. This dock was done back when the seasonal docks were all the rage and DEC liked them. DEC got away from them. The guy doesn't want to take it in and out every year. There is really no need for it. So we are just looking to make it a permanent structure. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there any else to speak to this application? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: What's the decking on that? Is it open-grate or -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Doesn't say anything in the description. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Doesn't show, Jack. MR. COSTELLO: We didn't specify. He was considering maybe using the old pieces of the decking but just making permanent piles to go in just to keep the cost down. TRUSTEE KING: As long as the rest of it is untreated, that's all. MR. COSTELLO: Right. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We have to make it consistent. TRUSTEE DOMINO: In order to make it consistent we have to address the question of the vessel. MR. COSTELLO: Right now he has like a 21-foot Grady White. The only person that would object -- TRUSTEE KING: It's hard to put a vessel size in because people buy and sell their boats and change sizes. MR. COSTELLO: The dock has been there every season for the past ten years. It's just what we are doing is making it permanent. TRUSTEE KING: The structure is exactly the same size as what has already been there. It's certainly far less than one-third of the way across the waterway. It meets all the dock specifications. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To me if it meets all the criteria, then it's consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's consistent with the size vessel that has been there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Again, I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. And the Board finds it consistent under the LWRP. Board of Trustees 71 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'm going to do is open 13 and 14 together, since they are contiguous property, essentially amounting to one project, as I understand it, right, Jack? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll open up number 13, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SHELTER ISLAND SOUND, INC., cio MARK MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct 120 +/- of new bulkhead; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 100 cubic yards); re-grade areas and re-vegetate providing ten-foot wide non-turf buffer; modify and/or reconstruct lower portion of existing stairway as required to accommodate new bulkhead. Located: 900 Paradise Point Road, Southold. And number 14, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of MARK MILLER requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing stairway to beach; remove 160' of existing bulkhead; construct 173' +/- of new bulkhead inplace, extending bulkhead to south property line; re-install existing stairway to beach inplace; fill void areas landward of bulkhead with clean trucked-in fill approximately 125 cubic yards; re-grade areas; provide ten-foot wide non-turf buffer and re-vegetate with native plantings. Located: 1000 Paradise Point Road, Southold. Both of these applications have been found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the application, recommending a ten-foot to 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the crest of the bluff on 1000 Paradise Point Road and also the same thing on 900, except that they are recommending on 900 Paradise Point Road 120' foot Iow sill coif log bulkhead. The Board of Trustees was out there. We did look at them together. We found that there is existing functional retaining wall that is being extended, suggesting replacing it at the same height. And of course on the other one, we had no comment because we are actually creating it. Is there anybody here who would like to address these applications? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello on behalf of the applicant. In the proposal we do include a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That addresses that concern. These are basically, it will extend in a straight line, right? MR. COSTELLO: Actually it will extend to the boat house in a straight line and then actually move landward with the stairs, so actually where the toe of the bulkhead is, it will actually go back closer to the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't say in the description it's vinyl sheathing, but it is on the plans. TRUSTEE GHQSIO: We can include that in the description. Do you plan on using vinyl sheathing? MR. CQSTELLO: Absolutely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of plantings will you be using? Board of Trustees 72 February 20, 2013 MR. COSTELLO: Cape American Beach Grass. Maybe bayberry up top. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the LWRP coordinator has the concern whether or not the plantings would help keep make the slope stable or not. But it's been our policy pretty much in this area to insist on plantings. TRUSTEE KING: I think rather than say a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, I would just rather say natural vegetation landward of the bulkhead to the top of the bluff. MR. COSTELLO: That's fine, too. TRUSTEE KING: It's all just natural vegetation from the bulkhead on up to the top of the bluff. That whole area is just a natural area. It's pretty much what we have now. If they want to plant American Beach Grass behind the bulkhead, that's fine. But just have that whole area up to the top of the bluff as a natural, vegetated area. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: I think the Conservation Advisory Council was saying at the top. TRUSTEE KING: If they want it further landward, but I don't think it's necessary. MR. COSTELLO: That bluff has to be a pretty substantial place to absorb any issues. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Ill make a motion to close the hearing on both these applications. TRUSTEE KING: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve both these applications as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: With the stipulation that the area landward of the bulkhead up to the top of the bluff is to remain in a naturally vegetated state. On both. MS. CANTRELL: Along with the buffer? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no ten-foot non-turf buffer. Just stipulating the whole area is non-turf and it will be vinyl sheathing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do we want to refer to this as a retaining wall on the Mark Miller property rather than a bulkhead? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We had discussed that out in the field, didn't we. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because the code does not allow any new bulkheads. MR. COSTELLO: It's definitely a retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: It's more like a retaining wall because it's well above the high water mark. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would amend the motion. TRUSTEE KING: Because of the storm, there has been excessive erosion. So. I believe it's in there, unless erosion can be shown, t think there has been a lot of erosion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the motion is to be as it was except we are just changing the description We'll change the description to Board of Trustees 73 February 20, 2013 reflect vinyl sheathing, that these be called retaining walls, not bulkheads, because that's what they are; and natural plantings on the bluff to replace the ten-foot non-turf buffer, make the whole bluff a buffer. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BARBARA KELSEY requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing bluff staircase that was damaged by Hurricane Sandy; to construct a five-foot high retaining wall, roughly 16' landward of the existing bulkhead; and reconstruct damaged bluff stairs; construct a 6x4' wooden platform on top and seaward of the existing bulkhead which will allow for the installation of 2' wide retractable aluminum beach access stairs; in total there will be 115'+/- of new retaining wall; after construction of the retaining wall and stairs has finished, roughly 100 cubic yards of fill will be deposited behind the retaining wall and in the space between the retaining wall and existing bulkhead. Located: 4000 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The LWRP found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as written. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. IVANS: Matt Ivans, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'm here were to answer any questions, but I also have to ask the Board a question. We earnestly did not include, there is an existing deck out there. It was existing before the hurricane. We would like to include that, if possible, with this application. To reconstruct. If not, we could do an amendment, but. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because it was notified this way, that this happened before, according to Lori we can't just do that. It has to be re-notified to the adjoining property owners. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any huge issues with it. One question was why was the big locust tree cut down. On top of that bluff was a big locust tree. MR. IVANS: When Bruce and I went out there, it was like that. I don't have an answer for that. TRUSTEE GH©SIO: We were really hoping you had an answer. MR. IVANS: I have none. TRUSTEE KING: We thought you could even make something up. MR. IVANS: Elizabeth, can you help me. MS. CANTRELL: You're the creative one. TRUSTEE KING: There are no other comments on our worksheet, on the site visit. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Ill make a motion to approve the application. You'll be coming back for the deck? Board of Trustees 74 February 20, 2013 MR. IVANS: Yes, we'll be doing an amendment for that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 16, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of SEAN MCCOYD requests a Wetland Permit to elevate the existing single-family dwelling and garage (1,360sq fi +/-) and deposit/grade clean fill (115 cubic yards +/-) thereon; the dwelling is proposed to be elevated to 9' and that garage is proposed to be elevated to 8'. Located: 3360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found it consistent noting the action is located within the AE elevation six flood zone. The CAC supports the application with the drainage plan be included on the site plan. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. IVANS: Mat Ivans, Suffolk Environmental, here to answer any and all questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As the Conservation Advisory Council mentioned, I'm looking at the survey and/or site plan, and I don't see any drainage noted there. Drywells, gutters. MR. IVANS: Okay, we could have the survey revised, put in some drywells, leaders, gutters. TRUSTEE BERGEN: About how much of this building was going to be torn down or demoed? MR. IVANS: Well, none of it, except for the garage. Did you see the letter from Joe Fischetti? What will happen is the house itself can be elevated. It's on locust posts. There is no problem with that. We'll hopefully maintain 100% of that. The garage is on a slab. There is really not much we can do to save it, so we'll basically have to reconstruct it. But it doesn't meet th 75% threshold for demolition. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Have you applied yet to the building department for permits? MR. IVANS: No, but I believe Bruce Anderson and Joe Fischetti met with Mike Verity on this already, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Given the scope of the project, would you have any objection to a hay bale line? I'm looking at the four-foot contour line. Actually, you'll need a little more room than that. MR. IVANS: I see where you are saying, toward the northwestern end of that four-foot contour line, take it out a little bit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. You would need more room than the four-foot contour line would allow. Looks like you have 35 feet there between the concrete wall and the house, so how about would 20 feet be enough for construction? MR. IVANS: I would think so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So 15-feet landward of the concrete wall we have hay bale and silt -- MR. IVANS: Do you want that all the way across. Board of Trustees 75 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, if we could have that all the way across the property. Is this going to be something that requires ZBA approval? Because it's within 75 feet of retaining wall there. MR. IVANS: I don't believe so. Bruce is, again, I think he met with Mike on this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He's just raising the house up in the air. I would just want to reflect in the Minutes that the Board does have a concern about ZBA approval and that the applicant has stated you have already entered into discussions with ZBA, correct? MR. IVANS: Yes, I believe so. I can confirm it with Bruce. