Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/18/2013 James F. King, President ~oF sours Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio, Jr., Vice-President OHO 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold, New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer G Michael J ' • ~O~ Telephone (631) 765-1892 _ Domino Fax (631) 765-6641 o~ yc0~ N~ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED 3'1o Pipt NOV 2~ 1 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES S =hold Town Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, September 18, 2013 5:30 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 9, 2013 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, October 16, 2013 at 5:00 PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of May 15, 2013. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you, everyone. Welcome to our September meeting. Before we get going, we have some postponements. On page four, number three, THOMAS J. APREA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8085 and Coastal Erosion Permit #8085C to place approximately 300 feet of barrier cloth and approximately 1' in diameter rocks in front of and on top of existing bulkhead. Board of Trustees 2 September 18, 2013 Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion, has been postponed. On page five, number two Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ORIENT WARF COMPANY, c/o JOHN TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge roughly 2,150 cubic yards of material in the area surrounding the Orient Yacht Club in order to maintain the navigability of the harbor; dredged material to be placed in a drying container secured to the wharf which will then be removed to an approved upland source. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient, has been postponed. And number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of NICHOLAS YUELYS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built 30.5'x26.2' cement block wall; reinforcement of existing damaged piles under dwelling; and for the existing single family 30.5'x26.2' dwelling with a 19.3'x9.5' landward extension and existing wood decks. Located: 56005 County Road 48, Southold, has been postponed. On page six, number four, JOSEPH J. D'ANGELO requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'x15' brick and concrete paver pathway leading to a 5'x4' platform; 3.5'x4' steps; 4'x20' catwalk; 4'x12' ramp; and 5'x16' floating dock; and to replace the floating dock and anchor piles in-place; and to cover the existing treated decking with untreated lumber. Located: 490 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, has been postponed. On page nine, number 22, Michael Kimack on behalf of DAVID WEILD requests a Wetland Permit to replace an approximately 2,000sq.ft. eroded area, approximately 2-3 feet in depth with hand placed clean sand; slope new edge to an approximate 45 degree angle and hand-stack stones and sand fill; plant flat area with Spartina patens 6"-9" on center; and sloped area with Spartina altemiflora between stones. Located: 10450 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue, has been postponed. And on page ten, number 23, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CAROLYN R. AMEEN requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 8'x38' second-story deck above an existing first floor deck; construct a 10'x12' first floor addition, 5'x7' steps, and a 6'x44' two-story addition onto existing dwelling; construct an 18'x35' pool with pool equipment area on landward side of dwelling; construct a 25'x28' garage; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code. Located: 755 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck, has been postponed. And on page ten, number 24, Creative Environmental Consulting on behalf of ELENA COLUMBO requests a Wetland Permit to move the existing dwelling and raise it to town elevation code requirements; proposed construction of a 430sq.ft. deck and steps on the seaward side of dwelling; construct a 5'x14' addition to dwelling on landward side; construct a 15'x20' deck Board of Trustees 3 September 18, 2013 with steps on northwest corner of dwelling; construct 15'x10' deck with steps on northeast comer of dwelling; relocate sanitary system beyond 100' landward of seawall; all gutters and leaders to be connected to new drywells on dwelling; install approximately 350 cubic yards of sandy loam; and re-vegetate disturbed and renovated areas. Located: Unit #C-3, Sage Boulevard, Greenport, has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. I would like to set the date for the next field inspection for Wednesday, October 9th, at 8:30 in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting will be Wednesday, October 16th, 2013, at 5:30, with our worksession starting at 5:00. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We also, tonight, have Wayne Galante is here taking the Minutes of the meeting, so if you do have testimony, please come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. Lori Hulse, down at the end, is our legal advisor. And I don't see anybody from the CAC here yet. Doug Hardy was supposed to come to represent them. That's the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do inspections of the same projects we look at and give us their recommendations. Motion to approve the Minutes of May 15th, 2013. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We have a quick Resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees had compiled a list of activities that we undertook after Tropical Storm Sandy and we wanted to record it in the Trustee Minutes. I'll just give a brief capsule summary. The Board of Trustees in the nine months following Super Storm Sandy had enacted 135 emergency permits on nearly two miles of coast. We held 340 public hearings for major projects that involved repairs to three miles of coast. We issued 125 administrative minor actions that largely led to approvals for another mile of coast. We did over eight-hundred field inspections, yielding a total of 1,400 the total of inspections and actions on well over six miles of coast of the Town of Board of Trustees 4 September 18, 2013 Southold. And I would move that we include this document in the Minutes of the Trustees, for the good and welfare of the Board and community who might be interested in what we had to deal with. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 1. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2013. A check for $8,750.62 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 18, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: TRUSTEE KING: They are listed as follows: High House Woods, Inc., c/o Wendy Prellwitz SCTM#86-7-7.1 Vasilios Frangos SCTM# 44-1-15 Thomas J. Aprea SCTM# 37-7-9.1 Nathan E. Saint-Amand SCTM# 8-2-7.1 Carolyn R. Ameen SCTM# 115-11-4.1 Anthony S. Campo SCTM# 111-1-24, 25&26 Ido Mizrahy SCTM# 53-5-12.6 Cove Condominiums Owners Association SCTM# 87-5-26&23.9 Scripps Children's Gift Trust, c/o Robert K. Scripps SCTM# 104-3-6 Virginia A. Stype SCTM# 123-8-7 Nassau Point Property Owners Association SCTM# 111-9-14 Shari Cai SCTM# 90-2-4 Joan & Peter Fritz SCTM# 71-1-8 James & Susan Brown SCTM# 136-1-53.3 Leslie Windisch SCTM# 70-13-20.10 Robert Rengifo SCTM# 53-4-14 Paula A Tuite Revocable Trust SCTM# 90-2-6 Board of Trustees 5 September 18, 2013 Gregory R. Cukor SCTM# 86-7-6 Angel Shores Homeowners Association, Inc. SCTM# 88-6-13.60 Vincent & Laura Manetti SCTM# 80-5-5.1 Anita E. Brush SCTM# 128-4-18 Michael Liguori and Michael & Eileen Leccese SCTM# 128-2-11 &24 Laughing Waters Property Owners Association SCTM# 87-3-2.1 &60 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move that. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have a second? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Resolutions - Administrative Permits, number one, we are going to move to the Wetlands section of our agenda and combine it with that permit rather than issue two separate permits on the same property. We would rather just issue the one permit covering both issues, to keep it a little simpler. MS. HULSE: Do you want them marked so one is a ten-year and one is a two-year? They'll have to be written separately. TRUSTEE KING: We'll just add on to it. They'll build a retaining wall and then put in also a ten-year maintenance permit to trim phragmites. And number two, Francisco Sciotto on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Permit to cut a +/-400sq.ft. grass area for placement of three (3) seasonal KyRacks for kayak storage. Located: Main Bayview Road, Southold. We are looking at this as a very simple matter. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, we try and move these along. If there is no controversy with them and they are very simple, we'll lump them together and approve them all in one shot. So what I would like to do is take number one and two, number four and five and number seven and eight, and approve those as they have been submitted. They are listed as follows: Number one, JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR., requests a One-Year Extension Board of Trustees 6 September 18, 2013 to Wetland Permit #7665, as issued on October 19, 2011. Located: 6025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number two, Susan DePaola requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #6448 from Norma Miller to LONG ISLAND ONE REAL ESTATE, INC., as issued on September 20, 2006. Located: 12910 Main Road, East Marion. Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of BARBARA KOCH, c/o GEORGE KOCH requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8041 and Coastal Erosion Permit #8041 C for the installation of additional 3"x10" face boards to the existing bulkhead for extra support. Located: 270 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Number five, SUZANNE MOYSE, MARY GUERRIERA & JENNIFER BLACKHALL request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8050 and Coastal Erosion Permit # 8050C to install removable T wide steps from bulkhead to beach. Located: 150 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. Number seven, PETER N. BENOTTI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #6070 to replace existing fixed dock pilings with longer 6" diameter pilings in-place; replace existing floating dock poles with two (2) 6" diameter pilings and add dolphin poles to floating dock pilings; replace wood decking with thru-flow decking on existing 3'x66' fixed dock; replace existing 3'x15' ramp at landward end; re-install existing 3'x14' ramp at seaward end; and re-install existing 6'x16floating dock in-place. Located: 930 Clearview Road, Southold. Number eight, CHARLES LUSCHER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #4117 to shorten the existing dock by 10' and remove two end piles resulting in a T wide by 50' long fixed dock. Located: 820 Bayview Drive, East Marion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three is Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of RICHARD McKINNEY & CYNTHIA POWER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7765 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7765C to re-install +/-32' of 4' high north side fence and +/-142' of 4' high south side fence; install a 4' high gate for access stairway to beach at existing wood deck; reinstall existing 4'x5' platform in cantilevered position to bulkhead; and reinstall existing T wide access stairway to beach in parallel position to shoreline. Located: 12340 Route 25, East Marion. This is an administrative amendment to a permit. We went out there, and I think it was the Board's feeling the applicant had wanted to place the fence directly on top of the bulkhead. And normally what we do in these cases is if there is a non-turf Board of Trustees 7 September 18, 2013 buffer, we put the fence on the landward side of the non-turf buffer rather than on top of the bulkhead. I think that's what everybody decided we should do with this particular one. So I would make that motion to approve this permit with the stipulation that the fence be installed on the landward side of the non-turf buffer, landward of the bulkhead. And everything else will be the same. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, JAMES F. KING requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #688 to place a single row of 1,000-2,000 pound stone behind failing cement block bulkhead and fill void areas behind stones with +/-15 cubic yards clean fill. Located: 220 East Mill Road, Mattituck. It's a very simple project. It's needed. We have seen the photographs and we have seen the property. The only reason we are really separating this out is because Mr. King sits right to my left. So he needs to probably recuse himself from this. So I'll make a motion to approve this administrative amendment as applied for, and we'll need to make a roll call vote, I suppose. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll recuse myself. (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and on to our public hearings section. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: As I stated before, please, if you have any testimony on these, please come to the microphone. If your name is a difficult name, sometimes they are, just spell it so Wayne can get it on the Minutes. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under Amendments, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of HIGH HOUSE WOODS, INC., c/o WENDY PRELLWITZ requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8013 to construct an 18' return to the east end of the bulkhead; reconstruct instead of patch the 4' section of the bulkhead; construct new 12' return at western section of bulkhead; Board of Trustees 8 September 18, 2013 construct new 3' wide access stairway from seawall to beach replacing existing; and change the retaining wall sheathing material to 2" T&G CCA sheathing versus vinyl sheathing. Located: 7134 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This is an amendment to an existing permit we gave out earlier this year. Most of the damage was done by Hurricane Sandy. This amendment has been found to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with no further comment. And based on what we saw, there really isn't anything to comment on. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? (No response). Seeing none, are there any questions or concerns or comments from the Board? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the amendment as applied for. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Fairweather & Brown Associates on behalf of VASILIOS FRANGOS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7388 & Coastal Erosion Permit #7388C to replace the 809 square foot decking on the seaward side of the dwelling. Located: 55755 County Road 48, Southold. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. One of the policy standards is avoid development of the water dependent uses in coastal hazard areas and locate new development as far away from coastal hazard areas as practical. This particular deck is entirely within Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. And he recommends requiring alternative natural materials such as a stone patio. That's about it for that. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation has been made by them. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MARTIN: Good evening. Amy Martin of Fairweather & Brown, here on behalf of Vasilios Frangos. This is an unfortunate situation where the man bought the property, they had with the stipulation that the deck would be re-built from the estate of Board of Trustees 9 September 18, 2013 the previous owner, and was about to complete the, was ready to put the building permit in and realized that it was not in his name, it had not been transferred to his name. So the deck would have been completed by the time the permit expired had he been able to proceed at that point. But at that point we had to apply to both the DEC and yourselves for a change of ownership of the permit. In name. And we are before you hoping he'll be allowed to build it as it would have been built. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to find the original permit. I believe the permit was only for the bulkhead. It didn't include the deck. MS. MARTIN: The original permit had a signature of Jill Doherty under a statement that says remove and replace deck, okay. It was not stated in the permit but it was stated on the site plan. TRUSTEE KING: It needs to be in the permit. I believe the DEC permit was only for the bulkhead, and it was supposed to be armored with stone. I don't think they had addressed the deck at all. That's what the permit was for. We have seen similar situations. I mean this is entirely in coastal erosion. What we have done in the past is permit a deck under 200-square feet, thereby it's not a regulated activity. And in this same area, I know just to, it would be just to the west, we have done some where they replaced the deck, and in front of the deck, between the deck and the bulkhead, they put a stone splash pad. I think that's something MS. MARTIN: So he could have an under 200-square foot deck and patio stone on sand or TRUSTEE KING: Stone splash pad. But it has to be pervious. Usually it's surge stone or core stone, fairly good size stone. So if it gets overwashed, it takes care of MS. MARTIN: Not a paver but a gravel of sorts. TRUSTEE KING: It's a fairly large stone. They seem to be working out pretty well. So if the bulkhead gets overtopped, it tends not to get washed away. MS. MARTIN: So if we close the hearing, you are not going to grant this. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see how we can grant a permit to rebuild the entire deck of eight-hundred something square feet. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Not in coastal erosion. TRUSTEE KING: Because it's entirely in coastal erosion. MS. MARTIN: But yet if it was built last month MS. HULSE: No, it doesn't matter. By coastal erosion code, it's not permitted. It's unregulated if it's under 200-square feet, so it's out of their jurisdiction. MS. MARTIN: I mean if he had changed the name when he bought the property and he had the permits and the permits were you are Board of Trustees 10 September 18, 2013 saying it would not have been granted even though It was not part of the permit? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is another issue. The Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Act sets specific requirements for an area that is classified as a beach area, and the beach, regardless of structure on the beach, extends for 100 feet. So we would be precluded by the very bold language in the code from granting any structure there at all. It's just because, my understanding, less than 200-square feet, then it becomes, it's an exempt activity. So it would be prohibited outright. Anything more than 200-square feet would be prohibited outright. MS. MARTIN: So if we were to submit a plan for a 200-square feet or less deck and the stone, that would be permitted? MS. HULSE: That would be unregulated under coastal erosion, so. MS. MARTIN: And that would be the maximum of what you would permit? MS. HULSE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if it helps at all, we have been consistent about this in coastal erosion areas since Sandy. I mean prior to Sandy, but since Sandy a lot of people have lost their decks that were that were large and wanted them all replaced greater than 200-square feet, and we have been consistent with limiting it to 200-square feet. MS. MARTIN: I'm sure he won't be very happy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And neither were a lot of others, but we are bound by the terms of the code. MS. MARTIN: Thank you, for your time, and thank you for all the work you do in the town. I know you are highly underpaid and highly overworked. So thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Yes? MR. FRANGOS: Hi, how are you. My name is Vasilios Frangos, I'm the owner of this property. When I purchased the property, one of my main concerns with the attorney, because it was an estate sale from Mrs. Deitrich, was that deck. And I was aware that deck was destroyed by the storm that also destroyed the bulkhead. And the only thing that I asked from that attorney was to renew the permit for that deck. Because as everybody knows, some of the most beautiful sunsets in Southold, on that side, we can see right from that deck. I probably would not have purchased this home if I knew that I couldn't place a deck there. I didn't see a reason why I would not be able to replace the deck when I saw the permit that said replace deck. I was familiar with the deck. I was familiar with the home before that deck was destroyed. And there is photos of what that deck looked like. I really would appreciate if there is somehow, to replace just what was there. I'm not asking to expand or do Board of Trustees 11 September 18, 2013 anything different. Just what deck was there at the time that I was purchasing that house, that I would like to replace. That's all I'm asking for. If there is any way we can do that. There are photos. I have photos of the deck. TRUSTEE KING: We are familiar with the property. We have been there. In my mind, we are bound by the coastal erosion hazard law. Quite frankly, I don't think you are still going to have a good-sized deck out there. I don't see how that would obstruct your view of the sunset, how you'll lose your view. You still have a deck out there. MR. FRANGOS: No, it's definitely not obstructing the view. It's just the comfort of sitting there and enjoying that sunset. And I could have done the work to put that deck in. Because I did have the permits for it. TRUSTEE KING: You didn't. Sorry. MS. HULSE: You never had a permit for that deck. I know there was a note on the site plan. But that's not equivalent to a permit. That actually has no legal weight in terms of the difference between a permit and a note on the site plan. Unfortunately, I could see how it would be misleading, but it's not a permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could I pose a question. This is just a thought I have. We request splash pads because then it becomes part of the unit structure for a bulkhead, which then is designed to have a 30-year lifespan. Under the provisions of the coastal erosion act, structures are supposed to be stable and not capable of breaking free and causing damage to other structures. That's one of the reasons why they have that limitation, I believe. I'm wondering, the splash pad with the typical core stone, the material used, it's probably a little difficult to walk on. What if they were to construct a splash pad low enough so they could put heavy pavers or something that would also be pervious but that would enable use of the property, putting out some patio furniture, whatever, and the deck would be built 200-square foot compliant and then would match up with the material that would essentially be the same weight as structures of the stone beneath. It would not be capable of shifting, if it was overtopped with waves, it would tend to drain through the splash pad. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). MR. FRANGOS: If I gave you a photo of what the deck was like before the storm. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are working on something up here. MR. FRANGOS: Take your time, gentlemen. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: I think we are bound by the coastal erosion code, Board of Trustees 12 September 18, 2013 myself. I don't know what else to do, quite frankly. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would you like an opportunity to bring in another plan or do you want to us vote on this? MS. MARTIN: Well, being that Mr. Bredemeyer has offered this opportunity, if we could have a combination of something that somewhat resembled a patio adjoining, even if it's a step down, would be something that you could walk on and that would drain and that would be perhaps just a little lower than the bulkhead so it's not washing, we would like the opportunity to have an alternate, something to offer to you that you could consider as opposed to saying no to what we have applied for. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't you go back to the drawing board and design some new stuff and we'll go back out and take a look at it next month and get a better idea. Is that fair enough? MR. FRANGOS: Fair enough. MS. MARTIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application. We'll look at it again next month with different plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of NATHAN E. SAINT-AMAND requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to repair eroded shoreline by installing approximately 80' of armor layer rip-rap; a 10'x80' area immediately seaward of the eroded bank shall be excavated to a depth of 4' with the excavated material stored; geotextile fabric shall be installed and a 4" layer of crushed stone (filter layer) shall be placed on top of it; a two-tier layer of boulders shall be placed on top of the stone filter; stone splash pad installed utilizing the excavated material; rocks (minimum 1 ton) shall be placed onto existing grade as wave energy dissipaters. Located: 711 Chocomount Drive, Fishers Island. This was found consistent under the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting. If you recall, you folks were here, Dave and Jim were there. We went over. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a while back. MR. JUST: That was when we went over and the county was doing inspections as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just did a search. I don't have any pictures of this. MR. JUST: There are some pictures on the plans, they are black Board of Trustees 13 September 18, 2013 and white. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a Google map picture, overhead of the property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could put this up, if you want. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have reviewed this and looked at it as a Board and recognize the fact there was a lot of erosion that took place in front of this house. There is a need for work to be done, and I think what you proposed here, that makes sense to this Board. So I don't know if there was any other information you wanted to provide us with. MR. JUST: I think it was pretty cut and dry. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I have is where they'll store the excavated material. MR. JUST: The little path that shows on the right-hand side, comes up the circular driveway and shows the path down to the beach. They would be putting it back behind a little berm there, temporarily. TRUSTEE KING: As long as it's not downhill. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). Not seeing anybody, 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 for a wetland and coastal erosion permit for Nathan E. Saint-Amand as described noting it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of ROBERT RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit for the removal of existing wooden retaining wall; install a +/-280' Redi-Rock retaining wall block; install 250-300 cubic yards clean fill material; install two drywells for house gutters. Located: 2175 Bayshore Road, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application, noting that they did question the impact to the neighbors. The Board of Trustees 14 September 18, 2013 Trustees visited the site on September 11th and made a note that the top of the Redi-Rock at the eastern corner of the property be 12 inches above the batter pile that presently exists there, and shall remain in place as a reference point. That was the only comment. Otherwise it was straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, Creative Environmental Design, representing Mr. Rengifo. At the site visit I believe we went over any issues and I believe the major issue was the height restrictions so we have a basis to raise it by. But is there any other concerns from the Trustees that I might be able to address? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out that Trustee King before said that we are going to combine the Administrative Permit with the cutting of the phragmites. We'll have to fold that that into this somehow. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other 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 notation that be included an Administrative Permit for a ten-year maintenance permit to hand cut the common reed no less than 12 inches. TRUSTEE KING: Mike, I don't think you should say include an Administrative Permit. It's just one permit including a ten-year maintenance of cutting phragmites. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I understand. I make a motion to approve this application with the addition of permission to cut the phragmites no less than 12 inches on an as-needed basis, for ten years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PAULA A. TUITE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing platform and stairway to beach; remove +/-100' of existing bulkhead and 14' east end return; construct +/-100' of new bulkhead and 14' new east end return in-place; re-install existing 4'x3.5' platform Board of Trustees 15 September 18, 2013 and stairway to beach in-place; fill eroded area landward of bulkhead with clean trucked-in sand, approximately 60 cubic yards; re-grade area providing 10' wide core stone splash pad; re-vegetate balance with native grass. Located: 580 Midway Road, Southold. The Trustees visited the site. It's a fairly standard bulkhead replacement incorporating a splash pad to protect the proposed structure and the use of a wetland grasses behind it to revegetate the area that was previously heavily vegetated. The application is deemed to be consistent by the LWRP, and has received the support of the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Seeing no one stepping forward in the meeting, is there anyone here on the Trustees that have any comments or questions concerning the application? (No response). Hearing no comments, 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 this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number three under Wetland Permits, EDWARD VOLINI requests a Wetland Permit to repair/replace existing +/-100' long bulkhead using vinyl sheathing; construct an 8' to 10' return on south side of bulkhead; replace existing 5'x8' wood platform with T wide stairs to beach; replace existing 10'x10' wood deck at bottom of bluff stairs; replace existing 3'x11' deck in front of beach house; temporarily remove and replace in-place existing wood landing and stairs from bluff; remove and replace in-place existing 10'x12' beach house to accommodate bulkhead work; beach house repairs to include leveling the structure, replace damaged shingles, replace roof overhang supports, and damaged floor; temporary retaining wall to be removed and add +\-100 cubic yards of clean fill to void areas; re-vegetate areas where needed along the bluff. Located: 8625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The Board was out, we took a look at this. We had a few questions, which I'll bring up in a minute. This was found to be Board of Trustees 16 September 18, 2013 inconsistent with the LWRP, noting that the structures were damaged during Tropical Storm Sandy due to the location of the structures in a vulnerable area. The structures, existing wood platform and 10x12 beach house, do not functionally require a location on the coast. Recommends moving them up. The Conservation Advisory Council took a look at this and they support the application, however the bulkhead should be aligned with the neighboring bulkheads and the bluff should be stabilized. The Trustees were out on this inspection. We had a question as to how the bluff was going to be addressed and about the retaining walls being removed. There were temporary retaining walls there. Is there anyone here who would like to address this application? (No response). Mr. Volini is not here, I imagine. Well, seeing as we had some questions, do we want to move along with this or do we want to postpone it and wait so we can get our answers. TRUSTEE KING: I think we questioned what was going to happen with all those broken down retaining walls. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They are not included in the application, the retaining walls. TRUSTEE KING: It was my understanding in the field that he was going to remove them and reshape the slope. We don't know exactly what he's going to do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If they are not in the application, can we just move on what is in the application, so he would then be required to remove those retaining walls and later on he would have to come back in, and if he wants to put retaining walls in, he would have to come in and amend the permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We were also curious what he was going to be doing with the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We don't have a picture of the bluff here. But as I recall, it was a pretty steep angle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very steep. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have to be honest, unless anybody has a compelling argument, I would suggest we just postpone it until he comes in and answers the questions. If he doesn't come in we can move it. I want to give him the opportunity to answer questions before we deny or approve, either way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My dilemma is that, except I had one question on the beach house to make sure it was going to be non-habitable space with no septic system and it's conditioned. We can still do that. We can condition that in the approval of this permit. Board of Trustees 17 September 18, 2013 We can condition with the approval of this permit the removal of the retaining walls. It does lead into question how he's going to stabilize that bank, but TRUSTEE GHOSIO: In the application it says that, it does say he'll remove the temporary retaining walls, but TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It still doesn't answer the question of the stabilization of a very steep bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this is the same question we had back in August when we went out there for inspection. I don't know, what do you gentlemen want to do? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we move, I would suggest we move forward on it and hold the permit until he can come in and show us a set of plans on how he'll restore the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like that idea, the reason being the bulkhead has been structurally compromised and I'm just concerned for him and his neighbors on either side if we hold this up a month and God forbid a major storm comes in, that bulkhead could fail in total, and then everything goes. TRUSTEE KING: That way he can come in and get a permit as soon as he shows us how he'll restore the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All that's showing on the site plan that we have in the file here is just handwritten in there "plantings." That's all it says. TRUSTEE KING: We just need to see a profile of it. He'll have to reshape that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's showing Rosa Rugosa and the grasses but he's not showing exactly how he's going to rebuild that bluff. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge problem with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, fine. How are we going to address the inconsistency? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does this shed have a CO on it from the Building Department? Do we know? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, the LWRP shows there were no permits he mentions it in his report no permits were found for the structures, however the structures may predate the regulations requiring a permit. That being said, and the structure is in tact, I can't see making him taking it away at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Just stipulate it's to be used for storage only. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stipulate it's for storage only and condition no septic system and non-habitable space. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And that will be that. All right. Are there any other comments or questions? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 18 September 18, 2013 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that the beach house, or what they call a beach house, is to be used for storage only, with no septic system; and that before we issue the permit, he just needs to submit, the owner just needs to submit a plan on how he's going to be rebuilding the bluff and stabilizing the bluff. And by doing so we find this to be consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of COVE CONDOMINIUMS OWNERS ASSOCATION requests a Wetland Permit to maintenance dredge to 3' below mean low water approximately 82 cubic yards from channel at entrance to Association docking area and as needed, within the docking area itself; dredge as necessary in the same areas to maintain width, depth and full accessibility of entrance channel and docking area on a maximum of four additional occasions during the next ten (10) years; spoil will be removed to an approved upland location for deposition. Located: Main Bayview Road, Southold. This is an application that has been kicking around for quite a while. We go back to the original it was found to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. I think the only questions we had was the ownership of the underwater lands. That has been, it's quite a narrative here from the representative here, that it's a timeline. They do have permission now. It belonged to the county. Some of the underwater lands belong to the county, and they do have permission from them to dredge it. So I think it's a long haul, but MR. FITZGERALD: It's incredible. TRUSTEE KING: But I think they have all the approvals they need. When we were out there, I don't think any of us had any issues with the dredging project at all. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? Yes, sir. MR. FITZGERALD: When we were last here you said the Board had no objection to it. However, from there on, it was downhill. But as you just noted, we did get the, finally, the approval of the Department of Public Works, and here we are. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 19 September 18, 2013 (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Michael Kimack on behalf of ANGEL SHORES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a buried rock erosion barrier composed of heavy igneous rock approximately 160' in length and 3'6" in height; remove nine (9) trees, one (1) stump, and brush along erosion line; and placement of approximately 600 cubic yards of dredged material from nearby site. Located: 1760 Esplanade, Southold. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, with the recommendation that the Board requires the preservation of existing trees to the greatest extent practicable. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition the efforts are made to save as many healthy cedar trees as possible. By the way, welcome Mr. Hardy, the representative from the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application. MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack on behalf of Angel Shores Homeowners Association. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, when we were out there in the field, we first off, we also had concerns about the trees. And as we saw, there are several trees along there where the root systems are fully exposed right now, and there are others that are really in jeopardy. And so to address both the LWRP's concern as well as the Conservation Advisory Council, the Trustees share their concern, we noted the trees you had marked with tape were the ones to be removed and we just ask again that you are as careful as possible with your removal. Because we have the same goals here, to retain as many healthy trees and viable trees as possible MR. KIMACK: Not to damage the root system of the adjoining trees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Yes. MR. KIMACK: And the reason those trees were picked is because the way the sand will be put it in, it will be covering the base of those trees all the way back. About half of them have already been severely compromised, and the others will be compromised by the sand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. Now, I'll refer this to the property line to the west where it meets up with the bulkhead. And right now what you are proposing there is a 90 degree angle there. We had also suggested in the field that that 90 degree angle be changed Board of Trustees 20 September 18, 2013 to an angle similar to what you have at the eastern side that says "cut area." That is so it helps dissipate the wave energy when it comes in. When waves come into a comer like that, there is a greater likelihood for scouring of that comer, where if it's at an angle, from an engineering perspective, would hold up better. MR. KIMACK: I went out there again, because on that side, because of where the high water line is, that area is truncated. Where you look at the typical cut-through where the sand is being put„ we have to be 15-foot back from the high water mark. 15 foot, if you look at the drawing, basically, if I could be permitted, that area truncates in. It's much wider on this side than it is on that side. So if you take the typical what I'll try to do is keep the wall as high up as I can but I'll be able to only move it about maybe five to seven feet to make that cut in there, to keep it within this without having it stick out the front. I have an issue with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that. If you could just step back to the microphone. We have to make sure we get this on the record. So what you are saying is that you'll create somewhat of an angle, it's just you limiting the extent possible MR. KIMACK: To the maximum extent possible, I'll pull the wall back as far as I can, and about 20 feet from the wall, bend it as much as possible so the front section doesn't extend past that front slope of sand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we had also talked in the field about our concern about height, a cross-sectional perspective of the height of this rock wall, and I believe you said it would be, on the plan here, it says one foot below top of bulkhead. But we had talked about the opportunity to raise that up so it's at least equal with the top of the bulkhead. MR. KIMACK: We can do that. It will just be, obviously the sand will be about even with the stones. There will be no use near the bulkhead anyway, so that should not be an issue. The stones will be exposed for the first five to ten feet before the sand begins to pick up again. But I don't see that as an issue with the homeowners association. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And I know the general location of what is labeled "area one," on your plan here, that's the area that got washed out. You are planning on filling that in? MR. KIMACK: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the grade at which it will be filled in, will that match the top MR. KIMACK: It will match the natural existing, natural land. Pretty much, you may have a picture of that coming down. That may not be the only one I took. But essentially it would match Board of Trustees 21 September 18, 2013 that bank coming around. The top of that. The sand would match into it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, our concern is, this is obviously, this is an area that has previously been permitted for work. The work had not been successful in holding back the trees and we appreciate the fact the association is trying to look at and trying to do this the right way. MR. KIMACK: Man and their best efforts. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. Because it benefits them as well as everybody else, that the erosion is prevented and the flooding is kept to a minimum in storms behind this area. MR. KIMACK: The reason for this was quite evident. We are really trying to barrier it as much as we can and preserve as much of the natural landscaping as possible from further storms. The wall is as high up as it can be. If it's a really super storm, it will get that high. But the stone is fairly substantial. It's a pyramid shape. It should take the bulk of it on the front 45 degree angle. And we'll keep our fingers crossed that we don't have another Super Storm Sandy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hopefully everybody here in the audience hopefully feels the same way. So what we would do is obviously need a new set of plans to reflect these changes. I don't want to get ahead of myself here, but if this is approved tonight it would be conditioned upon receiving a new set of plans that show a raising of the height and changing MR. KIMACK: Give as much of a change as possible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Is there anybody else in the audience that wants to comment on this application? MS. ALLOWAY: My name is Nicole Wertz-Alloway and my mom Avril Wertz is here. We represent 1000 West Lane, the property immediately to the east, which is, we are adjacent to area one that you were just discussing. We have been out and taken a look at what they propose. We are very excited they are going to put in a rock bulkhead like this. However while there are lots of trees on the western half of this property, there is very little vegetation on the eastern side of this property, and we are very concerned that when they dredge and remove the fill from behind the rock wall and then refill it, they won't replant the natural vegetation that is growing there right now. It's mostly beach grass. But there are some shrubs, the bayberry shrubs that grow in there naturally. And we are very concerned. Because what has happened in Irene as well as in Sandy, is because, several years ago, they removed a lot of vegetation on this area because they wanted a sand beach. The water comes up and the cut causes a funnel and pushes the water right through, and because there is Board of Trustees 22 September 18, 2013 no vegetation to hold back the water, it shoots through and then cuts into the rear of 1000 West Lane and swings back toward the water. And we would like to request, since the application is silent as to this, we would like to request that additional vegetation, especially, if any vegetation is removed, for it to be replaced, and possibly supplemented with hardier vegetation even going beyond the natural grasses and going into some native shrubbery such as bayberry and so on and so forth. We also had a question about, which is not in the initial paperwork we received, they are talking about bringing in dredge material from a nearby site and we were just curious as to what nearby site that would be. Because I don't know if they are planning on dredging material from that beach front area or if they are planning on scooping the sand out of the parking lot and redepositing it. I was just curious what they meant by that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There had been a previous permit approved by this Board for dredging of West Lake and what had been proposed was the dewatering of that dredge material and that dredge material coming back and being used in this project here. MS. ALLOWAY: West Lake off Cedar Beach Road, so it would not TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, no, it would not be digging in front here and putting it back here. MS. ALLOWAY: I wanted to be sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The DEC would not approve of that. MS. ALLOWAY: I would imagine, but nevertheless. But as far as the vegetation, our property was severely damaged from Sandy. We were severely, actually very damaged from Irene. I know we are not talking about that anymore, but we never even really recovered Irene and then we were hit by Sandy, and part of the major problem was because there was so much erosion and it was simply replaced with sand and didn't help at all, between Irene and Sandy. So again, we would really love it if you would consider adding an amendment or additional requirement to the plan to replant the native grasses as well as add additional hardier native plants such as what would be appropriate, bayberry, or cedar, that sort of thing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. ALLOWAY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Kimack, you heard the request from the adjoining property owner. MR. KIMACK: Yes. May I approach? This was the original approved permit. It does have on that, rather sketchy, plant beach grass. It looks like it's on the top, going to the front, to where it gets to the slope. If you would look at the date on the lower comer there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Board of Trustees 23 September 18, 2013 MR. KIMACK: It doesn't show the extent of the planting. It says plant beach grass. It looks like the back side. On a level plain. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could step back to the microphone so we could pick this up. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess this is the area right here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What we are showing here is an aerial shot that shows, it looks like this was probably prior to Sandy because there is a tremendous amount of vegetation in there. And so would the applicant have any problem with restoring, again, not just planting beach grass on top of the rock revetment, but continuing landward with that, with plantings of beach grass as well as maybe some hardier species as per the request of the adjoining property owner? MR. KIMACK: I think the drawing shows that, on that top section, going on the back side, it shows it being planted with beach grass. It's not descriptive or enumerative of it but I know on that one slope, behind the wall over there, there is damaged beach grass now, and I suspect that whole thing will be replanted with beach grass and tied back into the six-hundred yards. I believe that's the lady's property also. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How about I propose this for the Board's consideration, that the area from the proposed revetment back to the parking area, that either through present vegetation or new vegetation, that whole area be vegetated with beach grass and native plantings to help stabilize the area. MR. KIMACK: It's probably half vegetated at present, I suspect. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I'm saying the whole area between what is presently there plus what is proposed to be vegetated. MR. KIMACK: I don't believe the applicant would have an issue with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just so I'm clear, that's native beach grass and some hardier species like eastern red cedar or bayberry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from anybody in the audience? MS. GREENFIELD: Ina Greenfield. We are on West Lake, but we also walk the beaches and we see and we swim down there. It's quite beautiful. Just to put in the record that those cedars have been there for many storms and I just wonder just for your preservation, when we went replenish our vegetation from Sandy, they advised us against the bayberry because bayberry can't be in the salt that long and will die. The cedars obviously have lived, and I just wonder for the preservation keeping the sand where it is and not moving it around, whether it's wise to Board of Trustees 24 September 18, 2013 really remove those trees. MR. KIMACK: The trees in question, there were nine along the bank. We can go back to the picture. MS. GREENFIELD: I've seen them. They are badly MR. KIMACK: Three or four of them are badly exposed at the rooting systems at the present time. The others are close to the bank and probably about a third of the roots are exposed. Under normal conditions they may survive but when you put the sand back to a foot to two foot over the bases, you sign their death warrants. They'll die because they breath from the base up. And you just can't cover them. And the original permit extends the sand back beyond that tree base probably about three or four feet past those first trees. So those trees are the ones, not anything else, but just the nine along the immediate bank that have been exposed and eroded. MS. GREENFIELD: Was there a restriction TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. If you can address your questions to the Board. Thank you. MS. GREENFIELD: Sorry. Was there a restriction on the property when it was created as a beach for Angel Shores on how many and how the trees had to be preserved? I'm just curious. I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We don't have that information here in front of us tonight. MS. GREENFIELD: Was it the CAC? Are they there to protect the trees? No? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Again, we don't have the information in front of us tonight that goes back historically to when this area was created. I'm not sure how many years ago this right-of-way was created, so to speak. My guess is, and this is just a guess, those cedars were probably naturally there. I don't know that they were planted with the development of Angel Shores. MS. GREENFIELD: Oh, no. Cedar Beach, it's been there, through many storms. And the cedars in cedar beach, in the preserve where the Cornell Cooperative Extension is, that all the roots are exposed and they have been living with the roots exposed, for many, many years. Since many storms. If you go around that return from the bay. For your own purposes, it will just wash away without the cedars. And wash into people's houses. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I may. A suggestion that the trees, the only trees that be removed are the ones that are necessary for the construction of the revetment. And I know the revetment is being tucked up against where those trees are. That way the majority of the trees would remain, and if they die naturally, they die naturally. That way also the root structure remains and will be there to help stabilize the soil. Board of Trustees 25 September 18, 2013 MR. KIMACK: We'll give them a chance. They may make it, they may not. Time will tell. MS. GREENFIELD: Okay, thank you. MR. KIMACK: As I understand it then, there are probably three trees of the nine right in that area, and there is a cut out in there that are the most exposed, most damaged. Of all nine, they would have to come out. They won't make it themselves. The other six we could leave, cover with sand and keep our fingers crossed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I appreciate that. Thank you MR. KIMACK: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak on this application? MR. MOY: Good evening, my name is Doug Moy and I'm a neighbor. And my only concern and the reason why I'm speaking is the very last part of this permit that says that the material will be from a dredge nearby. And I understand that will come from West Lake. And I just want to comment that my family hopes and expects that the Trustees will have the contractor doing the work be diligent in their care in taking the material out, since there are many, many rocks beside just sand in it. That's my only comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are talking about taking the material out of the West Lake channel? MR. MOY: Yes, as they take it out. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There has already been a public hearing and permit process done. That is not part of this application here tonight. MR. MOY: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else in the audience want to comment on this application? (No response). Any other comment from the Board? (No response). 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 Angel Shores Homeowners as described, conditioned upon receipt of a new set of plans that will show the height of the rock wall to be at the same height of the adjoining bulkheads on each side, properties adjacent to this; that the angle will be modified on the western end of the revetment to the extent possible; that instead of nine trees, three trees will be removed. The other six trees will remain. And that vegetation Board of Trustees 26 September 18, 2013 will be planted on the eastern side of this project from the revetment landward to the parking area with beach grass and red cedar trees MR. KIMACK: I'll further elucidate the planting plan, the area of planting on the new plan I submit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, that's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, we need to note it's consistent under the LWRP. MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much, gentlemen. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, everyone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number six, North Fork Pool Care on behalf of LESLIE WINDISCH requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x30' in-ground swimming pool with pool drywell; pool fence; and 500sq.ft. paver pool patio. Located: 1440 Kimberly Lane, Southold. The Trustees performed a field inspection. It's a straightforward application. The LWRP has deemed this project to be consistent with the town's coastal policies. And there is in the Trustee file an approval from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals which is consistent with the application that we have before us. Is there anyone here wishes to speak behalf on of this application? MR. BIRKMIR: Good evening. Bill Birkmir, Northfork Pool Care, on behalf of Les Windisch. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a pretty straightforward application. Do you have any questions or anything to add? MR. BIRKMIR: I'm here to see if you had any questions. I thought the paperwork explained itself and just wanted to make sure everybody knew what we were doing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this a salt water pool? MR. BIRKMIR: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are with North Fork Pool Care with the authorization to represent the owner? MR. BIRKMIR: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll make sure we have it here. Sony for the delay. (Perusing). Yes, we do. It's straightforward, and I don't know if there are any questions. Any questions from the members of the Board? (No response). It has the ZBA approval for the 45 feet. There were no questions when we did the field survey. Board of Trustees 27 September 18, 2013 Hearing no questions or additional comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting that it is consistent with the town's LW RP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Number seven, Frank Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of IDO MIZRAHY requests a Wetland Permit to replace rotten locust footings with 3' deep concrete footings under the existing cottage and to raise the cottage +/-2' to code complaint ceiling height; and replace all windows. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #25, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. The ZBA granted the variances applied for with the condition that the cottage use, will continue in its current status as an unheated, seasonally-occupied dwelling, and that no other alterations or additions can be made without further review. The Trustees did an inhouse review on this. It's fairly straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes. My name is Frank Uellendahl. I'm representing Ido Mizrahy, the owner. You are familiar with Breezy Shores. There are a couple of other projects I have been before your Board. We are basically, I mean the reason we are here, we are more than 180 feet away from the bulkhead, but at the end of the bulkhead and phragmites and wetlands closer by where the distance is about 70 feet. Basically what we are trying to do is renovating the cottage. The foundation is faulty. We need to replace the footings. The locust posts, some of them, are rotten. And some of them are basically sitting on concrete blocks. So we are going to put as per code, concrete footings down. We are going to raise the entire cottage a little bit, eight, nine, ten inches, and the roof will be raised another 14 inches in order to get legal ceiling heights inside. I'm 64" and I bump my head right when I go in there. So this is what we are trying to do. We are replacing the windows, but the cottage itself, the way you saw it when you went there, is going to stay as is. The footprint will be the same. Except for the water heater extension in the back of the cottage and a couple of landings. Board of Trustees 28 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Those are noted on the plans. Are there any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, Joshua Horton on behalf of JOE SBARRA requests a Wetland Permit to construct two (2) sets of steps with handrail connected by a 5'x8' platform with handrail from the upland bank to the foot of a proposed 4'x50' catwalk using 6" diameter piles and two (2) 8" diameter piles at seaward terminus of catwalk; a 3'x26' ramp with handrail; a 6'x20' floating dock with two (2) 8" diameter end piles to hold the floating dock in place. Located: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. This is a hearing that we opened last month and we tabled to go back out. We had recommended a different location for the stairs. We met Mr. Horton out there. We took a look at it. Did you have a set of plans, new plans? Are they in here? Did you submit them? MR. HORTON: They were submitted, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have them. Just to review, last month the LWRP determined this to be consistent. Like I said, we were just looking, we thought there might be a better location for the stairs and indeed we found one. The applicant does seem to be okay with that and has submitted new plans to that effect. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. HORTON: Joshua Horton, 210 Fifth Street, Greenport. And I'm here to answer any questions, should there be any. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like everything is here that we discussed. The graded walkway, stairs, platform straight out in the new location. MR. HORTON: Drywells are added in as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, thank you. On your drawing, you are showing the pilings. What is the distance on center from piling to piling? MR. HORTON: For the catwalk? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Board of Trustees 29 September 18, 2013 MR. HORTON: Eight foot. And there are two offshore piles are about two feet beyond the shoreline at mean low water. Those will be eight-inch piles, and smaller piles as you move inland. TRUSTEE KING: Josh, do you know the distance across the creek there from side to side. MR. HORTON: The distance across the creek is in excess of 300 feet. This is less than, well less than a third. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Total length here is, with the catwalk, is about 76, plus or minus another six feet for the platform. So it's only really extending out, at most, 80 feet. MR. HORTON: Actually, at mean low water, only the ramp and the float will be extended out into the creek. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, good. Any questions or concerns from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, the only recommendation I would make is the treads on the stairs be open-grate. MR. HORTON: That's not a problem at all. TRUSTEE KING: They are working out really well. They are really non-skid, is my main concern. Some of these areas, you get in these areas where you get a little growth on them, they are a little slippery. And you get better growth of vegetation under there. So that would be my only recommendation. MR. HORTON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application noting that the location of the structure to be changed according to the plans, the newly submitted plans, and that there'll be a drywell also included to catch the roof runoff on the seaward side of the home. And adding the change that the treads of the stairs also to be grated decking material. And that's it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HORTON: Thank you. Your input on that was really helpful out in the field, so, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, ANTHONY S. CAMPO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'x200' long rock revetment consisting of 1,000 pound to 2,000 pound rock placed on filter fabric and backfilled with 100 cubic yards of clean fill and install 3' wide stone steps to beach. Located: 1120, 1150 & 1165 Fisherman's Beach Road, Cutchogue. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Board of Trustees 30 September 18, 2013 Advisory Council resolved to support the application, however there is a concern with the impact this project will have on the Spartina seaward of the proposed rip rap. Those are the comments from the CAC. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. CAMPO: I'm Anthony Campo, owner of the property. Can I give you the survey of 1996 to show basically how much land there was and what is left now? I had marked it in green. I lost approximately three-thousand square feet of land since 1996. The shed originally was 33 feet away from the mean high water mark, now it's 12 feet away. So I feel very strongly that this revetment should be put in place. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). I'm sorry, we are trying to figure this out. It doesn't look like it's been a consistent loss. It seems more like it's in a couple of areas. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we just measured was from the brick patio to the apparent high tide mark. That looked about the same on the two surveys. Then we measured from the frame building, the shed, to the apparent high water mark on 10/25/13, and it looked like about 30 feet where on the old survey was 37. So it looked like about seven feet had been lost over the years in that area. So what we were demonstrating here is there has been a loss in one area and not much of a loss in another area. MR. CAMPO: And I see from experience from where I live now, not there, my neighbor had put up a revetment wall, and he did that in a section and what happened is that section stabilized and the rest kept eroding further back. So I would just like to put a whole wall there and not worry about anymore erosion. I believe I have DEC approval on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is marked as Hay Waters Road, is that a right-of-way through there? MR. CAMPO: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I notice also that you have part of the construction being done on that right-of-way. Your proposed, your wall also includes some area along that right-of-way? MR. CAMPO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like there is a valid DEC permit there. I have not seen the rest of it. (Perusing). He has a valid DEC permit on this. In our field notes, one of the recommendations was to downsize the project. I think by that we meant there were a couple of areas that were obviously eroded and some areas that didn't look bad. MR. CAMPO: The DEC did downsize from what I originally had requested. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This application reflects that change? MR. CAMPO: Yes. Board of Trustees 31 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: What's your pleasure, John? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Have you had any discussion of the possibility of bringing in a slightly coarser grade of beach sand and plantings stabilized with American beach grass? We are looking at probably a cumulative impact of Tropical Storm Irene and Sandy for a creek area that before that may have been fairly stable, and then you might avoid associated large cost with all the stone material. MR. CAMPO: Well, what has been there was vegetation, and over the years it has washed away. So I don't see where the beach grass will make a difference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stakes we saw when we were out there last week, were those the same stakes we looked at when we were out there for pre-inspection? MR. CAMPO: They were put in for the DEC, I believe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. CAMPO: They did move it in. I mean, as can you see on the print. Originally I believe I was supposed to be, I was allowed to put 150 yards. Now I'm down to 100 yards of backfill. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else here to speak on behalf of or against this application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It could be worse. It's stone. You know, at least he's not in for a bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He certainly has property loss in that one section. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Being a revetment, I'm a whole lot more comfortable with it being a rock revetment than if it was even a low sill bulkhead. So, I mean, I get it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Help me understand the construction on the, as I understand it, on the right-of-way. Is that permit-able? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We need and she just stepped out for a minute we need legal counsel's opinion on that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It has a bulkhead there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess my only concern with the project, and I do agree, that I would rather see a revetment than a low sill bulkhead. A full size bulkhead would not be allowed under code anyhow. But it sure appeared from, I'll call it the western end of the property where the driveway starts, out for quite a distance there, it did seem very well stabilized. As a matter of fact there is a group of trees growing out there to the right of where your pointer is now. That seems very stabilized and it also doesn't reflect looking at the two surveys there has been any loss of land in that area. I was just wondering if we could reduce the scope of the project to the area that has been impacted, which is from the other side of the trees to around, I'll call it the point that is there. Board of Trustees 32 September 18, 2013 MR. CAMPO: It's hard to see if you don't look under the trees. But they are all washed out. The roots are exposed. They are shrubs, not trees, actually. And they were planted there by the original owner. And if I get another storm, they'll die. I know that because they'll get exposed even further. The reason those particular surveys were done at that time was I was thinking of having a wall put in at that time, in 1999 or 1996. And I backed off on it. Which I probably shouldn't have. And now I feel it's something that I have to do because I'm just losing property. And the shed is very close to the edge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Lori, the question came up, as part of this project, it's proposed for construction on what is on this map as a right-of-way, and from a legal perspective is that something the property owner can do? MS. HULSE: It depends. That's the best I can give you right now. Not knowing more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words we need to research the right-of-way? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He has a patio on there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a paper road right-of-way, really. (Inaudible). TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). Okay, it doesn't appear to be an issue. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just wanted to clarify. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are not planning on clearing any of the vegetation behind this revetment, right? You are just going to set the revetment into it? MR. CAMPO: Wherever the revetment is, right. I probably would have to clear some because of the where the revetment is going there. TRUSTEE KING: It's showing the area to be filled. All right. Any other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to move this application as submitted. It's consistent with the DEC. And also I'll stipulate any of the disturbed areas behind there that are to be filled, are to be re-planted. MR. CAMPO: My permit from the DEC stated I have to put the grass back. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. We are saying the same thing. It has to be re-planted. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 33 September 18, 2013 (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Note for the record, I vote no. Again, I think this project could be downsized. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen is a nay vote on this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 10, Frederick Weber, Architect on behalf of SCRIPPS CHILDREN'S GIFT TRUST, c/o ROBERT K. SCRIPPS requests a Wetland Permit for a 316sq.ft. 1st floor addition, a 143sq.ft. second floor addition, and a 126sq.ft. front porch addition to the landward side of the existing dwelling; and construct a cantilevered box bay window on seaward side of existing dwelling. Located: 2745 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. I did go out and looked at this. It's a fairly simple application. This has been before the ZBA and ZBA did grant relief to allow for this. It was found consistent by the LWRP. And it was resolved to support the application by the CAC. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. WEBER: Yes. My name is Fred Weber, I'm the architect for the Scripps'. Basically we are proposing an addition to the house both on the first and second floor, and a front porch. And all the additions that actually touch the ground are landward of the house. The only addition that is proposed is sort of a cantilevered box bay to allow for a little more room in the dining room area that is fairly cramped. That's basically the scope of the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it was a very limited part of this project was within our jurisdiction. And I do note that you do have the inclusion of a silt fence with hay bales there. You do have drainage rings, so this will comply with Chapter 236 of the town drainage code. So again, I didn't see any issues with this whatsoever. Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll 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 Scripps Children's Gift Trust as described, noting that it was consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 34 September 18, 2013 MR. WEBER: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of VIRGINIA A. STYPE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 29' navy-style bulkhead with return in-place utilizing vinyl sheathing; and to fill and restore area with 15 cubic yards of clean sand and plant American beach grass. Located: 2000 Park Avenue, Mattituck. This application is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. Trustee King performed the inspection and comments in the field inspection, Board of Trustee King mirrored those of the Conservation Advisory Council. The CAC supports the application but they noted that the erosion on the applicant's property is caused by the nonconforming cement groin on the west, and Trustee President King had made a recommendation in his field inspection to remove the deteriorated west groin, which is that concrete groin. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. RIGDON: Dina Rigdon, DKR Shores. The concrete ring is actually beyond the property line. It's actually owned, if anyone, by the property owner to the west. I already did approach them to see if they wanted to also go in with the Stype's to reconstruct their bulkhead. There is some decent erosion on that property and she simply doesn't have the funds, so. We tried. TRUSTEE KING: I was looking, there is another groin in that corner. It's really pretty much non-functional. That should be taken out. MS. RIGDON: The wood one. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's almost nothing left of that. So that should be removed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That could be removed during the construction phase. MS. RIGDON: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions? (No response). That's pretty straightforward. I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application with a stipulation that the deteriorating wood groin that is on the westerly side within the project area be removed during the time of construction. MS. RIGDON: Thank you. Board of Trustees 35 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 12, Lehnert Construction on behalf of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCATION requests a Wetland Permit to re-build in-kind existing damaged T wide stairs with associated landings from top of bluff to beach. Located: End of Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. The LW RP coordinator found this to be exempt. The CAC voted to support the application suggesting the use of best management practices and removable stairs from the bulkhead. The project had a previous approval. Is anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). Any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues with it, Mike. 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: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, according to plans filed and received on July 31, 2013. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of GREGORY R. CUKOR requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and abandon existing sanitary system and construction new two-story dwelling with an approximate footprint of 1,760 square feet; new sanitary system to be installed landward of dwelling; a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to and during construction; installation of gutters to leaders to drywells on dwelling to contain roof runoff and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code; new pervious driveway; construction of a timber and vinyl approximately 128.6' long retaining wall reinforced with batter piles to be located approximately 12' landward of existing bulkhead with an approximately 12'-15' return on east side of property, and tie into neighboring retaining wall on west side; place approximately 200 cubic yards of clean backfill behind retaining wall and re-vegetate; establish a non-turf buffer on the bank between the bulkhead and retaining wall; repair the existing 36" wide timber stairs from top of bank to Board of Trustees 36 September 18, 2013 retaining wall, connected to a proposed 36" wide walkway to the top of the retaining wall to a 36" wide wood treated wood stair to the bottom of the retaining wall where it will connect to a 36" wide walkway to the existing stairs to beach off bulkhead. Located: 7070 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This has been found to be consistent with the LWRP. And I'm not see anything the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. The Board was out there to take a look at this. It was basically asking for a permit to demolish the existing dwelling. Basically abandoning it and rebuilding. That includes a non-turf buffer, no driveway, construction of a retaining wall, reinforced batter piles, et cetera. You can see there was some damage on this, in this area. We met the owner out there. And as I remember, we were actually kind of impressed that he actually admits to knocking down the house. We don't get that very often. And because of that, this is actually being moved back a ways. So it will be further away on the seaward side of the home than what it currently is. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects, on behalf of Gregory Cukor who is also here, to answer questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: New septic as well, right? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Hay bales and silt fence to be up during construction. The home itself will be 75 feet back from the bulkhead. Looks like more than 100 feet from the water line. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I didn't see any issues. We didn't have any issues while we were out there. Does anybody on the Board have any comments or questions? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It will be a definite improvement. Anybody else here like to address this application? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Everything is covered. Chapter 236, everything is covered in this. Seeing no other comments or questions, I would make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 37 September 18, 2013 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 14, En-Consultants on behalf of VINCENT & LAURA MANETTI requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct +/-4'x7' wood steps off bulkhead to beach; remove and replace existing +/-4'x22' wood stairs with two +/-3'x4' landings down embankment; and remove existing +/-12'x16' wood deck at top of bank. Located: 150 West Shore Drive, Southold. This was found inconsistent under LWRP. In 2008 references were made to the unpermitted stair structures in Wetland Permit #6930, however no permit was issued for the structures because they were not included in the application. But a buffer requirement was included in the application. So the structures were not constructed pursuant to a Board of Trustees review. And I did look at Wetland Permit #6930 and there was a condition of a six-foot non-turf buffer to be done with that, going along with that permit. This was reviewed and the Conservation Advisory Council supports application using best management practices, the stairs are removable, and a ten-foot non-turf buffer is maintained and depicted on the final stamped approved plan. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann on En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I have to say, I find that review fascinating because the prior permit at that time said that the stairs could not be replaced without seeking an additional permit from the Trustees. Which is why we are here. So I don't know why that makes the application inconsistent with that permit. But having said that, there really should be no LWRP review even for this application. This is just repair, replacement inplace of that embankment stairway, which should be exempt from waterfront consistency review. But again, notwithstanding those points, it is a very straightforward, very simple maintenance application. These are all structures that were damaged during Hurricane Sandy and at the end of last year we came in and secured a Hurricane Sandy Emergency Permit for the replacement of the bulkhead, but it was the determination of the Board at that time that the other structures could, they could not be included in that application because the bulkhead permit from the late 80s did not include those structures. So there again is why we are back here now, sort of as the second part of that application to just replace inplace the stairway and the steps. And we actually thought the Board, especially Dave, would be quite pleased with this application because we are taking the deck away from the top of the bank rather than proposing to replace it. So it should be a pretty good application, pretty straightforward. Board of Trustees 38 September 18, 2013 But if the Board has any questions, I could answer them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at a declaration of covenant dated, looks like November 8, 2008, which calls for a six-foot wide non-turf buffer to be established along the top of the bank. MR. HERRMANN: Okay, well there does appear to be a buffer there. And once that deck is removed, that area will have to be revegetated anyway. So we certainly would have no issue with this permit, and I can give you revised plans reflecting that area to be vegetated and maintained as a six-foot buffer from the top of the slope, because I didn't include that in this plan. I show the deck to be removed but I didn't show the buffer. So we can certainly include that to be consistent with the prior permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To read from the covenant, the Trustees required a six-foot wide non-turf to established with native planting adjacent to and landward of the top of the vegetated slope. So as a condition of this permit, I think we should put a six-foot wide non-turf buffer along the top of this vegetated slope. MR. HERRMANN: Agreed. Not a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I think this one is too easy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: does anybody else in the audience have any comments on this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from the Board? MR. HERRMANN: The homeowner said they don't use the deck and they would like to get rid of it, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll 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 this application as described, with the condition of a six-foot non-turf buffer be established landward of the top of the embankment, and in doing so will bring it into consistency under the LW RP. TRUSTEE KING: I think removing the deck is the biggest issue in bringing it into consistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was already considered as part of this application by the LWRP coordinator. The inconsistency was addressing the fact the buffer was not there. So, that's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: And I can give you a revised plan showing that six foot. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Board of Trustees 39 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of ANITA E. BRUSH requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-3.5'x31' wood stairway with landings; +/-6'x8' deck; and +/-4'x4' wood platform and +/-3.5'x8' steps to beach in place of the existing structures. Located: 4716 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application using best management practices, with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. I went out and looked at this myself. It's a set of stairs at the end of a small right-of-way. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I think I was confusing the two applications as I was talking about the them. This is the application where we had the Hurricane Sandy permit last year. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You made a mistake? MR. HERRMANN: I did, yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Wayne, Rob Herrmann made a mistake, bold caps, please. MR. HERRMANN: So anyway, this application, similar to the last, is also a replacement of an embankment stairway that was damaged during Sandy and is in need of repair, and this is the application where we had the Hurricane Sandy permit to replace the bulkhead. So again, this one should be straightforward. I think there was was there just also a discussion of a six-foot non-turf buffer here? TRUSTEE KING: No. Just the Conservation Advisory Council wanted 15-foot non-turf buffer landward of the bulkhead. MR. HERRMANN: The whole bank is basically a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: It's all basically there. I went out and looked at this myself. I didn't have any issues with this. It's a stairway for access for the neighbors to come down. Three of four neighbors have a right to use that right-of-way for access to the beach. It's very straightforward. MR. HERRMANN: The reason why, just for the record, the entire stairway is not contained within the right-of-way but basically begins and ends there is because of the angle of the property lines don't jibe with the proper angle down the embankment. So the access starts in the right-of-way, then follows, the stairway follows the natural right angle to the shoreline down. And then the small platform and stairs basically puts the people coming down right back in the area of beach that fronts the right-of-way, so. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else to address this? (No response). Board comments? Board of Trustees 40 September 18, 2013 (No response). It's very simple. Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of MICHAEL LIGUORI AND MICHAEL & EILEEN LECCESE requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 113 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead; reconstruct approximately 110 linear feet of landward existing timber retaining wall; restore storm eroded previously raised area between the two interdependent structures with approximately 375 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source; construct +/-19'x23' (max.) on-grade bluestone patio in place of deck atop raised area; construct +/-3'x6' steps on landward side of retaining wall in place of existing steps; and construct +/-4'x4' landing and +/-4'x10' steps to beach on seaward side of bulkhead in place of existing. Located: 5600 & 5580 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was also found consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application with a splash pad above the bulkhead. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of applicant. This property is located to the west of the O'Shaughnessy and McFeely sites, which were both also destroyed during Sandy. The Board approved the reconstruction of those bulkheads many months ago. We are coming in much later now for this because it took quite a good amount of time for the owners to kind of coordinate their efforts because the structures here actually overlap these two properties. Because the grade that is landward of the bulkhead is low, it requires the landward retaining wall behind it in order to stabilize the backfill that supports the bulkhead. That has always been the historical compilation here. This is the first time since the Trustees have had jurisdiction over the bay that this structure has ever been worked on and so we are coming in now to basically permit the same configuration. What I just handed to Elizabeth I think is already in your file, but you may also notice about ten feet of the most westerly end of the bulkhead and retaining wall Board of Trustees 41 September 18, 2013 across a ten foot wide strip of access land owned by Lauris Rail, which is adjacent to the improved residential parcel by Rail, owned one to the west. So Lauris Rail has also granted his written permission to allow those last ten feet to be reconstructed on that strip of land. Other than the ownership issues, it's a pretty straightforward application. Again it's another Sandy bulkhead blowout that we are looking to get permits for reconstruction. And there was a, historically, there was a deck that was maintained on the raised area between the two structures. And that is also lost in the storm and rather than proposing to put a structure back there, they are just proposing some blue stone type patio on top. In the same location. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council recommended a splash pad. Kind of unusual in that area for a splash pad. I think just planting American beach grass is sufficient. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: There is no, I don't see any reason to put a splash pad. Any other comments? Board? (No response). It's pretty straightforward. There was a lot of damage there. No other comments, 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. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of LAUGHING WATERS PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge two irregularly shaped areas, known as the "north and south marinas," to a maximum depth of -4 MLLW; and after dewatering on diked upland areas of respective dredge sites, truck offsite approximately 900 cubic yards resultant spoil from "north marina" and approximately 200 cubic yards resultants spoils from "south marina" to approved upland locations. Located: 555 & 2360 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. The application is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. The Trustees visited the site, as did the CAC. The CAC voted to support the project. The Trustees' field inspection, it looked like a fairly standard maintenance dredging project. I think I had a moment of deja vu out there, as confirmed by the shaking of the head of Mr. Herrmann. Since I was there some time in the Board of Trustees 42 September 18, 2013 past with a very similar project and at the time brought the sediments back into the basin so it's rendered less usable for the residents. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant Laughing Waters Property Owners Association. Terry Mitchell and Larry Kulick are also both here from the association. It is a straightforward project. It is very similar in scope and design to what the Board approved in the late 90s. And that was your prior tenure, Jay, which is why you remember the project. There was one possible modification that had been raised by Terry and Larry since the time that I had submitted this, and I think it may have been their original intention that got lost in translation somewhere. For the south marina, the previous permit from the Trustees allowed the sand material that came into that south marina basin, which is not the one pictured on the screen there, to be placed back on the beach, just around the corner from where it was being dredged out, and so the question that we would like to raise to the Board tonight is whether the Board would allow just that material, which is the 200 cubic yards that is going to be dredged basically from that end slip to be placed back on the beach there. Obviously we would have to give you a revised plan reflecting that. The best I can do at the moment is to show you a copy of the prior permit, and this is the old Anthony Lewandowski plan. This is the south marina here. This is this town slip, which you can clearly see on the current Sea Level Mapping as where the shoal occurs, and then the spoil was placed back around on this beach, on this side, which is the association beach there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's all sand. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, the north marina probably has a little more silt to it, but this has to be close to basically 100% sand on that. Understanding we have to give you a revised plan, but if the Board feels you are amenable to that, we would ask you to okay that depending upon the receipt of a revised plan. The other issue I wanted to raise that the association had asked me, when this permit was granted in the '90's, there was some lengthy debate about the dredging fees, the per yardage fee. And I believe that the ultimate decision after review by the Town Attorney at that time it wasn't Lori and the Trustees, was the dredge fee was not charged on these inside waters where the association actually owns that marsh island outside and then the upland. I would just ask if the Board would be willing to check its records just to see what was done in the late 90s and whatever the ultimate decision was, if that was Board of Trustees 43 September 18, 2013 something that the Board could follow here. And if it requires further conversation, that's fine. But, you know, it's not an insignificant number, so. I have copies of lots of correspondence between the town and Victor Beck, who was at the time speaking for the association. But I don't seem to have any evidence of what the final determination was. Even the permit was written in a contingent way, saying, like depending on how the conversations turn out, we would or would not charge the dredge fee. TRUSTEE KING: Maybe we can find it in the Minutes. MR. HERRMANN: That's what I was hoping. I would think you would probably have some sort of documentation in the files that would be pretty clear whether that fee was taken in by the Trustees or not. But I don't have any copies of those records. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. It would seem also the material, the fine, sandy material that's being redeposited between the mean high and mean low water is still part of the creek system and actually would not even come, it would not necessarily need to be part of any of this discussion. MR. HERRMANN: The south marina would then come out of the equation and it would basically be 900 yards being pulled out from the north marina. And I know it was a lot of discussion about the ownership, because even if you look at the tax map, it clearly shows the association land running along the bulkhead and then out all the way along that marsh island out to lot seven, which is where we are terminating the dredging at that most outboard side. And so there was some question about how the old deed was written with respect to the actual bottom land between the upland and the island. So that seemed to be the question that was raised and discussed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Minutes would be interesting, only because I know Henry Smith in particular was infinitely familiar with that creek, growing up on it. And Henry would be involved in almost all discussions on that. MR. HERRMANN: You mean you don't remember this, Jay? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yeah, sure. Okay, it's pretty straightforward, what we have before us tonight. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Who owns the underwater bottom? MR. HERRMANN: That was the question. MS. HULSE: That's the issue. MR. HERRMANN: That was ultimately the question. MS. HULSE: If it's determined it was town owned, the fee would have been paid, obviously. Board of Trustees 44 September 18, 2013 MR. HERRMANN: That's what I was saying, there was some determination ultimately made, either the fee was paid or it wasn't. And everybody in the association remembers it was not. So everybody made a big point making sure that I in fact Terry is already on the other side. I don't know if she has anything to add. MS. MITCHELL: Yes, I do. I'm Terry Mitchell, I'm here on behalf of Laughing Waters Association. I would just like to comment and cover what we were looking for at our south marina. I have pictures, if I may bring them up. I'll explain them. This is the beach area I'll be speaking about. The photographs that I have given you, we had taken we go through this every year. This is where we were really actually very it's important to us to be able to take as you could see in the pictures, that sand is coming from our beach, which is, we are losing our beach. So what or plan was, if we can take that sand, just that, like Rob had mentioned, and place that right back on our beach. So I just wanted to show you that to see that it is the pure sand and that, you know, it's killing our beach. That was all I had to say. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does Lori have anything to add, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. Just a comment that I had with regard to the south project. I agree wholeheartedly there has been a loss of land there. I have seen that and I know in speaking most recently with Suffolk County DPW just this past week about the upcoming, hopefully upcoming dredging of Corey Creek, that they have also noticed how that entire area, I'll call it a barrier island or barrier peninsula, it's not really an island, is migrating toward the north. So I would also support it, if approved by the DEC, meeting their criteria, I would support placing this material also where they propose, because it will help to protect the marina as well as help to rebuild that peninsula that is there. And I think they'll see with the next dredging project that Suffolk County has noted that also. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Dave. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else, any comments or concerns? (No response). Hearing none, 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 contingent on the submission of new plan for the south marina showing that the dredge, essentially sandy dredge Board of Trustees 45 September 18, 2013 material and its location where it will be deposited between high and mean low water, and that a search of the Trustee records be made to reveal if there is any settled opinion with respect to the fees that historically were charged under the prior Trustee permits. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 19, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of SHARI CAI requests a Wetland Permit for alterations to existing dwelling consisting of 10'x20' first and second floor reconstruction and 16'x13' first floor reconstruction; storm water roof runoff to be in accordance with Town Code, Chapter 236. Located: 380 Midway Road, Southold. The LW RP coordinator found this to be exempt. A minor action. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application, asking for gutters, leaders and drywells. The Trustees on field inspection, September 12th, questioned the history of the deck. There is a 25-foot by 32-and-a-half foot deck seaward of the building. You can see it in the photograph. And requested that there be hay bales landward of the side of the non-turf buffer, should this be approved. Is there anyone here who would like to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of Shari Cai. This application actually also went to the Zoning Board and received approval from the Zoning Board. My memory is that all the structures here have COs. There is a long CO history of pretty much everything here. There have been, over the years, renovations and so on, and that deck has a permit. The application is straightforward. The proposal is just to reconstruct the first floor and essentially just change, modify, over the first floor, within the same building envelope, the second floor. So, but yes, everything did have permits, so. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And the hay bales MS. MOORE: I believe it probably predates you. It looks like maybe the last, if I remember correctly, the last permits I saw from the Trustees was the bulkhead replacement. Because it looks like a non-turf buffer, looks like typical of what you typically impose. So it looked very, a relatively recent non-turf buffer improvement that was this property and the property to the east. Similarly. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Board of Trustees 46 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE DOMINO: And you would not have a problem with the hay bales. MS. MOORE: No, not at all. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted according to plans received August 19th, 2013. And with the condition that hay bales be placed landward of the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 20, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOAN & PETER FRITZ request a Wetland Permit to renovate the existing 60'x32' two-story single family dwelling by constructing a 5'10'x30'2.5" first floor addition over existing deck on west side; new deck stairs in rear of dwelling; new 7'x22' addition to landward side of dwelling; for the existing 10'x28' deck and existing 24'x24' garage; reconstruct and expand existing masonry patio below deck; and for the existing pervious dryset patios and stone walkways on sand. Located: 755 North Parish Drive, Southold. This application is for a renovation. It has been found to be consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support the application, with no further comment. The Board was out to see it. Of course we are familiar with it. We have been there a few times for various projects. The plans are very nice, by the way. The only recommendation we made out in the field was hay bales be put up prior to construction, and not to forget to add drywells to the plans. We didn't have any drywells written in here. MS. MOORE: That's fine. The house, we have to conform to 236. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Aside from that, we really didn't have any problems with this. Is there any particular location for the hay bales or just anywhere landward of the patio down on the bulkhead? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Seems reasonable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would be fine. MS. MOORE: We'd probably want to put them closer to the construction area rather than toward the water. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll leave that to your discretion. But it needs to be there. MS. MOORE: That's fine. One thing, I just want to put it on the Board of Trustees 47 September 18, 2013 record. I don't think it will be any issue. The original plan was to add a second floor over the existing house, but due to finances and a wedding and everything else, and restoration of the storm, the project is shrinking a little bit. So the additional living space is all actually going on the landward side of the house, which is not in your, it's exempt from the wetland permits. But I just want to have it on the record so that way when the Building Department sees plans that are a little different, with construction on the landward side, that at least we talked about it. So, if that's acceptable. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Building Department, you still have to tell them. MS. MOORE: I understand. Sometimes, my concern is sometimes the permit, they see the permit, they'll make us come back and amend your permit because it doesn't match exactly, even though our modification is on the landward side. So I want to make sure that is somewhere in the transcripts so that we can at least say we talked about it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What you have applied for here will remain part of the project. MS. MOORE: Exactly, yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments from the audience? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the stipulation that hay bales be set prior to construction and that the drywells be will be added to the plans to reflect Code 236. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 21, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JAMES & SUSAN BROWN requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct new 65'x25' two-story dwelling with rear +/-170sq.ft. covered porch, front covered porch, and attached storage area further landward than existing; install new sanitary system landward of dwelling; storm water roof runoff to be in accordance with Town Code, Chapter 236; a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed along retaining wall prior to and during construction; and the area Board of Trustees 48 September 18, 2013 seaward of the existing retaining wall to be maintained as a non-turf buffer area. Located: 170 Oak Street, Cutchogue. It was found to be consistent with the LW RP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 20-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Well, this application was the subject of the Zoning Board hearing, so we are the application to you is consistent with the Zoning Board approval that we received. The actual, I think, just clarifying with what the Conservation Advisory Council was recommending, the concrete wall is actually more of a retaining wall. I don't know if you have a picture. I know you have my pictures, but it's a retaining wall and then there is probably 60 feet of natural non-turf buffer on the seaward side of the retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: It's basically wetlands down there. MS. MOORE: Well, it's some upland and then wetlands are developed. Because we have, the wetland, you see the edge of wetland line, that was flagged wetlands. So we actually have about, I would say 20 feet between normal upland vegetation and the wetlands. So. TRUSTEE KING: We met the owner out in the field. We talked about a little five-foot buffer just landward of the concrete wall, which was agreeable. MS. MOORE: That's fine. 20 feet to me seems to be very large when you have no yard. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there. I don't think we had any real issues with this. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE KING: It's pretty straightforward. We also talked about hand removing some Poison Ivy. MS. MOORE: That's what they just told me. If we can incorporate that. TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. 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). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and stipulate there will be a five-foot non-turf buffer landward of the concrete bulkhead, the retaining wall. And also there is some Poison Ivy in the area that they can remove by hand and they can also, I guess they could wicket with round up. That would be on an as-needed basis for up to ten years on the Poison Ivy. So that would be my motion. Board of Trustees 49 September 18, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anything else? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, resident James F. K g, Board of Trustees RECEIVED 3: io PNI NOV 2 0 X013 Sa old To n Clerk