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wishes to comment on this application? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). Motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Sean McCoyd with the addition of appropriate gutters leading to downspouts, leading to drywells, so it conforms with Chapter 236 and that a hay bale silt fence line is included approximately 15-foot landward of the retaining wall or bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 17, Horton Dredge & Dock on behalf of CYNTHIA O'LEARY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a bulkhead the width (approximately 90') of the remaining and only un-bulkheaded water[ront section of the property; the west end of the proposed bulkhead will tie into the existing bulkhead on the property; the eastern end will tie into the existing bulkhead of the properly adjacent to the east; to construct a 35' return on the western end of the property; add clean fill (100-150 cubic yards) from an upland source. Located: 280 Park Avenue, Mattituck. The project is deemed consistent with the LWRP coordinator. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, was unable to make inspection. Trustee President Jim King had reviewed this project and done an inspection and the field notes reflect a request to cut down the landward end of the groin to the top of the whaler. That would be the existing bulkhead section. And I guess there was a question concerning the right-of-way. It's apparently O'Leary. TRUSTEE KING: It's on her property. What I was talking about, I tried make a little drawing. The bulkhead is along the Board of Trustees 76 February 20, 2013 shoreline, then it actually comes out at 90 degrees on top of this groin. So what you want to do is remove this section. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it's no longer an extension of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That said, is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HORTON: Good evening. Joshua Horton on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: That section can be cut right down to the top of the whaler. You have a section of bulkhead going seaward on top of the groin, about 12 feet long. Cut that down even with the top of the groin into where the new bulkhead is going. MR. HORTON: Understood. I'm just here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seemed pretty straightforward. It got hammered. It's the last piece between two pieces of bulkhead so there is no real opportunity to revet or put another structure in. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like there was a nice stand of cedar trees, all gone. Which probably would not have happened if there was a bulkhead there. It's a shame. MR. HORTON: One thing I might mention is that there are steps that will be rebuilt. We didn't include them in this application and we'll come in for an amendment to this permit, should it be granted, to have those dealt with properly. TRUSTEE KING: There is a deck there, too, on the end of that right-of-way. Did you plan on doing anything that? MR. HORTON: What I plan on doing with it is making sure whatever is applied for to ensure that the steps are permitted. They have been existing and are on several surveys. What we plan to do is bring all of that into conformance with what you deem fit. TRUSTEE KING: I would put the deck and the stairs on an amendment application to this bulkhead. MR. HORT©N: Will do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comment, questions? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the section of the bulkhead which goes out and over the groin be reduced in height to match the top of the whaler. TRUSTEE KING: They'll want to see a non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead, ten, 15-foot non-turf. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And require a ten to 15-foot buffer behind the bulkhead. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll draw the buffering in. Board of Trustees 77 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 18, Horton Dredge and Dock on behalf of SAI_ VARANO requests a Wetland Permit to restore the bluff damaged by Hurricane Sandy; install a 200' long by 4' high retaining wall; backfill with approximately 200 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 6600 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, recommended a splash pad landward of the bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore did not make any recommendations. The Trustees on February 13th did a field inspection. The only comment seemed very clear to us, the only comment was to clarify the terms "bulkhead" and "retaining wall." As Trustee Ghosio said before, we have -- these are retaining walls, not bulkheads, and on the plans the proposed construction is described as a bulkhead. So other than that, everything seems to be straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HORTON: Joshua Horton on behalf of the applicant here to answer any questions and noted, understood, it is designed as a retaining wall, intended to be a retaining wall I appreciate the comment. TRUSTEE KING: This is east of the Scopaz property, isn't it. MR. HORTON: This property is three -- it's immediately east and adjacent to the Riccio property that was here last month. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the clarification of the term of "bulkhead" and "retaining wall" on the plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 19, Horton Dredge & Dock on behalf of RUTH E. MILI,ER RESIDENCE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct a retaining wall the width (approximately 90') of the property upland of the bulkhead; the west end of the retaining wall to tie into the recently constructed adjacent retaining wall; the eastern end of the retaining wall will have an upland return 6' to 8' in length; backfill with approximately 200 cubic yards of clean fill; upon completion of the retaining wall and Board of Trustees 78 February 20, 2013 deck stabilization, the steps will be repaired and possibly re-routed slightly to account for the new retaining wall. Located: 6400 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. As has been the theme for the last couple of meetings, this is storm damage. This application has been found to be consistent with LWRP, however he is recommending that a splash pad be constructed or be integrated into the design constructed of natural materials, located landward of the bulkhead. It's not a terrible idea. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with no further comment. And the Trustees, when we were out on our inspections, were curious to how we were putting lay logs under deck and whether you would be using helical screws. Aside from that, is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HORTON: Joshua Horton on behalf of the applicant. Trustee Ghosio, to answer your question, and your well-placed wonder, I would say bruit force and ignorance is how we'll install lay logs underneath the deck. No, actually, we plan to hand dig those in underneath the deck once we have fully supported the deck and stabilized that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looking in the cross-section here, what's the distance between the bulkhead and that lay log? Approximately. MR. HORTON: Approximately ten feet. Between the retaining wall, the new proposed retaining wall -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. Yes. And the lay log. MR. HORTON: And the lay log supporting that. Approximately ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, it's such a steep slope there, even digging them in, because you have a system here with deadmen, then a ten-inch lay log going horizontally there, to dig that in, I'm just concerned for the integrity of that bank and going back that far, it seems like helical screws are the way to go here. MR. HORTON: Quite frankly you could simply use deadmen without lay logs. It's not uncommon. TRUSTEE BERGEN: From an engineering perspective --. MR. HORTON: I would prefer not to do that. Actually if you look at the, I believe that is mostly trumpet vine, just to the east of the deck, along the bluff, that, you know, from this perspective and the vantage point of the photographer, it appears to be, you know, quite a steep drop there. It's actually up to that first sort of snow line, if you will, the remaining snow line along the trumpet vine, is probably about ten feet back. The bluff is still fairly Iow there. You would not be digging out a tremendous amount. In fact we looked at the Scopaz job next door to the west as a reference for dealing with that matter because they were well underway with their construction as we were discussing this with the client. My first concern was obviously how to install backing Board of Trustees 79 February 20, 2013 system deep into the bluff and that's, the bluff there is really quite Iow, beneath that little snow ridge and trumpet vine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The summertime pictures do reflect that, looking at the pictures from the summertime. And you'll be tying into the Scopaz retaining wall with this? MR. HORTON: Yes, in fact I had a conversation with him again out in the hallway this evening. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. You've got that drawn into this photo, kind of makes sense. MR. HORTON: And also we'll disturb as little of the trumpet vine that is hardily grown there right now and quite mature, is our intention. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Does anybody else on the Board have any questions or comments? MR. HORTON: Vinyl sheet pile? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just caution the applicant, I just have a concern, and I'm not an engineer, but from an engineering perspective, particularly with the lay logs going in there, the structural integrity of that bluff when you start trenching all the way along the length of that bluff for these lay logs and going underneath that deck, I just think helical screws are the way to go. I really do. But it's obviously up to the applicant which way you want to go with this. MR. HORTON: I discussed with him at length, helical screws, particularly underneath the deck area, for many obvious reasons. And I'll continue to have that dialogue with him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know the deck is not in the description here. Is that deck permitted? MR. HORTON: The deck is permitted by this Board, yes. I was delighted to find out, actually. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I do have a permit from 1999 for that deck and gazebo. Any ether comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HORTON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSI©: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Jim, sorry, since I have the next group, can we start with de la Vega-Higgins so these guys can go home? Because I don't have anyone else here. TRUSTEE KING: Sure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number 24, Eh-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 4x95' fixed, elevated Board of Trustees 80 February 20, 2013 walkway, a 3x14' hinged ramp; and a 6x20' float secured by two 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Rt. 25, East Marion. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 1114/2013: To construct an elevated 4x84' fixed catwalk with 6x10' step-down platform at seaward end, comprised entirely of untreated materials; including open-grate fiberglass reinforced decking. I had returned to the site to confirm the staking of the revised plan, which we have copies of here. And I did make some photo entries of the revised structure, which may have made it in the file. I don't know whether they were being printed today. And the entirety of the revised structure is within the general outline of -- it's landward of those rocks that you see there now. I believe that this is a pre-photo when we were during the field inspection. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I got your photos but I couldn't put them on. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the proposed catwalk is also landward of a row of erratic boulders that were lined up to make a makeshift natural groin that would be on the west side, so that it actually, the entirety of the structure, which is proposed now to be non-toxic materials, is now landward of the land form. There are some letters to the file here which I believe are new. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have the plan, Jay, excuse me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, there is a revised plan. There is a letter here from the Group for the East End that I will paraphrase, but we can have a copy entered into the record here. On behalf of the Group for East End I would like to provide the following comments: Regarding the updated wetland application, the updated application is amended to address size, the proposed use of CCA material and proposed water, electricity, and that it still poses a risk to environmental quality and condition of Dam Pond. Dam Pond is located within the state designated significant fish and wildlife habitat. It is also designated New York State Department of Critical Environmental Conservation CEA's. According to the DEC, Dam Pond possesses several rare plant and animal species including Golden Dock, Marsh Straw Sedge, Woodland Agrimony, Green Paris Feather, Little Leaf Tick Foil, Large Grass Leaf Rush and Short Fruit Rush. The original application was found to be inconsistent with the town's LWRP. Impacts to wetland, lack of demonstrating the need for a structure at Dam Pond, restricted navigability, potential water quality impacts. It goes on to quote the Southold Code provides the Board of Trustees with the authority to deny the proposed structure in critical environmental areas such as Dam Pond. For the above reasons we support the Board of Trustees denying the proposed dock application in order to ensure the environmental quality of Dam Pond. Thank you, for reviewing the comments and concerns. There is also a letter here, which I believe the Board members also got, that comes from Michael Delano, the adjacent owner. After carefully examining the original dock structure and Board of Trustees 81 February 20, 2013 after a very careful reading of the LWRP program document, I object to the plan. After very carefully examining the revised plan in great detail and after researching the subject matter quite extensively I am even more than before adamantly opposed to this or any new dock structure in Dam Pond. While the revised plan submitted by En-Consultants has eliminated water, electricity and treated lumber, it does not in any way address the criticism of the LWRP's recommendation and denial and is also somewhat misleading in what it says and does. For example, the revised plan claims the overall seaward intrusion of the structure has been reduced by 31 feet, but fails to mention that the revised structure begins one foot closer to Dam Pond, and more importantly it has been rotated 12 degrees to the south. The revised structure would now cover and disturb more wetland than the previous structure and would have several unaddressed ecological consequences. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I believe that letter was just in support of what he already testified to last time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. This is an extensive letter. We can amend this to the record of the meeting without me continuing to read it. Then there is another one that we could also submit to the record. This is from an E-mail address and it says from a Joan Barrett. So we can append these as the record is collected. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To summarize, is she for or against this application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: She is against this application. When I went back to visit the site I didn't have the benefit of a camera to take a picture. The first time I went, that was some two weeks ago, I managed to catch some knee-high snow. I did go back, though, and had an opportunity to review the revised staking yesterday; excuse me, the day before yesterday. And the proposed staking is in an area which has the least amount of emergent tidal wetlands from the property down to the water's edge. There are none of the plant species other than the usual emergent and continuous tidal wetland vegetation which would include Spartina Alterna Flora, maybe some Distichlis spicata, maybe some Salicornia and High Tide Bush and maybe some Iva frutescens, but none of the rare plant and animal species that are noted on the group's description, which are more apt for the upland and freshwater and contiguous woodland and wetland areas of the preserve that is on the western shore. And the fact that it's non-toxic, the structure has been reduced to the size that is strictly, it would be fairly difficult for anyone, from what I could see, to use any power boats, so it will be largely for non-powered vessels that would not even require a boat registration. It would seem to meet the requirements to be consistent with the town's proposal because it's extremely minimalistic in its approach. I just can't see, I haven't seen anything here that would, to my mind, that I have a problem with this. I visited it a number of times. Board of Trustees 82 February 20, 2013 Any how, I went way ahead of the application here because I have been out there a number of times. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants. I would say I'm not sure I could have summarized that better than John just did. I don't have anything new to present that was not presented last time. We could respond to some of the comments in the E-malt but I'm not sure that it's completely necessary unless the Board wants me to. The slight change in angle of the dock actually brings us to a band of vegetated tidal wetlands that is actually a little bit narrower than the one before, while still maintaining that disturbed path. And that was really the one thing that the owners had asked me or wished that I had mentioned on the record last time. So I'll do that now, just for the purpose of it. It is just the notion that if there were not some sort of catwalk here, they could still take their rowboats and their kayaks and canoes and continuously drag them through the marsh and the town would not be able to prevent them from doing that. And the end result of that would be to have a much more greatly disturbed area, more devoid of mussels and wetland vegetation and whatever other, as you described them, the usual suite of plants and animals that of concern here. And I would say it's worth noting that many, many years ago, the Town of Southampton in certain areas had considered prohibiting docks in some of these enclosed embayments like in Sag Harbor. And that was the conclusion they eventually came to, was that to allow a minimally-sized, minimally-scoped structure like this, elevated above the marsh to allow sunlight through, now we are using no chemically-treated wood, open-grate decking, that this basic one time disturbance to an area that is already through foot traffic been disturbed, is going to cause less impact, although they are pretty minimal in either case, less impact to the environment that fronts the shoreline than if there was really no guided use of that area. So that would be the only thing else that I would add. And again, in the groups' letter they described general conditions throughout Dam Pond but don't actually make any specific assertions that this dock at this location would have any impact on any of those species of concern. So unless the Board has any other questions, we have made now four or five modifications to the dock, which contrary to that letter you mentioned, I think does respond to the LWRP concern, because it seems to me one of the, if not primary concern of that, was the chemical treatment of wood. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns? TRUSTEE KING: It looks like these are four-inch untreated posts you are using? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Also, sorry, I handed up to Jim as you were opening the hearing a copy of the tidal wetlands permit that was issued by the DEC for this plan, the one that is in front of you now. Board of Trustees 83 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE t3REDEMEYER: This one now. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is also private bottom and it is interesting, but the applicants for this dock could put an application in for any number of pilings or structures to be aquaculturist and the LWRP would probably find it consistent and encourage the activity and it would have many more impacts, and a big, strong healthy bay man would move more soils in one morning of clam digging in Dam Pond than the entirety of all the pilings that will construct this dock that may last for 20, 30 or more years. I just want to point that out as a point of observation that I have made. And the concerns that there is extensive eelgrass in this location are not well founded because I have the collection of bent eel spears from when I was a kid spearing eels up there. It's a very hard, gravelly bottom that was disturbed and was a mining operation of Latham Sand & Gravel for some time to provide material. So although it's beautiful and it's obviously a very vibrant ecosystem, it has a history of disturbed soils and use and it's not a place to find eelgrass. MR. HERRMANN: It's not a suitable habitat for Zostera. I don't have anything else to add. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, structural question. With 4x4 posts in here and given the depth and the width of Dam Pond, do you think that will hold up to ice in Dam Pond? I'm just afraid in the wintertime without some cross-bracing maybe on the 4x4's, this will lift up in the wintertime. MR. HERRMANN: I would think they would probably be constructed that way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ice out there is not padicularly violent in that upper corner, but just the up and down. It might be a thought, too, because it is highly affected by Long Island Sound because of the barrier beach there allows considerable flow, so occasionally the tides go very high in Dam Pond. So I guess if having ice flow under it, Dave's concern might be true, you might want to have some cross-bracing for the smaller. MR. HERRMANN: We were trying to use the minimally-sized post to keep it -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just thinking of the structural integrity given the ice heaving that could take place there in the wintertime. I would hate to see the applicants go through this expense and in the first winter get all busted up by ice. MR. HERRMANN: It's a good point. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we've seen it yet, but there is also the possibility of the fiberglass pilings that the Pearson Company has now come out with that are non-toxic and they are apparently very good with not getting lifted up in the ice. MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to see how it works out? I think they would be happy to have a dock to fix at this point. But the advice is well taken. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can always come back for an amendment to the permit later on. Consult with your dock builder and see what the Board of Trustees 84 February 20, 2013 dock builder thinks. They are the professionals. TRUSTEE KING: You can always put a bubble system in. If you get a severe cold snap. MR. HERRMANN: Not without electricity. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'1t make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ill make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the amended set of plans which relocates and downsizes the dock and uses non-toxic materials, thereby addressing concerns of inconsistency, and I would so move to approve the amended plan that we have stamped and dated stamped into the Trustee office December 12 of 2012. MR. HERRMANN: 1/10/13 is the plan date. TRUSTEE KING: This has been previously approved by the DEC. MR. HERRMANN: That can't be the right day, Jay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, not the standalone revised. MR. HERRMANN: Liz may have put the date on the re-notice. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, on the January 14th, 2013, and as approved by the DEC. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Ghosio, nay). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm voting nay on this. I'm not 100% comfortable with it, that's all. TRUSTEE KING: We'll go back to number 20. En-Consultants on behalf of CAROLINE & DOUGALI_ FRASER, JR., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/- 50' Iow-profile vinyl groin in-place of existing +/- 64' groin and remove most seaward +/- 14' of existing groin. Located: 7955 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. MR. HERRMANN: Jim designed this one, so I hope you all have some good feedback. TRUSTEE KING: We'll make some changes to my design. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to suppod the application as written. There is a letter in here from David Kilbride. It's a fairly lengthy letter. I'll see if I could just get the high points and the rest of it will just be put into the record. He just talks about groins and how they affect the littoral drift. This replacement didn't appear to be Iow profile. The bottom line, we favor your approving for Fraser a Iow profile jetty, provided that a Iow profile jetty per your specifications and dimensions is the final outcome of the project. That's basically what they have to say. They want to be assured it's a Iow profile groin, basically. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of Eh-Consultants, on behalf of Board of Trustees 85 February 20, 2013 Dougall Fraser. This groin was previously approved back, I think in 1999, by the Trustees, and it was supposed to be a Iow profile groin. And I think it was supposed to be cut back from 64 feet to 60 feet, if I recall correctly. TRUSTEE KING: That's correct. MR. HERRMANN: As I understand it, that work was done. I did meet Jim out there because originally I think it was the subject of a violation because when work was done on the adjacent property, they started replacing the wood sheathing with the vinyl, before Hurricane Sandy. And so I met Jim out there and I may be telling the story wrong. I think Jim may have been out there first and contacted me, and had stated that -- I think we had both looked at the plans and the old plans from 1999 were not very clear about what the heights and all were supposed to be. There was a height shown from the top of the groin to the top of the bulkhead, which I think was close to being observed, but there was no end height at the seaward end. And I'm not sure if the most outer part was ever replaced or not. In any event Jim stated it should be cut back an additional ten feet to 50 feet. So I went out and at Iow tide on my own, thinking I might prove Jim wrong, but, again, I have to admit that I went out at a dead Iow tide and measured exactly 50 feet. So I then subsequently met Jim because I want to make sure we had the design straight. And what we had discussed in the field was a top height of the landward side of the groin being 42" from the top of the existing bulkhead to the top of the cap. Which is also something that I'm not sure was discussed as much 15 years ago because they were not using the vinyl corrugated sheathing, so there was no need for a cap. And now you are adding another couple of inches or whatever to the top. So I prepared the plans to show the 42" up top. I think the height of the end of the groin at 50 feet is like four feet above grade or something like that now, and so we had discussed dropping that down two feet. And that is about it. I drew that up on the plans and we flied the applications and that's what you have in front of you. I just handed up to Jim now revised plans not having anything to do with the groin, but the owner asked if we could include reconstruction of the 3x10 beach steps in the center of the property, so we were hoping that the Board might be amenable to including beach steps in this application. TRUSTEE KING: The old permit was for a 60' groin and the top of the groin was to be no less than 3'6" below the top of the bulkhead. I think it's higher than that now. MR. HERRMANN: It is. TRUSTEE KING: When we were out in the field and started looking at it and measuring it, you'll have to knock that down a little bit. We would like to take it down to four feet from the top of the bulkhead. It has to be pushed down anyway. Everybody felt pretty strongly about this. David had some issues, he didn't think 50 feet was short enough. MR. HERRMANN: 50 feet was legitimate. Board of Trustees 86 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: ~ made a note to check the tide chart. We were there at nine o'clock in the morning and the tide was at 10:55, so we still had almost two hours to go. So I feel the 50 feet is accurate. MR. HERRMANN: I do, too. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is make the top of the groin four feet to the top of the bulkhead and Iow profile it 50 feet long. I don't think any of us have a problem with the stairs. MR. HERRMANN: Why not push the whole groin down six inches, then you end up with 18 inches at the end, too. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We measured it pretty accurate that day. I'm of the belief that 48 inches is the way to go. It will still give you the 50 feet and then it will be a Iow profile. MR. HERRMANN: Going down six inches will get to us 48, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll voice my comments now. I'm obviously very familiar with this area. And as I discussed many times with applications for groins, I'm not a proponent of groins because groins benefit one property owner to the detriment of another property owner. That meaning the property owner down drift gets robbed of the sand. So the answer is, I have been told by engineers. Well, that property puts in a groin. That then robs from the next property owner. Well that person should put in a groin and what you get are groin fields like you see in Little Peconic Bay where my personal feeling is you eliminate the groins all together and let Mother Nature do her thing, you have a nice even beach and nobody getting robbed. This groin here and the next groin that is depicted in this picture have resulted in the adjacent property owners, their beach is gone. And it's partially because of these groins. Now, for myself with this groin, Jim, you are right, we did look at it at nine and I looked at the tide charts and I thought it was about eleven. You said 10:55. Because I initially thought this was not Iow tide, or this was approximately Iow tide, sorry. So the groin at 50-foot would be too long. It was unusual tides. We have had unusual tides this past week because the northwesters has been blowing the bay out. As a matter of fact there has been Iow tides this week that have been so extreme that creeks have been dried up. So I had thought that this should be limited to a maximum length of 40 feet out in the field, and but given the fact that we were there two hours before Iow tide, I can live with the 50 foot. As far as the height goes, I feel this can be dramatically reduced in height to be truly a Iow profile. I feel as though it has to come down so that it's 4'6" from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the cap. Again, then that would be truly Iow profile. And when you think about what Iow profile, the purpose is, it's to allow the sand to build to certain minimal level for that property owner and then subsequent to that, sand flows over the top and goes to the next property owner, rather than robbing the properly owner of all the sand. And so for myself looking at this in the field, plus my experience out there, I feel as Board of Trustees 87 February 20, 2013 though this groin should go down 4'6" from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the cap in order to truly be functioning as a Iow profile bulkhead and not resulting to the detriment of the property owners down drift. Those are my comments. I mean when I stood there at this one, it was well above my west. Now, everyone here has agreed it has to come down but I was, the groin was up well above my waist. That is not Iow profile. That requires stairs to get over it. MR. HERRMANN: The way I would respond to that, Dave, and I think this is why we need the second component, which was lacking in the older plans. You can start at any height at the bulkhead and if the groin is built completely level, it can end up any height above the end of the beach. So to me the trick, and this actually, and I'm realizing this as I'm looking at this plan, the rule of thumb that this Board has been using for as long as I could remember and what the DEC has been using is 18 inches above Iow water at the end. And I realize when I revised this I ended up with 24" and was trying to get it in in the midst of all these storm damaged things and I didn't give it much thought. Because I was so focused on the 42 inches Jim and I were talking about. That's the trick. As long as we build the groin so it's 48", which I would agree with, at the bulkhead, and keep it no higher than 18" at the end, that is a truly Iow profile groin. You could build it 48" down, sorry, 54" inches down from the top, but if they go out level it won't be a Iow profile groin. It will end up higher. So I think as long as you have the reference at the beginning and the end, which pushing this entire structure down six inches, at which point the middle of this thing would almost be flush with grade now, you would have a Iow profile groin. And I'm just speaking consistently with what the Board's policy has been. So all I can say right now is if the Board would be so moved to approve it at 48" down from the top of the bulkhead and no higher than 18" at the seaward end, I would agree to that and give you revised plans, and I think that's probably right. I think if you start to go lower than that, remember, the idea of replacing just the functional part of a groin is so that you don't recreate a theft of littorally transported sand that once existed and exists no more. But you also don't want to take away the function the groin has now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there any need -- I put this question to the Board -- for stairs for public access? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think if the new configuration would be -- I think from the storm there has been some loss of sand in the corner. That's obvious. I think once that gets filled in and the groin gets lowered another six inches you would be able to step over it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would think so. MR. HERRMANN: As a point of reference, I mean this was the groin prior to 1999. Board of Trustees 88 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, so in time this will all actually be buried. MR. HERRMANN: Quite likely. TRUSTEE KING: It should. I think if we had all Iow profile groins, the whole beach would look different. It's tough to have Iow profile here and you have two older groins on either side that are sticking up in the air three feet. It takes away the function of Iow profile. Anybody else? (No response). Nobody else, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application with new plans showing the top of the groin at the bulkhead to be no less than four feet below the top of the bulkhead. And to be constructed as a Iow profile groin. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: At a length of 50 feet. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One question here. TRUSTEE KING: Discussion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. There is four pilings sticking out of the sand there that are not part of the structure. I would ask that those four pilings be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Those were pilings he removed during construction of the vinyl. He's going to put them back in place. They took piles out from one side of the groin so they could put new sheathing in, then they'll replace the piles. They will be incorporated into the structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So they'll be removed from the present location. Because I realize exactly what you are saying. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure they are removed. MR. HERRMANN: They don't just end up staying there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have seen stranger things happen. And also to make sure we include the stairs to the beach in your description. MR. HERRMANN: Remove and replace 3x10 steps to the beach. TRUSTEE KING: That will include stairs to the beach and all the remnants on the old groin to be move offsite. Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record I vote nay. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of MARY MCFEELY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 97 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of existing storm damaged Board of Trustees 89 February 20, 2013 (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; construct +/- 12' easterly return; backfill storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sandy fill; and construct 4x8' steps to beach. Located: 5900 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application. This was reviewed by Jim King out in the field and they have on his notes here one condition of a non-turf buffer, 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the proposed bulkhead, and the remnants of an old groin on the property line to be removed. So those are the comments. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I'm just trying to find pictures, unless you have them, so I can see -- oh, Jim, are you talking about that sort of tattered -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm not sure whose property it's on. Looks right on the line. MR. HERRMANN: That? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, that's just a hazard. MR. HERRMANN: I was wondering if the Board would be accepting of a ten-foot non-tuff buffer behind the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with that. It will be same next door, too. MR. HERRMANN: For O'Shaugnnessy. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERRMANN: Other than that this is a straightforward Sandy application. And I don't think there are any Petters from the neighbors. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer immediately landward of the bulkhead and the removal of the remnants of an old groin on the beach in front of the property. MR. HERRMANN: Before you move on that, Jim, is it east or west? I'm looking at the picture. TRUSTEE KING: The groin? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I was not sure whose property it was on, so I think I put the same notes in O'Shaughnessy. It looks like it's right on the properly line between those two. So it would be on Board of Trustees 90 February 20, 2013 the west side of McFeely. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think it is McFeely. I wanted to make sure you weren't talking about the one that's on Rozanski (sic). TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Understood. TRUSTEE KING: I imagine they'll do both projects at once, so whoever is doing the job, just take that stuff out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's my motion. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number 22, EmConsultants on behalf of STEPHEN & ELIZABETH O'SHAUGHNESSY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 112 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace of existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; remove existing storm damaged westerly return and construct new +/-36' return; backfill storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 350 cubic yards of clean sandy fill; and construct 4x8' steps to beach. Located: 5800 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel This has been deemed consistent under LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported it. Jim King performed the inspection. The comments are the same as the preceding application, identical, recommending a non-turf buffer ten to 15 feet, and to remove the remnants of the groin on the east property line. Having discussed the prior application, are there any questions concerning this? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consuitants. I would say if the conditions are the same as McFeely, it sounds good to me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion of the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and to remove the remnants of the old groin on the east property line. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 23, En-Consultants on behalf of SUE K. ODELL requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inkind/inplace) existing 3' wide stairway and associated landings. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. The LWRP finds this to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory Council was split. Doug Hardy found the bluff to be severely eroded and recommends the application be resubmitted after the Board of Trustees 91 February 20, 2013 bluff is stabilized. And others voted to support project. On our field inspection, the Trustees recommended to reduce the size of the mid-wade platform from 10x4' shown on the plans to 8x4' to bring it into compliance with the code. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. Mike's comments I think date back to the hearing that was originally opened in November. One of the issues we left this open for actually responds to Mr. Hardy's comments, because it was that the time, the original application was filed before Sandy. The Board eventually heard it after Sandy. And so one of the things we had set out to do was to propose a re-nourishment of the soil that had been eroded behind the bulkhead. The bulkhead had been recently permitted and recently reconstructed. It held up fine. I met with Peter Sterling of Plantings By The Sea at the property, and what you can now see on the property are those various little terrace walls and the exposure of that concrete retaining wall. Given the, what Peter and I agreed, was more or less of a lack of true functioning of that wall now, and both the cost and disturbance that would be associated with removing it, Peter had recommended basically replacing more or less in the same locations those terrace walls that are deteriorating, and basically re-nourishing the bluff or the bank, whatever you want to call it, with sandy fill material that would in effect bury the retaining wall. During the summer you really can't see any of those structures, and before Sandy you couldn't really see any of those structures. So what we submitted was a revised plan dated February 19th which shows the removal and replacement of those timber terraces and replacement of re-nourishment material on the bank face, which in effect responds to the one Conservation Advisory Council concern about doing something with the slope, while doing the stairway. The other issue had to do with the size of the platform, which my inference correctly or not seems to be the Board didn't have a huge problem with the deck, but it would not have conformed with the 32-square foot limitation in the code. We were advised by Lori Hulse during that hearing that there had been some discussions about changing that limitation. I understand those changes have been passed by the Town Board and so with respect to the stairs we are just back to the original request of asking you just to allow us to replace what is there inplace. So the plans that are in front of you now are different from the ones that were in front of you in November, only for the bank stabilization components. And for point of reference, this property is adjacent to the Miller application that Josh Horton was here for earlier. Miller is to the left of where Mike is standing on the steps. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 92 February 20, 2013 MR. HERRMANN: I think -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on, this is on Indian Neck Lane. This is not adjacent to Miller. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Ruth Miller. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I'm sorry. We have various Miller's tonight. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Ruth Miller. The one Josh Herren was just here for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments er questions from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as per the plans submitted February and received February 20th, 2013. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALI_ AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Sorry, didn't get it out fast enough. Dave, at the last hearing you had responded to a request, and it was a point of bookkeeping basically, that the steps that come offthe bulkhead are at a slightly different configuration of what the prior permit has shown from the steps off the beach. And I think we talked about as part of this application would you simply say and for the beach steps as existing or something like that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are we talking about O'Dell? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So that as a point of bookkeeping there is a consistency between the way the steps were built and how the prior permit read. That got lost in the conversation. Basically the steps there now, if that picture that Mike was standing on the steps, ge out perpendicular to the bulkhead, on the permit the Trustees approved several years ago, the Trustees were kind of -- the Trustees weren't doing anything. The stairs were kind of going along the side of the bulkhead. This is as minor -- TRUSTEE KING: The platform's sticking out and then steps down to the beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that what you want? MR. HERRMANN: We want it the way it is here. This is as minor as it gets but it was like, you know, we are getting to the point now if anything is slightly different -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's what the plans show. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, they do. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are good to ge. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for all your time tonight. Seriously. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: Number 25, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW D. VOLPE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 55 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead in its original location with new vinyl sheathing; stabilize existing deck with new timber posts; deck dimensions to remain 12.5'x20.5'. Located Board of Trustees 93 February 20, 2013 1700 Oak Drive, Southold. This is found to be consistent with the LWRP, provided that the applicant gains permission of the property owner to conduct the action. I reviewed this as new construction as the action does not have an existing permit. It was also found the part stabilizing the existing deck for new timber posts and the deck dimensions to remain 12.5'x20.5' is exempt from LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a professionally rendered stabilization plan for the slope and the deck is removed or moved landward to the top of the bank. When the Board was out there doing the inspection we also noted we needed to move that deck landward, and we were also recommending flow-through decking. This would be typical. We don't like to see these decks cantilevered over the edge of the bluff. Is there anybody here who would like to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The deck right now as it sits is obviously hanging over the bluff. The client would like to keep it where it is, obviously, but if we do need to move it, I would probably need to discuss that with my client before just jumping to say that he's going to move it. Is there any -- before I even say that, is there any possibility what needs to happen for them to keep it where it is, since it's pre-existing Is there any even chance to come back at all next month with the possibility of keeping it. TRUSTEE GHOSiO: I would say probably not. MR. PATANJO: So if there is no possibility of ever getting, I'm going to say, I'll be okay with moving it back to the landward. I'm going to change my answer. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: That's probably the one we are talking about in the background. I think we'll also be discussing the same thing on this. Which is not Voipe, actually, but Cosola. We had the same issue with both of them. We come across these from time to time. These were built prior to any kind of regulations. We really need to bring these back. They are not supposed to be cantilevering over the bluff. In fact they should be smaller than this as well. But we have had those discussions, too, in the past. MR. PATANJO: Would the Board be opposed to keeping the same size, same deck, just moving it back so it doesn't extend beyond the crest of the bluff? TRUSTEE GFIOSIO: I think that would be a step in the right direction. How does everybody else feel? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think it would be a step in the right direction. And also suggest spacing so that sunlight passes through the deck. One of the issues we have is you don't have vegetation under the deck because of the lack of sunlight. MR. PATANJO: What about the idea of putting some sort of stabilization fabric with pea gravel under the deck to limit erosion? Spacings and decks don't work out great especially if Board of Trustees 94 February 20, 2013 you have a party with high heels. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How do you feel about using flow-through decking? MR. PATANJO: If it were me, I can't speak for my client. If it were me, I would not want it on a deck right there. If it's something over wetlands, I would agree with it. That is typically, from what I have seen in the past, used over vegetated wetlands, for the most part, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In this particular case we are looking at it in terms of being able to get sunlight through. If we move it back off the bluff it would not be critical. MR. PATANJO: If it moved back toward the bluff isn't it in essence now a non-vegetated buffer? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it goes back. MR. PATANJO: You are allowed pea gravel on a non-vegetated buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIQ: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Regarding the size of the deck, I mean earlier tonight we adjusted somebody's application to 10x20 immediately adjacent to the top of a bank or bluff. So for myself I would like to see this downsized to 10x20. We are only talking about two, roughly two-and-a-half foot coming down from one dimension. That's just myself. MR. PATANJO: For the record, t have a DEC permit for this project. A full DEC permit, not an emergency. The emergency ones are easy. TRUSTEE KING: There isn't a hell of a lot of room. If he has to come back four, it's going to be pretty close to the other deck. MR. PATANJO: I was looking at that, too. It's extending the other deck out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So again, downsizing that to 10x20 would help a little bit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And bringing it back off the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: A couple feet anyway. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that something you want us to move on tonight or do you want to table it? How do you want to do it? MR. PATANJO: I would like to walk away with the permit, and if I need to come back with an amendment. So we can, Ill agree to moving the deck back off the bluff and making it 10x20. And do we still need to do pea gravel under it? Or since the deck is part of the non-turf buffer, is that not required. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think we would be all right without it. MR. PATANJO: When you say 10x20 can they go 8x227 Do you want a maximum of 200-square feet? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Is there zoning on this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Liz was saying it probably has to go to Zoning because of the deck going over the bluff, but if they move it back, he may not. I don't know. That's up to the Building Department, I guess. Any other comments? Board of Trustees 95 February 20, 2013 (No response). 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 with the stipulation that the deck will be moved off the bluff so it's not cantilevering over the bluff edge, and that the size of the deck will be reduced to 200-square feet at a maximum. MR. PATANJO: And you want revised plans? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, please. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 26, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of HENRY GOETZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove 77 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead damaged by storm and replace with 77 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and 15 linear feet of return in same location as existing; remove existing timber deck supports to construct bulkhead and replace with new timber supports; existing deck (29'x31.5' overall) to remain undisturbed. Located: 645 Richmond Road East, Southold This was found consistent with the LWRP. He wants a non-turf buffer and a Iow sill bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application, however recommends all structures including the deck should be landward of the bulkhead and the house should have gutters leading into drywells. We didn't fill out any field notes. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. With regard to all the structures, keeping them all landward of the bulkhead, we have no objection to moving the wooden shower setup. We would like stairs down to the beach area, if possible. Just a three-foot wide stairway going down in the face of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was the one we couldn't get in there because it wasn't plowed. TRUSTEE KING: Oh, we couldn't get in there because of the weather. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. PATANJO: I got in. TRUSTEE KING: I can't even picture the location. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was off 48 in Southold. MR. PATANJO: Right across from the town beach, next to the condominium place. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We saw Aviancha (sic) but we couldn't get into Richmond. TRUSTEE KING: Right. That's why there's no notes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's down on the water, right? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like a timber retaining wall. Board of Trustees 96 February 20, 2013 MR. PATANJO: Right now it's timber sheathing going the wrong way. It's horizontal and it was blown out, a section due to this hurricane, so they want to replace it the right way. And the adjacent one just to the east is an existing bulkhead right there to the east. We'll match the height on that one. And I don't believe, I don't recall if that is - I don't have photos. TRUSTEE KING: Where do you stand with DEC on it? MR. PATANJO: I have an emergency permit from the DEC right now. TRUSTEE KING: You do, okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This was two properties over from -- Aviancha had one with an old structure that was creosote and then there was a section they wanted to add that was not. MR. PATANJO: Aviancha, I actually wrote the letter for Ann and had her mail it in with a check for you guys. I was hoping to go there with you to talk to that one and she's like, they were here. Okay. And we could talk about that. TRUSTEE KING: We did a pre-submission on that. MR. PATANJO: I wanted to go there to get your ideas with that. And I actually have the property one over to the east from the vacant one from Aviancha that I'm working on, too. TRUSTEE KING: I guess the light-colored area is the deck. I think we need to look at it, really. I would feel more comfodable if we looked at it. Maybe it was an all concrete walkway or do you think that might have been a concrete retaining wall that felt over at some time. MR. PATANJO: I believe it's a walkway because it is consistent down the road. There are some other ones over there. TRUSTEE KING: That's something we would probably would want to see removed. I would be more comfortable if we tabled this and look at it next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: Is that agreeable with everybody? (Affirmative response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Closer to Spring, anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Hopefully there will be no snow. I'll make a motion to table this application to inspect it next month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 27, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MANNING CREDIT SHELTER TRUST MANNVlEWE LLC, cio PHILIP MANNING, requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; raise bulkhead top cap elevation four feet above existing; import 130 cubic yards clean sand fill behind bulkhead; plant disturbed bluff with beach grass; reconstruct 32-square foot timber platform and steps to beach. Located: 1470 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. The Board did go out and looked at this one. Hiking through the deep snow to get there. And it was reviewed under the LWRP, found to be consistent, noting that no permits were found for the structures proposed to be replaced. The Conservation Board of Trustees 97 February 20, 2013 Advisory Council supports application to replace the bulkhead however does not support raising the bulkhead to four foot in height. Conservation Advisory Council further recommends runoff from the top of the bluff is addressed and the installation of a 20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. Your comment from the Conservation Advisory Council does not support the raising of this bulkhead. Right now the bulkhead is, was a little taller than it is, but there was a lot of sand brought up, or brought down, I should say. During the storm, all of the stairways, all the bluffs, were severely eroded. The raising of the bulkhead would be consistent to the bulkhead to the west. Their bulkhead sticks out of the water, I should say the series, because I'm doing three in a row right here. Three of these applications are in a row on Jackson. The furthest most property on Jackson, I believe it's 1370, there is a bulkhead, they will tie into there, that is approximately three feet out of the ground already. Three to four feet. So we are trying to maintain consistency with the elevated height. And during the storm it was noted from the homeowners that the tide and the waves were crashing over the bluff, that the tide raised approximately four or five feet above where the existing bulkhead sits right now. So the whole intent of this is during future storms to stop the erosion due to the wave action by means of raising the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question here in that I'm looking as at the survey for this property and the proposed set of plans. It shows that the part of the existing stairs and landing actually goes across the property line on to the joining property. MR. PATANJO: That's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in your description here to reconstruct a 32-foot timber platform and steps to the beach, that would be that lower landing? MR. PATANJO: The lower one, correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. This is, again, I wish we had legal counsel here because this is all one structure. It's not a separated structure. In other words, stairs to the beach and that lower platform are clearly on the applicant's property. But they're attached to stairs further going up the bluff with two platforms that are clearly not entirely on the applicant's property. So I don't know how we could approve that structure since we would be in essence approving a total structure that would be across the property line, pieces of it would be across the property line. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll have to go and get permission from the adjoining -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't think permission will do it. I think he has to move the permitted structure so it's on the applicant's property. MR. PATANJO: They actually own the adjacent property as well. Board of Trustees 98 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which is probably why they didn't make a big deal about it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm kind of familiar with the history here. I know it was two brothers originally. But the property to the west I thought had been sold and is under, I think is Brusco at 1600. I'm not sure, but you have Brusco and you have Bellando. Neither one of them are Manning anymore. MR. PATANJO: And I'm representing those two applications as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's not owned by the same family any longer. So what I would recommend, again, is that if we are going to approve the stairs to the beach and the platform that is also connected to the stairs going up the bluff, that at the same time that entire stair structure be moved over so it's all on the applicant's property. MR. PATANJO: I can agree to that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to move it 15 feet? MR. PATANJO: I'm not familiar with the exact code for this area but 15 sounds a little much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The code for docks is 15 foot. I'm just not sure for the code for stairs. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have anything in the code for stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I remember that one on Paradise Point. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm just using it as a reference point. MR. PATANJO: I think just for the applicant and the expense of moving it over, moving it 15 feet will be a lot harder to do than moving it five feet over, for instance, just to get it off the property line. Moving it five feet, they can easily build the other structure and slide it over to the other one. 15 feet is a little more work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They could possibly move it to use the set of, depending on how it's constructed, they could use some of the same supports, just flip it. MR. PATANJO: Put another set and slide it over. That's the five feet idea. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we don't have on here is what the size of those landings are that are associated with the stairs to the beach, so they would have to conform with code, which is 100-square feet maximum. MR. PATANJO: No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'd need a revised set of plans, I suppose. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. With regard to the bulkhead, again, since it's raising it to an elevation that would equal the bulkhead to the adjoining property, I don't have a problem with that at all. MR. PATANJO: Right now the one next to the adjoining property is approximately three to four feet high. We wanted to, and there is scouring behind that. We wanted to go to five-and-a-half feet out of the ground, which is raising it approximately four feet from the existing top cap elevation, and we are trying to create a consistency through all the bulkheads there Board of Trustees 99 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Raising it that high, I don't see, or -- I'm sorry, you do have in here to bring in 130 cubic yards of sand. That would be a sufficient amount of fill? MR. PATANJO: Approximately, like in the previous application if we could put a plus or minus with that. And in addition, any disturbed bluff area will be planted with Cape American Beach Grass for stabilization. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How does the Board feel about the need for a non-turf buffer up at the top of the bluff? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm never against non-tun~ buffers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Looks like currently your elevation is six foot at the current level, going up to approximately 18 foot at the top of the bluff, so if you are raising that up by four feet, roughly, it will be new elevation will be ten, raising to 18, so you have an eight foot rise there of bluff is what it will result in. MR. PATANJO: Which will be planted with the beach grass. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would seem to serve the purpose of a non-turf buffer in itself. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think if the entire area between bulkhead and top of bluff were to be remain planted with Cape American Beach Grass or native species, I think that's fine, because again we are only talking an elevation of eight foot total there over that distance. Six to eight foot, actually. Is the Board comfortable with that? TRUSTEE KING: Sorry, Dave, I missed what you said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were just talking about the need for a non-turf buffer and with the raising of the bulkhead from an elevation from six to approximately ten, actually a little lower than that, and top of bluff elevation going from 16 to 18, there is a rise there six to eight feet total on the bluff. If that was just maintained with Cape American Beach Grass and native species, is there a need then for a non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not really. Not if it's not sloping, you know. The problem is sometimes you get that mowed area. TRUSTEE KING: Lots of times they mow to the top of the bluff. Even if they just a couple of feet landward of the top. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Like we did on that one in Nassau Point we just did tonight. You couldn't mow in front of the fence. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was like two or three feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would you be comfortable with ten-foot non-turf buffer there at the top of bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure, he has plenty of backyard. He could do it. It would actually look pretty nice. TRUSTEE KING: Works for me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 100 February 20, 2013 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make motion to approve the application of Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of Manning Credit Shelter Trust Mannviewe LLC with the conditions that the platforms and stairs leading to the top of the bulkhead be moved so that they are all on the applicant's property; that a ten-foot non-turf buffer be maintained or be included at the top of the bluff, landward of the top of the bluff; and the bluff be vegetated with Cape American Beach Grass or other native species. This would be subject to the receipt of a new set of plans. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number 28, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOSEPH O. BRUSCO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 130 linear feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; raise bulkhead top cap elevation four-feet above existing; import 130 cubic yards of clean sand fill behind bulkhead; plant disturbed bluff with beach grass; remove and re-install existing timber walkway and stairs in original location and dimensions. Located: 1600 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. The project is determined to be consistent and inconsistent under the LWRP. The reason for the inconsistency is the top platform associated with the stairs scales out at 105-square feet on the plans. It had a prior permit and was actually a bit smaller under the prior permit. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application but they had problems with the height. I think we addressed that with the discussion of the neighboring one that just preceded. And they were recommending, the Conservation Advisory Council is recommending a 25-foot non-turf buffer in total. We did the field inspection. It was simply a concern on the inspection concerning what appears to be a metal groin, a groin almost of galvanized or aluminum that was on the beach and there is additional notes here, I guess Jim or Elizabeth performed an office permit survey and says there is no groin permit, that we only found the sold survey, which is included in the file, but there was a permit for the stairs and platform. So that new groin construction, the Board may wish to discuss issues surrounding that. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I have nothing to say about the groin. I didn't put it in. We'll agree to a ten-foot non-turf buffer and that's all. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We figured you didn't put it in since it's attached to a tree. TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a while, from the size of the tree. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The tree is having trouble growing out over it. Board of Trustees 101 February 20, 2013 MR. PATANJO: I think it would be tough to ask my client to remove that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Why? MR. PATANJO: The cost associated with it, I think. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It might be a case where the, this is up to discussion, to have it conform and get a permit on it and get it Iow profile. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a question of need, too. You can't just throw groins up wherever you want. I mean there is a ton of them there already. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think it should come out. MR. PATANJO: Is it hurting anything being there? If it's steel, it's steel bulkhead, I mean, they would be used for 60, 70 years now. TRUSTEE GH0810: No, that's not what Jt is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It appears Jt might even be aluminum. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It didn't look that old. It looks like it was put up a couple of years ago, the tree Js trying to grow, so it's kind of sticking out. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's having a huge impact on the beach. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The old survey showed two groins across the front of the property. Under a previous property owner it shows here, the name was Gerards, I guess we had here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have to agree with Bob, I mean it was never permitted, you know, I don't think we can just ignore it, and then the message we are sending it, is go ahead, just build them without permits. I think it should be taken out, or if they want to apply for it, they could apply for it as a tow profile and it would have to be adjusted accordingly with the dimensions to match a Iow profile groin. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The other aspect, too, is it's not constructed the way it would normally be constructed. You can't cut that. It seems to be, I mean there no cap on it or anything. It's just railing with corrugated -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's dangerous. MR. PATANJO: What about the option of adding a condition to the permit we can cut it and put a standard bulkhead untreated with a cap on it, with say 3x8 on each side with top cap on it. Leave it where it is and lower it to the elevation you would like. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't want to seem like I'm breaking chops here, but the thing is not even 90 degrees off the bulkhead. It's sticking like this. Give me a reason for it. It's just there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's exactly what I was going to say. It's not doing anything now. It's not functioning. MR. PATANJO: Would you be all right with the idea of cutting it down, like I believe Jim said? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. MR. PATANJO: You want it removed entirely. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You can't attach it to a tree. MR. PATANJO: Do I need a tree removal permit? Board of Trustees 102 February 201 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe there is a permit history there with the DEC or something else that maybe to allow the applicant additional time to research this and talk with the owner. Maybe it was a prior owner of the property. MR. PATANJO: I have no history or it's not showing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's difficult to approve a bulkhead here and have this hanging out as an issue, but if the applicant is willing to have us table this and have an opportunity to research the issue surrounding, maybe he has some legal status, they could always apply as an as-built with modifications. MR. PATANJO: How about I say we'll add a condition to remove it. That gets me out of here with a permit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have to work through other issues first. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The deck is 105-square feet to 100-square feet. Hopefully that would be - MR. PATANJO: That's the upper deck? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's the upper deck. The LWRP coordinator scaled that being just a little over the size, the permitted size. MR. PATANJO: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would address the inconsistency and then the concern over the illegal groin construction would seem to be addressed by its removal as a condition of this permit. MR. PATANJO: There was another application earlier today that was 120-square feet and that was okay. Is there a possibility of keeping this one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was a deck that was landward of the top of a bluff. This is a deck associated with stairs to the beach and that the code was 32-square feet and was just recently moved up to a hundred. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The difference there was trying to get that 20-square feet was going to cause more damage than it was worth. MR. PATANJO: So shrink that by five-square feet. Which is a foot off of it, maybe nine inches off one end. TRUSTEE KING: That's a deck seaward of the bulkhead, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Appears so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or concerns? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the upper deck be reduced to 100-square feet; that there be a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the replanted bluff; that the metal groin found on field inspection on February 17th be removed in its entirety; and that a set of plans depicting the proposed removal of the groin, which did not show on our plan, and that 100-foot top square deck and ten-foot non-turf buffer be submitted, thereby bringing this application into consistency with the code and also consistent under the LWRP. So moved. Board of Trustees 103 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 29, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN W. BELLANDO requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; raise bulkhead top cap elevation four-feet above existing; import 130 cubic yards of clean sand fill behind bulkhead; plant disturbed bluff with beach grass; replace existing deck and stairs to pre-hurricane location and dimensions. Located: 1370 Jackson Street, New Suffolk. This is very similar to the previous application in that it is inconsistent and consistent. The inconsistency is the size of the platform, the wooden platform associated with the stairs. And the Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application. They have a question about the height, which was addressed in previous applications. And they recommended a 20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I'm just trying to confirm where that platform is. I believe it's beyond the top of the bluff. I do not identify the bluff line on the plan, unfortunately. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I don't see it either. MR. PATANJO: I think that's ~- yes, that's on the bluff, actually. That's going to be overhanging the bluff, so. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It would appear to be because of the number platforms above it. MR. PATANJO: Yes, it got knocked down during the storm. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else to speak to this application? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the upper deck, that the deck be reduced to comply with present code of 100-square feet or less. And the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer, thereby bringing it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 30, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NSHE WlLLIAMSTON LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 88 linear feet of deteriorated bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location; stabilize bank with Cape American Beach Grass; remove and replace existing 6.4'x3.2' stairway and 8x4' platform as required to construct bulkhead. Located: 220 West Shore Board of Trustees 104 February 20, 2013 Drive, Southold. The LWRP found this to be consistent with LWRR It does note that permits for the proposed structures were not found. They were reviewed as new construction. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. When we were out in the field and we took a look at it, this was at the road end, this is a road end view to the property right next door, which was a common area for the community, looks like. And we didn't find any issues whatsoever. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not a picture of the property. MR. PATANJO: If I could add one thing. I have a DEC permit for the project and the client would like to add a return on the east end. He's doing 1700 Oak, which is the Volpe property, and this is right next door. Sorry, we are tying into a good bulkhead on the west side and the person between this one, Cosola, is not doing a bulkhead, and it's in poor condition so we want to protect our property with a 15-foot return. TRUSTEE KING: This wasn't the one where the garage door was open, is it? MR. PATANJO: Yes, it was. And I called them. I'm friends with a cop and he went over there and checked it out. TRUSTEE KING: The door was open, all the doors were unlocked MR. PATANJO: I called her and the caretaker was supposed to be watching the house. She was just there on Tuesday, so. He went there. They looked at it. TRUSTEE KING: Good thing it wasn't further west. But the other door right into the house was unlocked, too. MR. PATANJO: He said he went in, nothing was taken and she knows about it. So I appreciate the call. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here we go. That's the one. It's straightforward. This is not at the road end. This is not a road end view. This is just a stair replacement due to storm damage. MR. PATANJO: And the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. And we did not have any issues out in the field. So any comments, questions from the Board? (No response). I don't have to make any changes to this, right? 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 31, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 430 WSD LLC, cio PETER COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; install 20' long returns on both sides and an additional 100'long by four foot tall vinyl retaining wall set Board of Trustees 105 February 20, 2013 back ten feet landward on top of proposed bulkhead to be replaced; remove and replace existing 7x18' lower deck; stabilize upper 18.25'x27' deck with new timber supports; establish a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer along the top of the bank; and to legalize the "as-built" 24.5'x20' stone patio and associated walkways. Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold. This was consistent and inconsistent. MR. PATANJO: That previous application, do we have an amendment on there for the return in your reading. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On the Williamston? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: No, I didn't add that. I'll make a motion to reopen the hearing of NSHE Williamston. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So I'1~ just re-do the motion, that's all. Motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a 15-foot return and the submission of revised plans. Which side will you be putting it on? MR. PATANJO: On the east side. TRUSTEE GHOSlO: On the east side. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Now going back to number 31, the LWRP coordinator found replacing the bulkhead and additional retaining wall ten feet landward from top of the bulkhead, all that is consistent with the LWRP. It's my recommendation that the proposed action to remove and replace existing 7x18 lower deck, stabilize upper 18.25'x27' deck with new timber supports and to legalize the as-built 24.5'x20' stone patio and associated walkways are inconsistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, establish a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bank and legalize as-built 24.5'x20' stone patio and associated walkways. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And there were a couple of comments, sorry, I was trying to review what I had here. Did they, were there any issues that needed to be addressed on this one? TRUSTEE KING: I think the decks are the big issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Same as the other one. MR. PATANJO: Yes, the deck is hanging over the bluff, obviously. There is a lower portion of the bluff that is over the hundred square foot limit. TRUSTEE KING: Our field notes were to downsize the deck and move it landward. MR. PATANJO: Is it a possibility of making the lower deck that Board of Trustees 106 February 20, 2013 would be in between the bulkhead and the new retaining wall to a hundred square foot and utilize that as a platform for stairs? And then we'll, we can move the upper deck back? TRUSTEE KING: That sounds reasonable. MR. PATANJO: You should have a set of revised plans dated 1/27/13 in the revision box showing the patio and all. And it does include a ten-foot non-turf buffer on the plans already. TRUSTEE KING: These are the plans we need. MR. PATANJO: There was the original application, then a revised application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The ones in front of me dated December 10, 2012, stamped received January 29, 2013, they show a ten-foot non-turf buffer. I just want to make sure we are on the same page here. MR. PATANJO: I have, I added walkways and the deck dimensions to the latest drawing. I only have a copy of what I sent you. I don't have multiple copies. TRUSTEE KING: I think this is up to date. MR. PATANJO: That's it. 1/27/13 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also have in my notes, retaining wall, location of the retaining wall was not staked. So we didn't know exactly where this retaining wall was going. MR. PATANJO: It's ten foot directly behind the bulkhead, and it's dimensions are on the drawing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see that here. It was interesting for us coming up the stairs and looking underneath this deck that is cantilevered out, completely devoid of any type of vegetation, and it's a classic example of why we do not want to see this happening, because it is actually harmful for the property owner. He ended up putting in looks like sacks of Sacrete concrete in there, whatever, and, you know, this is just a perfect example of why we don't want these decks cantilevered out. MR. PATANJO: No vegetation is exactly what causes the erosion. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see the second deck down on these plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right here, 18x7. TRUSTEE KING: All right, so -- so that could be 100 square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it's associated with stairs. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with that. The top deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pull it back, maximum 10x20. TRUSTEE KING: So -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 200 square foot, move it back, just lake the neighbor's -- TRUSTEE KING: That's the best we can do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So it's landward of the top of the bluff and combine that with ten foot non-turf buffer up there that is already proposed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That should be good. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Did anybody have any issues with the existing stone patio, 20x247 Board of Trustees 107 February 20, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: I don't feel there is a big issue with that. I don't think it's causing any problems. It was built without a permit. We had some problems on this property. MR. PATANJO: That's why I added to clean up. From what I understand, the original permit was not closed out properly, so this was all added. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was a violation here in the old file. TRUSTEE KING: There was this clearing done and things brought without permits. There is a little history with this piece. If I have in my mind right, approve the bulkhead, retaining wall, lower deck needs to be 100 square feet. Upper deck to be moved landward and no larger than 200 square feet. So that will be my motion. We'll approve the bulkhead 20-foot return with a proposed 100-foot upper retaining wall. The lower deck shall be downsized to 100-square feet, and the upper deck will be moved landward from the top of the bluff to be no larger than 200-square feet, with a ten-foot buffer long the top of the bluff. I'll make a motion to close the hearing first. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And my motion is for a 20-foot return, no retaining walls, lower deck downsized to 100-square feet; upper deck no larger than 200-square feet, and be moved landward of the top of the bluff, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer from the top of the bank landward. And a new set of plans showing, to indicate that. And existing stone patio and walkways are all included in this permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let it be noted we all approved to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. That brings it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I11 make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, ~; fS /~-~'}1._ James F. King, nt Board of Trustees MAY 1 6 2013 SoutfCold Town Clerk