Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-01/22/2014 John M. Bredemeyer III, President ~~Of SOUIyo Town Hall Annex Michael J. Domino, Vice-President l~ 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 James F. King, Trustee Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen, Trustee G Q i~ Telephone (631) 765-1892 Charles J. Sanders, Trustee 2J".UNTl Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED t /a;a~ Grrt BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES MA'; 2 ~4 X01_ 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S66thold Town Clerk Minutes Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:30 PM Present Were: Jay Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, February 12, 2014, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 19, 2014, at 5:30 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, February 19th, 2014, at 5:00 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 19, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the Trustees regular monthly meeting. Thank you, for joining us today, with the weather being so inclement earlier in the day. My name is John Bredemeyer. I am the Chairman of the Trustees. To my immediate right is Mike Domino who is vice-president; Lori Hulse is here, she is the Assistant Town Attorney to provide legal advice; Trustee Clerk, Elizabeth Cantrell is to her right. To my left is past president of the Trustees, Jim King; and to his left is Charles Sanders, Trustee member. Wayne Galante is here to transcribe our Minutes for us. Board of Trustees 2 January 22, 2014 And from the Conservation Advisory Council, to provide information from the Conservation Advisory Council reports, is Peter Young. MR. YOUNG: John, if I may, I would like to introduce our latest appointment to the Conservation Advisory Council is another Peter. Peter Meeker. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, pleased to meet you, Peter. MR. MEEKER: Same here. MS. HULSE: The tape recorder is not working right now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let me know when you are ready to go. We can move our next meeting and approvals and Minutes approvals. Our next field inspection is set for Wednesday, February 12, 2014, at eight o'clock AM. Motion to approve the next field inspection date. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our next Trustee meeting, I move to have the meeting Wednesday, February 19th, at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our next work session, move to have it Wednesday, February 19th, at 5:00 PM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). We'll have an additional worksession, would have been the Friday prior, at Downs Farms. So we have the Wednesday the 19th worksession, inspection on the 12th, that would be Friday the 14th. So I would move that we would have a Downs Farms worksession at 3:00 PM on Friday, February 14th. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 3:00 PM, because we have the conflict with the holiday on that Monday. And then we'll discuss possible changes to the schedule as previously noted to try to come up with a rhythm of inspections and reports and working with the Conservation Advisory Council. A motion to approve the Minutes of June 19th, 2013? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). 1. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2013. A check for Board of Trustees 3 January 22, 2014 $27,774.93 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. It. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 22, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are listed as follows: Wickham Family, LLC, c/o Barnaby Wickham - SCTM# 110-8-32.7 Michael & Maria Maroni - SCTM# 70-5-33 Mark Bushell - SCTM# 26-2-22 Thomas J. Aprea, Jr. - SCTM# 37-7-9.1 Oregon Cliffs, LLC, c/o Martin Soja - SCTM# 83-2-10.13 Brewer Yacht Yard at Greenport - SCTM# 36-1-1 Jacqueline Bittner - SCTM# 64-1-31 Roy & Dawn Ward - SCTM# 137-1-8.1 David Page & Barbara Shinn - SCTM# 70-12-39.3 John M. Bredemeyer, Jr. & Jeanne R. Bredemeyer Family Trust, c/o Eric Bredemeyer as Trustee - SCTM# 26-1-18 Patricia A. Brennan Personal Residence Trust, c/o Patricia & Donald Brennan - SCTM# 118-2-4.2 Charlotte Raible & Wayne Weiss - SCTM# 99-3-15.1 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If someone would like to move them, since I have one I'll have to abstain on. So I would like to move the SEQRA reviews, and I'll have to abstain from the first item on page two, John M. Bredemeyer, Jr. & Jeanne R. Bredemeyer Family Trust, c/o Eric Bredemeyer as Trustee. If someone wants to move that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES, with exception of Trustee Bredemeyer on the John Bredemeyer Family Trust). This evening we are going to try a new procedure for the Trustees to allow for individuals who may have come a great Board of Trustees 4 January 22, 2014 distance and have not become aware of an item that may have been requested to be postponed or, on the part of the Trustees have required a postponement because we have a lack of information. So where there is a quorum of Trustees to open a public hearing and table it, a matter which has been decided to be postponed, out of deference to people who may have come a great way, we'll note postponements at the beginning of the meeting. But an individual who would otherwise like to comment or has concerns about a project and would like to go on the record, we'll open the record up for those brief comments. Of course an individual could also submit written comment to the record. And typically we try to, items that are tabled or postponed, we try to handle at the next regular meeting, but to be sure, you should always check with the Trustee clerk to make sure an item has been put back on the agenda. This evening we have postponements on the agenda, I'll run through them very quickly. If you see or hear an item you would like to comment on, would you kindly raise your hand and I'll mark my record so you have an opportunity to speak, if it's otherwise been noted to be postponed. The first one I have is page five, number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of MICHAEL & MARIA MARONI requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #5915 to install a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured in-place by four 8" diameter anchor pilings at offshore end on existing fixed dock. Located: 855 Pine Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed. Page five, number five, 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, has been postponed. Also on page five, number six, Young & Young on behalf of OREGON CLIFFS, LLC, c/o MARTIN SOJA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 33' extension to an existing bulkhead and rock revetment, construct a 4'x114' set of bluff stairs with a 4'x8' upper platform and six (6) 4'x4' associated platforms; placement of approximately 325 cubic yards of clean fill and restore approximately 2,030 sq.ft. of slope by re-grading area and re-vegetating with a mix of beach grass, rosa rugosa, bayberry, Virginia rose, and pitch pine; slope stabilization to incorporate board and stake terracing. Located: 13457 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. On page eight, numbers eight, nine, ten and eleven have been postponed. They are listed as follows: Number eight, Eric Bredemeyer on behalf of JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, JR. & JEANNE R. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST, c/o ERIC Board of Trustees 5 January 22, 2014 BREDEMEYER AS TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to install 12-6" diameter piles off bottom for shellfish culture under existing timber dock; and install four (4) 12"x12" notification signs onto piles. Located: 2660 Village Lane, Orient. Number nine, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of 850 PRESIDENT LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30'x59' single-family dwelling with drywells; proposed sanitary system landward of dwelling; and driveway. Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of JOAN SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 69' long timber retaining wall with 12' return using vinyl sheathing; repair existing 12' wide x 67' long lower decking landward of the retaining wall; repair existing 6'x8' beach shower; re-vegetate all uncovered ground seaward of the bluff crest with Cape American beach grass except for an 8' wide access way to the bulkhead. Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. And number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of J. MILTON HUTSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x70' low-profile fixed dock using Thru-Flow decking; a 2.5'x14' seasonal ramp; and a 6'x20' seasonal float with two (2) stops to keep float off bottom. Located: 1395 Sleepy Hollow Lane, Southold. Is there anyone who wants to speak to any of these postponed items? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry, did you mention page seven, number six, as one of the ones postponed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it was on the preceding page. Page seven, number six. Yes, that's postponed. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We would like to make a comment, if we may. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make that note. IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolution for Administrative Permits, the Board has reviewed the Administrative Permit applications during the course of our inhouse worksession and also during the course of field inspections, and these, ordinarily, to expedite the meeting, these are relatively minor activities with little or no environmental impact or according to standard form, so these are items that can be approved as a group, typically, so that we can expedite our meeting. Items one, three and four could be moved as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, Coastline Cesspool & Drain Services on behalf of ROBERT SCHNOOR requests an Administrative Permit to abandon Board of Trustees 6 January 22, 2014 existing septic system and replace in-kind with (1) 1,000 gallon septic tank and (1) 8'x12' leaching cesspool. Located: 335 Soundview Road, Orient. Number three, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD requests an Administrative Permit to reconstruct a +/-8'x30' boardwalk with handrails for the Bay to Sound Trails project to expand trail system to new section of preserve. Located: 60100 Chapel Lane, Greenport. And number four, Briarcliff Landscape on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE INLET, LLC c/o STRONG'S WATER CLUB & MARINA requests an Administrative Permit to install a 6,000sq.ft. Beach using 222 cubic yards of washed beach sand; installation of a 6,160 sq.ft. pervious pool patio and 4' high pool fence; installation of a 80 sq.ft. patio around flag pole; vegetate area with palm trees, roses and hibiscus; transplant a cherry tree; and install an ornamental boat structure. Located: 2255 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would so move them at this time. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number two, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of JULIANE & RUSSELL KARSTEN requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten Year Maintenance Permit to hand cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in height and to cut the wild rose ramble to 18" high on an as needed basis. Located: 57908 Main Road, Southold. This application, I believe, based on the field inspection the Trustees had made subsequent to meeting with the applicant in the field, and previously visiting this application, I believe it was the feeling of the Board that it would be appropriate to limit the cutting of the existing vegetation to no lower than the top of the fence, so that the application to cut the wild rose and ramble to 18" high on an as-needed basis is not appropriate for this location because the site had previously been established as a non-disturbance area, and while we recognize that some of the vegetation there are exotic and not indigenous, we are reluctant to cut any lower than the fence height for creating problems in that area. I'm just wondering, is anybody here for Juliane and Russell Karsten? (No response). It's not a hearing, but I just wanted to let them know we would be modifying this. I would take a motion to restrict this application to the height of, accordingly, no higher than the fence for the rose ramble. I'll entertain a motion on that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: It's okay for the 12" on the phragmites? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We thought it was okay for 12" on the Board of Trustees 7 January 22, 2014 phragmites. All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under agenda item Roman numeral V, on the agenda, applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, these actions are also minor in nature. The Board has reviewed each one of these files, or individual Trustees have inspected the site for report back to the Trustees in a worksession. Based on the review of these files, I believe there was, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe we had any difficulties with any of these as submitted. If the Board just wants to review these quickly and see if we want to pull any for further discussion or any changes. If not, I'll move them as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, Robert Barratt on behalf of KENNETH B. & JOANN ZAHLER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #8273 from Edgewater 11, LLC to Kenneth B. & Joann Zahler, as issued on August 21, 2013, and Amended on November 13, 2013. Located: 63735 Route 48, Greenport. Number two, ROBERT & JENNIFER PLACE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1584 from En-Consultants for Robert Fairlie to Robert & Jennifer Place, as issued on March 4, 1983. Located: 3765 Wells Avenue, Southold. Number three, ALI REZA HOMAYUNI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7896 for the as-built upper 4'x12'9" platform; as-built 30"x12' fixed steps to beach with gate at top of steps; and to install composite material on existing 6'10"x57.6" open structural area to enlarge the existing platform. Located: 22195 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DIANE MACARI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8116 for a 16'x32' pool with patios, decking and retaining walls to be no closer than 34.5' and 42' from edge of wetlands. Located: 465 Halls Creek, Mattituck. Number five, LESLIE & JOE LaVECCHIA request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8173 for the pool fencing to remain as depicted on (amended plans) at 900 and 700 Birds Eye Road, Orient, SCTM# 1000-17-2-1.009 and #1000-17-2-1.014; in the event the license agreement between applicant and adjacent property owners John H. Josephson, Carolina Zapf and Interwellen Property Partners, LLC is terminated, the pool fence is to be relocated along property lines and along edge of established lawn as depicted... within 60 days; and for the retaining wall that was constructed further landward against the side of the pool. Located: 908 Birds Eye Board of Trustees 8 January 22, 2014 Road, Orient. Number six, Eugene Burger on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8029 to modify the existing docking facility structures as described; Ramp A: Install a 6'x12' fixed ramp leading to a 6'x6' landing to a 4'x30' gangway, and to add an 8' jog into the bulkhead and raise it to elevation 6' within this area in order to retain soil on bank; Ramp B: Install a 12'8"x16'8" access deck leading to a 4'x30' ramp, and to add an 8' jog into the bulkhead and raise it to elevation 6' within this area in order to retain soil on bank; Ramp C: Install a 4'4"x24' pitched walkway leading to a 3'8"x30' gangway; Ramp D: Install a 5'x14' pitched walkway leading to a 3'8"x30' gangway; Ramp E: Install a 5'x27' pitched walkway leading to a 4'8"x30' gangway, and to add an 8' jog into a the bulkhead and raise it to elevation 6' within this area in order to retain soil on bank. Located: 64300 Route 25, Greenport. Number seven, Michael Kimack on behalf of SHAMGAR CAPITAL, LLC, c/o DANIEL BUTTAFUOCO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8271 to downsize the proposed driveway to a 3,700 sq.ft. paved area that is to be 10' wide with a partial stone driveway section; paved area to have 8 drywells installed for runoff. Located: 1165 Kimberly Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move as a group items one, two, three, four, five, six and seven, under applications for extensions transfers, administrative amendments, and seconded. Thank you. All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS - OTHER: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Resolution - Other, number six. This resolution is a housekeeping measure to correct language in the permit that didn't clearly comport with what was voted on at the meeting, and the permit copy was not reflecting what was discussed and voted on at the meeting. This more accurately matches what the Board voted on and for what actually should have been on the permit copy. Number one, Amend Resolution dated December 11, 2013 to read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Town of Southold Board of Trustees APPROVES the application of THOMAS & LINDA KELLY for a Wetland Permit for construction of a 20'x40' with 12'x16' "L" extension in-ground pool; construct a 1,700sq.ft. Pool patio; install 4' high pool fencing; construct a 10'x12' tool shed; construct a 700 sq.ft. terrace seaward of existing covered porch; and re-vegetate previously cleared areas; with the conditions of establishing a 50' wide Non-Disturbance Buffer landward of the Board of Trustees 9 January 22, 2014 edge of wetlands; that the pool fence to be located on the border of the Non-Disturbance Buffer; the Non-Disturbance Buffer is to be re-vegetated using native vegetation; and a pool drywell to be installed. Located: 4553 Wickham Avenue, Mattituck. So I would move to approve this as written. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go off of our agenda and go on to our public hearing agenda. And at this time I would like to emphasize that because the weather has been difficult today and road conditions are relatively hazardous, that I would emphasize if you could make your comments particularly short and concise and we'll try to accommodate everyone getting out of here at an early hour and getting home safely. At this time I make a motion to go off our regular agenda and go on to our public hearings. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, MARK BUSHELL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3746 from Stephen Matteini to Mark Bushell, as issued on June 22, 1989, and Amended on June 24, 2009; for an Amendment to Wetland Permit #3746 and for a Coastal Erosion Permit to excavate the landward side of existing 124' long bulkhead and two 10' long returns to install new vinyl Sheathing, piles, and deadmen; new tie-rods will be connected to new 10"x20' long piling installed adjacent to existing facepiles. Located: 1060 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is that the bulkhead structure as described is not constructed pursuant to Trustee review or with a Chapter 275 Wetland Permit. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. Is anyone here to speak to this application? MR. BUSHELL: Mark Bushell. I'm here. I don't have anything to say. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. With respect to the inconsistency from the LWRP coordinator. 1989, 1 know predated the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. The 1989 date also is prior to revisions where the Board of Town Trustees held a permit. It's possible, but without knowing that there may have been a wetland permit issued by the Town Board, because this project is being proposed to use Board of Trustees 10 January 22, 2014 non-toxic bulkheading material and pre-exists coastal erosion and may have pre-existed the Trustees, having the town wetland ordinance under their tutelage, and it is in conformity with the current construction standards since it is a Navy-bulkhead type of construction that is expected to last more than 30 years, I would I believe the inconsistency could be addressed through the proposed permitting process as the application has been submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's also suggested that the 15-foot non-turf buffer, which will also help address the inconsistency. Hearing no further comments or questions, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that by doing so will address the inconsistency, with the addition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: I'll second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number two, under wetland permits, Stephen Searl on behalf of WICKHAM FAMILY, LLC, c/o BARNABY WICKHAM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #6649 to add one large rock top row to existing 104' revetment; install stone filled reno mattresses landward of revetment; and fill existing eroded area with clean fill. Located: 5005 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. This project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application and recommends a splash pad landward of the crest of the revetment. And the Board has reviewed this application and it is consistent with neighboring projects which also have made use of similar construction. It was heavily damaged by Tropical Storm Sandy. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SEARL: Stephen Searl here. I have nothing to add further at this time. But any questions or concerns I would be happy to address. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any members of the Board, any questions or concerns? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that it is consistent with the LWRP; and that the stone filled reno mattress-type of construction addresses the concerns of the CAC. This particular Board of Trustees II January 22, 2014 construction is actually designed to handle overtopping water and will reduce the erosion to the landward side of the structure. So I would move to approve as submitted. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: 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; for the as-built cap-stones on top of existing redi-rock seawall; seawall is 54" above wooden bulkhead to top of cap-stone; for the existing accent lighting along seaward side of bulkhead; install aluminum stairs to beach; and for the as-built +/-2,000 cubic yards of fill landward of seawall. Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This was one that was held over, I believe. In the original assessment from the LWRP it was found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application, with no changes. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. D'AMARO: Yes, sir. I'm Jerry D'Amaro from D'Amaro Engineering and Surveying. I'm here to represent my client, Thomas Aprea, who is vacationing in Tampa. TRUSTEE KING: Part of this was a project that was approved in May of 2013 for the proposed redi-rock wall. There has been some controversy over that because it was not built according to plans. Quite frankly, I don't know exactly where we are going to go with this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a very difficult issue, because we try to recognize individuals' rights and responsibilities to protect their shoreline, but it's unusual that the Board would have granted a permit and then find something at such variance from what we approved; the construction having been altered afterwards with no notification and prior consideration by the Board of Trustees or a revised application that would have been reviewed by the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator. Its unusual, too, because during the period of, even going back to Tropical Storm Irene and subsequently Tropical Storm Sandy, the Board of Trustees and Department of Environmental Conservation, while we granted approvals for structures to be higher, typically, the limitations for structures being higher than prior existing structures were on the order of 12 to 18 inches, and the permit we granted, the terms of which were not honored by this construction, was already permitting a bulkhead which was some four feet above the prior construction. And so this is far and away much more than Board of Trustees 12 January 22, 2014 the usual amount. The standards of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Protection Act, that this project lies within that regulatory zone, in front of that line, has specific standards concerning protecting the stability of littoral lands. And the reason the Trustees and the Department of Environmental Conservation typically is allowing only incremental increases in height is to prevent possible damage offsite of additional forces of wind and waves. So the Board, instead of immediately dispatching the bay constable, has been trying to work with the applicant because we do recognize the very difficult situation of the storm, but we do take exception to work taking place that was not in conformity with the permit. So I don't know how we are going to go with this. You know, there has been a suggestion made that removal of one of the block elements and possibly a redesign to get that height more in keeping with what we originally approved, and you as a design professional could assist in that matter. I think that is sort of the way the discussion is going during several field inspections the Trustees have been on and as part of our work session this month. MR. D'AMARO: Mr. Chairman, there are two issues. There is the height of the wall and of course the reveal or face of the wall that is exposed. To mitigate and bring it to within conformance of the permit, my client wants to put a rock revetment, in fact you have it listed here on your agenda, in front of the wall, to reduce the reveal. As far as the height goes, it is true that the wall was proposed to be several feet behind the bulkhead. The bulkhead at the time was about 18 inches higher than what it presently is. That top 18 inches was destroyed during Sandy. So there is no elevations in any datum shown on the site plan. The height of the wall in elevation, the top of the wall, the elevation of the top of the wall would be actually lower right now than if the bulkhead was intact with the 18 inches on top and the wall setback from that four feet. So, again, we are trying to mitigate the front reveal of the wall to within conformance and bring the height of the wall or demonstrate the height of the wall is actually in conformance, the elevation of the wall. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As you know, the Trustees make field inspections. Before issuing that permit in May of 2013, there was an inspection. At that time, what we approved, and subsequent to that, was a four-foot high wall, which I have to disagree with your comments, would not be anywhere near the height of the present wall. As you correctly noted, it was further back from the bulkhead. But it was also much lower. TRUSTEE KING: It was supposed to be four feet above grade. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, which the grade was much lower than the bulkhead. The height of the, that was approved for that permit, Board of Trustees 13 January 22, 2014 was not tied into the elevation of the bulkhead. But the grade, which was, and correct me if I'm wrong, about a foot-and-a-half lower than the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So we are looking at a structure that is significantly higher than what we had anticipated. MR. D'AMARO: You are saying the existing grade behind the bulkhead, on the landward side of the bulkhead, was 18" below the top of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. D'AMARO: I was not aware of that. I didn't see it. As you know, I was brought in just recently. TRUSTEE KING: The top of the wall was supposed to be four feet above grade. MR. D'AMARO: Let me say his property is the point. And that seawall is going to protect not only his property but several properties behind that property. That is the one and only line of defense you have for any kind of storm that comes through there. I think that the seawall that was constructed will serve that purpose. Lowering its height anything lower than what it is, I think will cause the seawall not to function, potentially, as well in a storm. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not to belabor the discussion, because I think there is additional concerns about going to that height and putting it more to the seaward, because that also means you are more into the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. But without belaboring that, are you authorized to make any modifications and submit us a new plan that might reduce the height by one of the larger blocks; in other words not the capstone but one of the 14' of the redi-blocks? Do you have the authorization to amend the structure? MR. D'AMARO: I would have to discuss that with my client. I know there was a problem with the type of block, where if the top block was removed, the capstone would not lock on to the block below it. So because of that, it would have to be removed along with the top block. The capstone and the top block. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To be appropriately fair with you, because we are trying to work with you, could we ask you to return, formally return to the owner and formally request the possibility of making such a modification; and if the owner is amenable, that we could have a new plan drawing that would also indicate the height of such a wall at its top, with the reduction of one of those 14" redi-block stones, and you would also incorporate on your plan, draw the coastal erosion hazard area line and provide us with a first floor elevation of the building. So that would be three things. Board of Trustees 14 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Can we also get the elevation of the top of the wall as it is now? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The wall as it exists now. And what you would propose to lower it if we move one of those blocks. And the coastal erosion hazard area line on your professional engineering drawing, and the first floor elevation. If you could review that with the owner and possibly accommodate us, I think that would put us in a far better way to move on this application. MR. D'AMARO: Yes, I can certainly do that, and I'll discuss that with the owner. As far as removing the top block, as I was mentioning, I think you were in a discussion when I said it, the capstone is designed to lock into that top block, so if we remove that top block, the capstone can't be put back on there. TRUSTEE SANDERS: It can't lock into the one below it? MR. D'AMARO: The one below it has protrusions that the capstone can't sit on top of that. That capstone has a flat top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, for our part, if you can give us that information, we'll rely on you. If there is any variance with what we just requested, you would have to possibly take that up with the owner and provide us with the details in your plan. It had been discussed informally on field inspection, that the possibility is that the redi-blocks, the one line of redi-blocks that might be removed, and then possibly you could work out a customization of the cap as such, would be up to you as the design professional. But the redi-block could also be used to stabilize the front as part of the revetment structure that has been proposed by Costello Marine so the materials can continue to be used onsite for the betterment of the project. That was just a thought. But as a design professional we would leave it to you to make your proposal. MR. D'AMARO: I'll do that. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, questions, concerns? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this matter upon receipt of plans and consideration by the owner. Thank you, very much. MR. D'AMARO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of THOMAS Board of Trustees 15 January 22, 2014 J. APREA, JR., requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to place 250 cubic yards of dredge spoil on beach area as beach nourishment spread over 2,700 square feet between jetties above spring high water. Located: 500 Beach Court, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, with Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for this application for Mr. Aprea. If the Board has any questions, it is a utilization of some minor degree of the sand that we have permits for dredging out of the inlet, and it's trying to just eliminate some of the erosion that is going along that shoreline, and enter a bypass of some of the material to the direction that it is in desperate need of. Any other questions the Board has? TRUSTEE KING: John, do you have any idea when this operation will take place? MR. COSTELLO: It's just a matter of when they schedule the Gardiners Bay allows us to go in there and dredge some of the materials. We have windows. I don't have the window dates with me. But the DEC only allows certain times. But usually it's the last moment, like everything else. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking of the previous application here where he wants to put rip rap in front of the bulkhead and that wall. MR. COSTELLO: Well, it's 250 yards of fill spread down there. It's not a lot. It will disappear. There is some scouring on one side of the small jetties that exist. Just basically fill in those holes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe we can just table the rock revetment. TRUSTEE KING: This application didn't include the rock revetment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, it didn't include the revetment. Okay, sorry. TRUSTEE KING: That answers my question. It's not an issue. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions, comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing has been requested to be Board of Trustees 16 January 22, 2014 postponed, but as discussed earlier, the new procedure for the Board will be to allow some limited comments for the record for people who may have traveled some distance, to allow for public participation. The hearing will then be, the Board will then postpone any formal action on this with the conditions, whether it was the request of the applicant or we need additional information so the conditions are met to the satisfaction of the clerk, the matter will be put back on the record. So we can open number six up for some comments as requested. Is there anyone here who wants to add any comments for number six, Young & Young on behalf of OREGON CLIFFS, LLC c/o MARTIN SOJA? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): It was not this one. It was on page seven. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That one is not marked as a postponement on the agenda. We'll be hearing that. So I'll dispense with my comments with respect to number six. Next item, under Wetland Permits, number one, High Point Engineering on behalf of BREWER YACHT YARD AT GREENPORT requests a Wetland Permit for the replacement of +/-205 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead with proposed vinyl bulkhead raised 18" higher to match existing adjacent bulkhead elevation to the south; demolish and reconstruct existing restroom building within existing footprint with roof runoff to drain to grade and discharge to the Eastern Basin via NYSDEC Approved Outfall 003 to the north per existing conditions; existing timber docks to be replace in-kind as follows: 125 linear feet of 6'-8' wide fixed dock fronting building/bulkhead, 75' of 3'-4' wide fixed dock fronting bulkhead to the north, two (2) 4'x53' fixed docks perpendicular to bulkhead, and one (1) 6'x48' floating dock with 15' ramp perpendicular to bulkhead. Located: 1410 Manhasset Avenue,Greenport. This application has been deemed to be inconsistent with the town's LWRP. The inconsistency has been noted that the project must comply with the Trustee recommendations and permit conditions to comply with coastal consistency, so that this permit review process going forward, should it result in a permit being granted, will meet the requirements of the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council report the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with a clarification of how the leaching and septic system will correspond with the renovation of the restroom; will the structures be demolished or renovated; and is the size of the floating dock permitted. And the Trustees, during the course of our monthly field inspections, we had raised the question concerning using non-toxic decking for the replacement deck work. That would accompany any new bulkheading. And there was a question of Board of Trustees 17 January 22, 2014 whether or not the roof runoff for the restroom renovation would be put into drywells or make plans to be put into drywells, noting that there is a regulated discharge pipe that is under permit with the Department of Environmental Conservation. Those were the concerns of the Trustees on field inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. COLLINS: Yes. My name is Zachary Collins. I'm from High Point Engineering, with offices at 521 Conklin Street in Farmingdale, New York. And to address those issues, first off, for the capturing of the roof runoff, the applicant is amenable to propose to capture the runoff on the roof and discharge into an underground infiltration system via drywell or some other means as feasible. So, we are amenable to that. With respect to the existing sanitary system, no modifications are proposed to the existing sanitary system. Currently the sewage waste travels into a sewage pump system located to the east, or I guess north of the proposed restroom building which will then be piped into the existing sanitary system north of the cabana building, and that is proposed to remain. And I'm sorry, was there another concern? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A concern, we saw a section of decking there that appeared to be a treated lumber. The requirements of the town wetland code is that decking associated with docks and bulkheading should be of a non-toxic material. It would be approved tropical hardwoods or plastic, non-toxic plastics. MR. COLLINS: Absolutely. The applicant can definitely agree to any material used in the proposed construction of the bulkhead or decking to be non-toxic. I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the construction. That was the materials that were used in the dock replacement, that happened about five or six years ago. It's all EPA-compliant material. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The new material also. MR. COLLINS: Yes. And at this time, we do want to clarify the description and scope of work on that. We had an incorrect description on the plans. On the plans show two fixed docks and one floating dock to be replaced inkind. We would like to clarify that. There are currently, those docks were replaced about five or six years ago, and we would like to modify the description to maintain those three existing floating docks as is right now. No modification or replacement to that. So, we apologize for the inconvenience, but the description was listed as incorrect. So these three docks, the plans list this as a fixed dock, a fixed dock and a floating dock to be replaced inkind. Those have been replaced recently with floating docks. They, we would like to propose to leave those as is and not replace them at this time. So amend the description and scope of work. Board of Trustees 18 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's sufficiently minor. It's in the same footprint. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. MR. COLLINS: We want to just clarify that at this time so there was no confusion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I have a specific question. Because of the disturbance, you know, with renovating the building and redoing that restroom, has there been any thoughts to replace the ejection pump; and does the ejection pump have an alarm system? Because it's located so close to the water area there. Presently the town is involved in sampling shellfish meets out of Sterling Basin and hopefully we will be harvesting shellfish out of that, so I guess I would request that if your sewage ejection pump is nearing the end of its service life and/or it's not equipped, usually they are doubly alarmed, if it's not alarmed I would highly recommend it and request we might even put that in the terms of the permit. I think it's important, with much this area going back into shellfish harvest, so we would not have an accident that might impact the surface water quality. MR. COLLINS: Right. We were proposing to maintain the existing sewage ejection pump as is. It has been functioning without difficulty. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would the applicant be prepared to just make sure the alarm system is functioning and working properly? MR. COLLINS: It has been replaced recently. I do not know if there is an alarm system but we are amenable to any conditions you may TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Putting an alarm system on it. MR. COLLINS: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ACEBO: Yes. Mike Acebo, manager of Brewer Yacht Yard. We are also working with the Village of Greenport to, they are doing a study now, engineering study, to figure out how they can get a sewer line to the Sandy Beach area and the small houses along the Sandy Beach row, and all of the area on Beach Road down toward Cliff Park. That's all in the Village of Greenport. It's served with Village of Greenport electricity. There is water service down there from the Suffolk County Water Authority and they are all on septic systems. The village is trying to figure out how they can expand the use of their sewage plant. I think the DEC is trying to get them onboard on that. They have plans of going to Shelter Island. They have plans of going underneath Sterling Basin to get over to Sandy Beach area. We approached them and said we have a restaurant that is right in the Village of Greenport and we have a marina and customers in the Village of Greenport, boat yards in the Village of Greenport and Sterling Harbor Marina, and we would be happy to contribute Board of Trustees 19 January 22, 2014 financially to help them run a line down at Champlin Place and Manhasset to get it down to where they need to have a sewage line. So we are working, I'll say I have been doing this for 25 years, but we are still working aggressively with the village to try to get a sewer line in there. We need to have a good sewer line through Sterling Basin. We want to get rid of the septic system there. We understand the problems, the use of that system and the pump station and the inability to increase the size. We just want to get rid of it at some time and we are working with the village as aggressively as we can to get a sewer line down there. So that's our hopes in the future so that we can have a nice, clean environment and run the place properly. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application in this matter with the stipulation that you submit that amended language to us just in case we didn't quite get it on the record; that you provide an amendment to your drawings to show the drywell system; and that would have to be, that, if the drywell system comes within the town, it will have to undergo town drainage review depending on which side that comes. It may have to go through the village for your drywell. I don't know if they have been doing an engineering assessment. And as noted, the decking shall be all non-toxic decking; and that the sewage pump station shall be alarmed and that the alarm system, if currently existing, could be checked as a condition of the permit. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Siyu Liu on behalf of JACQUELINE BITTNER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 408 sq.ft. addition to the southwest corner of the dwelling; expand front entry approximately 45 sq.ft. with 34 sq.ft. porch; construct a 227 sq.ft. landward addition to existing garage; construct a 745 sq.ft. rear porch; construction of two dormers on north side and widen existing dormers on south side of dwelling; and expand the 2nd story over single story portion of dwelling. Located: 809 Maple Lane, Southold. MS. LIU: I am Siyu Liu. I'm here for the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: Just let me get through this first. This was found Board of Trustees 20 January 22, 2014 consistent with the LWRP coordinator. He recommends the establishment of a vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bank. The Conservation Advisory Council moved to support the application with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells installed to contain roof runoff. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. LIU: I'm Siyu Liu and I am the architect for Jacqueline Bittner. I'm here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there. I don't think there were any real issues. We recommend a ten-foot non-turf buffer. Mike, you had mentioned something about testhole data? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had written that in the review. There was a concern I had with the volume of work you are doing of rooms inside, whether you had considered putting a new sanitary system in during the course, because of excavating for drywells, bringing equipment in for putting up new walls and moving rooms, it might be an opportune time to upgrade the private subsurface sewage disposal system that would be to the benefit of the owners as far as a consumer item because once the property has been disturbed and then returned with landscaping, and major additions to the home, it would be a shame to have a sanitary system fail, and you would have to go in. It's essentially a recommendation. MS. LIU: Yes, we will do that. I already talked to the homeowner, we would like to improve the septic system. We don't really know exactly where the system is right now but it's on the water side. So we are going to go to the health department to move it to the other side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it's a pre-existing, nonconforming house, then it's a renovation, you would not need a Health Department approval provided you use a design professional that would attest to the fact that it's meeting the sanitary code requirements. And you could then send an amendment, you could provide an amendment to the Trustees. If you can move the sanitary system to the front of the house, it would be non-jurisdictional for the Trustees and it would put it out of the wetland zone. That would be even better, if you could engineer that. MS. LIU: We will definitely do it. We already decided. If we get approval from you and DEC and she goes ahead with the house, then we'll definitely move it. TRUSTEE KING: Would that put it out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can do it conditioned on the permit. TRUSTEE KING: Did you scale that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's going to be more than 100 feet. TRUSTEE KING: So we don't have to make that a condition of the permit. Board of Trustees 21 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we were to grant the permit now, if you had to put it in the front because you have limitations with the engineer, you would have to come back for an amendment to the permit. But if it's non-jurisdictional and you go to the health department and DEC and you put it in the front, you would not have to come back to this Board. MS. LIU: That would be great. TRUSTEE KING: I just scaled it off. Any place on the landward side of the house is out of our jurisdiction. So if it's on the landward side of the house, it's out of our jurisdiction, so you don't need anything from us on that. MS. LIU: Okay, perfect. TRUSTEE KING: I thought most of the renovations were pretty minor myself. Small additions. The expansion of the garage is really out of our jurisdiction also, as part of this permit. So, anybody else have any comments? (No response). Any further comments from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting, Inc. on behalf of ROY & DAWN WARD requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 4'x55' fixed dock; a 4'x10' ramp; a 6'x38' float, and a 6'x14' float; for the as-built 18'x50' patio with a 118sq.ft. Landing with steps; patio to remain open to the sky and drainage provided to contain run-off; no further construction of any structures/storage buildings between the patio and the bulkhead; and install and subsequently maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 4075 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency as he noted is the fact that the dock as constructed does not conform to existing Chapter 275 regulations. The float is oversized, which is not permissible. The configuration does not match the dock structure on the 2005 plans and has been altered since that year. The CAC voted to support this application, with no conditions. The Trustees, on January 15th field inspection, also noted that the float is non-compliant. The float dimensions that are listed in the application are also not correct. We measured the float. It is 6'x38' and tendered 6'x14' float, 4'x55' dock, 4'x15' ramp. Board of Trustees 22 January 22, 2014 There was also water and electricity on the dock. There is no ten-foot buffer which was in the original permit and suggested by the LWRP coordinator. There are two pilings for the float. And in addition, the patio is 25 foot from the bulkhead, where the deck which had been approved was 36 feet from the bulkhead. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. FABB: Yes. William Fabb, Twin Fork Landscape Contracting. We are the agent for Mr. Ward. I have nothing to add. I can answer any questions or concerns that the Board might have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, the first thing we have to address is the fact that the float as noted is nearly twice the size of what is permissible by Town Code. Town Code allows 6'x20'. So we have to, since this is an as-built application, we have to address those issues. TRUSTEE KING: Mike, was there a permit on the existing; was there a permit for the open dock? I'm curious what the conditions were approved on the previous permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think there is one. TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Perusing). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think there actually is one, unless I'm confusing this with another job. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a Trustee permit 5443, dated October 26, 2001. TRUSTEE KING: Is that for the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's for the 72' bulkhead. There is another conditional permit, April 6, 1983, for a wooden retaining wall; May 7, 1980, permission to replace, to place catwalk and floating dock on private property. Listed below. There is a lined up drawing here, with no dimensions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No dimensions, but I think there was subsequently, if you go back, I think there was verbiage that added the dimensions. I thought that was scaled off. I mean I thought there was an old permit from the Trustees. TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Perusing). Okay, here it is. We have a float. Again, this is by the Trustees, November 5, 1979. The float approved was 8'x10'. The catwalk was 4'x10'. So it is significantly larger. Sorry it took so long to answer your question. TRUSTEE KING: It's okay. We seem to run into this for the as-builts. Usually there is an old permit that has been expanded without any amendments to it, which that's the case here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So how do we address this? TRUSTEE KING: I think the float should be downsized to 6x20. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the non-turf buffer, which is a prior permit condition, that doesn't exist at this time, so actually that's a dual violation. MR. YOUNG: They do note it in their letter, the Trustees, of December 17. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They are intending in their application to Board of Trustees 23 January 22, 2014 put it in, but the history is the dock grew and the non-turf buffer had not been installed previously. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So those are the two major issues. Do you understand? MR. FABB: Right. One of the major issues, I know we submitted a plan to rectify the LWRP off the as-built patio. That would take care of their drainage storm water runoff issues. We've also, in that plan that we submitted, show the non-turf buffer we would go ahead and install between the bulkhead and that as-built patio to rectify those violations. What we are trying to do is bring them in compliance. We have come in the 9th hour here, so what happened, you know. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I do see where it's noted the turf is to be removed, but I don't see a dimension. MR. FABB: Everything on the water side, between that patio and the top of that bulkhead, will be non-turf. The whole entire area. With indigenous material. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. So the last item to address would be the float dimensions. MR. FABB: Correct. My client has informed me that a lot of this work, as far as the dock work, was prior to him purchasing the property. This was part of the reason why because of, you know tidal conditions and things, shallow water there, it's, you know, really the only dimensions that he's able to get off the point, because of the way his property is situated on the waterfront. Now, if there was something the Board would consider, maybe upgrading the decking material, on that pier, to come into compliance, remove the CCA, ACQ, I don't know what's on there right now, if that's a possibility. We are open to suggestions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are not addressing the length of the dock. The float is perpendicular the code allows 6x20. You have to downsize that. And that will not have changed the depth to water. So that's not an issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it would be appropriate to bring this to a conclusion. The Board could not approve a float greater than 6x20, and we would certainly want to see the non-turf buffer, so it would be appropriate if Trustee Domino wanted to move it with the condition of a 6x20 float and a time limit to establish the buffer, understanding the buffers will not be established within the next month, reasonable time to get the buffer established. MR. FABB: Sure. It's my understanding that float has been 38' since the 70's. I'm not going to dispute something went on later on, that they extended to get to deeper water, but if you scroll up and down that waterway, there is plenty of 40' foot docks. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As Trustee Bredemeyer pointed out, we could not Board of Trustees 24 January 22, 2014 approve things that violate the code. We could also not approve things that were done without Trustee permit. Unless they were compliant with the code. It is our general practice to make, to approve catwalks or docks that are the average of the existing or adjacent land. And you can see the one immediately to the right, to the west, is significantly shorter than what you have there. And the additional float, that's the 6'x14' float has to be removed. And the 6'x38' has to be downsized to 6x20, in order to be in compliance with the code. MR. FABB: Understood. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: Can I make one point? Is there any issue as to the water and electric on the dock? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The water and electric usually should be included in the plan. Maybe it would be appropriate if we go to permitting that we request a plan drawing that would indicate the alterations that were we are considering and the addition of the electric and water. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just give us new plans showing the new design. I make a motion to table this application subject to submission of new plans to reflect moving it into compliance with the code. And to include the water and electric. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: We'll consider it then when the plans come to see if it is in compliance. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four under Wetland Permits, DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN request a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story single family dwelling with garage and decking (1,150 sq.ft. contact footprint, 1,878 sq.ft. main level coverage with 600 sq.ft. decking) with attendant sanitary system and 260 linear foot French drain; construct an approximately 12' high by 60' long retaining wall; construct a 288 sq.ft. shed; install a gravel driveway; and to establish a 50' wide Non- Disturbance Buffer along the landward edge of the wetlands. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. This application is deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC has resolved to support the application. The Trustees in our monthly routine field inspection noted this is similar in great respects to a prior submission where a permit had gone through permit extensions and has expired. We did note in our field inspection the existing hay bale and silt fence line would need replacement as a condition of any permit granted. It was a Board of Trustees 25 January 22, 2014 concern of siltation during construction. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PAGE: David Page, Mattituck, just here to answer any questions, if there are any. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Page, on the description, on the verbal description, maybe it's simply a scrivener's error, typographical error, but it says the French drain construction approximately 12'x60' long retaining wall. You are not proposing a 12' high retaining wall, are you? MR. PAGE: No, I think it's significantly lower. I think it might actually be nine-and-a-half feet at one point. MS. HULSE: Is it 12 inches high? MR. PAGE: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems rather high. MR. PAGE: This home is built on stilts, so in order to get up to the landing area, I believe that is part of that plan. This plan actually is the exact plan as what has been pre-submitted and amended on a couple of occasions. (Trustees perusing a file). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We didn't see it in the cross-section. Okay, we have an elevation of 8.6. But that's not the elevation of the wall. TRUSTEE KING: It's 6.9 here. Unless it says the top elevation of the wall is nine feet, I don't know. (Trustees perusing a file). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We found the retaining wall but we are at a loss to determine the top elevation of it from the line drawing from your architect. MR. PAGE: It's scaled though, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, we have a top down view that we are not sure whether we are seeing the grade elevation or we are seeing the elevation of the wall. It's not specific. Can you show us, maybe? MR. PAGE: As best I can. I'm not the architect, but. I worked with Amanda on the telephone on scaling this because she asked for a description. This is it here, right? What we are talking about? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are talking about right there, yes. MR. PAGE: What we are trying to do is get up here in order to TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So here is MR. PAGE: This is on pilings. This is the driveway to get up here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And this is the proposed 12' contour, and the wall is matching with that. So MR. PAGE: And I think the 12' is wrong. I think it's less than that. It's around ten or something. You see the contour on that. Board of Trustees 26 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do we have 14 go to it and 16. MR. PAGE: That goes above the wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words the soils will slope down back into the wall. MR. PAGE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Will you have to bring in fill to raise the grade that much? There is nothing on the description that mentions fill being brought in. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's see if it's in the application. The amount of fill should be clearly stated in the application. That's a lot. TRUSTEE DOMINO: How much of the wall would be showing from the neighbor's property? MR. PAGE: None of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, 150 cubic yards. And the contour line is the ten to 12 foot going to the wall. Any other questions? Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no additional comments or questions or concerns, I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on our review in the field that this is essentially a resubmission of a prior expired permit, that we have gotten the understanding of the fill necessary, and that the retaining wall height of 12 feet is displayed on a plan by virtue of the contours connecting to it, I would move to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Did you say hay bales, too? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Excuse me, thank you. With the stipulation that the hay bale and silt fence line be built anew to protect the project site during construction, and that the applicant be particularly mindful of calling us ahead of time for the hay bale inspection of this job, because of it being a sensitive site and given the amount of construction and bringing of fill. Thank you, Charles. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Lagoon Association on behalf of PATRICIA A. BRENNAN PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, c/o PATRICIA & DONALD BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge the entrance channel from northerly bulkhead to center to a depth of 5 feet below mean low water; and place +/-600 cubic yards of dredged material Board of Trustees 27 January 22, 2014 on beach (N/W 375' of entry). Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. This is found consistent by the LWRP coordinator, and he's recommended to maintain the existing shoreline slope for the dredge material to be deposited, to promote the use of the shoreline area by shore birds and other shoreline-dependent species. The Conservation Advisory Council recommended to support the application as it was submitted. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. CARDINALE: Yes. Good evening. I'm Phil Cardinale, Cardinale & Cardinale, Main Road, Jamesport. I'm here with Dr. and Mrs. Josh Perry to object to this application on the basis that the authorization of the owner is invalid for the application. The lagoon association is the agent of the stated owner Mr. and Mrs. Brennan, and the underlying land that is, the dredging is sought on, is owned by Dr. and Mrs. Perry, and is acknowledged for decades as owned by Dr. and Mrs. Perry by this Board and by the town, including most recently a letter from the Town Attorney. We have not joined in the application and we object to it proceeding without via an agent who is unauthorized, since the owner has not authorized them. Dr. and Mrs. Perry are here. They are way too familiar with the facts and circumstances underlying this matter and I have become way too familiar over the last two years. Not only do we own this area that is being sought to be dredged, but the permission, our permission was sought and given on the last permit, before it was submitted. There was no such request nor such permission given in this one, for reasons that I could indicate but are really, well, they are not particularly surprising, because there is a dispute as to when this dredging occurs, if we were to permit it, that the existing bulkhead is going to, as it has begun to do, fall into the water. So we are discussing with them methods of safeguarding the bulkhead. But we are not consenting. We are the owners. We can establish ownership. I believe the Town attorney, Lori Hulse, will confirm that the town acknowledges us as the owners. We pay taxes on this property and we feel the hearing should be adjourned in order for you to ascertain from the Town attorney the history of this and the position of the town in regard to this. And if there are any questions on specifics, Dr. and Mrs. Perry are very happy to speak. And I would like to answer any questions that I can. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. There is a letter here, January 9th, we'll make sure it's in the record. It's in the file. Is there anyone else here to speak on this application? Yes, sir? MR. FLOTTERON: I'm Bill Flotteron, President of the Lagoon Board of Trustees 28 January 22, 2014 Association. Also a resident on the lagoon. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Lagoon Association, the body that represents 13 of the 14 families on the lagoon at Nassau Point. Since 1933 the Lagoon Association members have had an easement to dredge this inlet. I have a copy of a check from 1933 showing the original dredge payment by one of the current owners who have been there since 1933. We are requesting a permit to dredge the northern portion of the inlet, 15 feet to the center, which is owned by Pat Brennan, who will dredge five feet below mean low water and deposit the sand on the Brennan property. Mr. Perry claims that he owns the lagoon bottom or lagoon entrance and therefore feels he can put a stop to the 81 year relationship between the Lagoon Association and the Town of Southold. Contrary to Mr. Perry's claims, the tax maps do not determine ownership of lagoon bottom. Ownership is determined by deeds filed in Suffolk County, on tax map. I would like to present a deed from 1947 from the Hammer family, which formerly owned the Burrell-Perry property, to the Fyfe family, which is currently the Brennan property. Hammer deeded Fyfe a portion of the lagoon bottom from the midpoint at the entrance and surrounding his property and the deed was filed 25 years before Burrell or Perry owned the property. You are free to pull a copy from the Suffolk County records. The most important reason I'm here, actually, is there are several reasons why dredging the bottom of the lagoon should be supported by this Board, by the town and by the community. This is one of the few private lagoons out there. We are using private funds to do it. If the lagoon is not reopened through dredging it will become an environmental disaster. The salt marsh is a fragile environment and needs oxygen-rich water and tidal flow to maintain them. The loss of marine life would be devastating to the north fork. The lagoon would go from being a pristine marsh to a stinking cesspool as marine life is trapped inside and dies. It would take years to regenerate and recover from this damage. Dredging keeps the proper flow and flush of the lagoon, which is crucial to preserve the fish and wildlife balance which has existed since 1933. The lagoon is a springtime spawning ground for multiple species of marine life. There are only two salt marshes on Nassau Point on the west side. The lagoon and Wunneweta Pond. The closure of this lagoon would eliminate 50% of the salt marsh access for fish and wildlife needed to reproduce. Residents as well as non-residents have been using the lagoon for boating, kayaking power boating and swimming for years. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mr. Flotteron, I have a question. As Chairman of the Trustees I'm responsible for doing some of the file review in preparing for the meeting and I noted that we had a fairly old survey from VanTuyl that went back to the early Board of Trustees 29 January 22, 2014 '90's in the file. And I also noted that the identification of the Suffolk County tax map, the Suffolk County tax map number for which you are proposing to dredge is not the same Suffolk County tax map designation for the bottom of the entrance to Wunneweta Pond. I'm wondering if you are prepared to discuss the discrepancy between what you are proposing to do and what the tax map series has, particularly as the application as submitted, which seems to be only an application that dealt with the dredge spoil area because that is the Suffolk County tax map number of the Brennan personal residence entrusted to Donald and Patricia Brennan is in fact where the dredge spoil is proposed, but the tax map number is different from the Wunneweta Pond bottom. And, you know, what are your thoughts with respect to maybe a more recent survey that would describe, which would be drawn by a licensed surveyor, would show the meets and bounds of both your property and then of course it would tend to describe the property at the bottom of the lagoon by virtue of the activities are actually proposed on lands for which you have ownership. MR. FLOTTERON: For starters, you mentioned the tax map. Unfortunately I can't undo what the tax map states, but a real estate attorney, the courts, would find that a filed deed would take precedence over the tax maps in the County of Suffolk, and I have that here with me today, which I'll show to you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have copies to submit? MR. FLOTTERON: This is for you. In addition, I also have the check that I mentioned, which is for historic purposes as well. There was also a discussion which I can share this as well, about damage and dock and so on. We have not gone past the middle for years because of complaints, harassment, et cetera. This bears out that there is actually real estate or land, sand in front of it. You can see the depths and where the cuts are. The dredging takes place and has taken place for 20 years on the Brennan property. Whether backhoe or if we used hydraulic. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Taken place on or from? MR. FLOTTERON: From the property, into the lagoon, or from a dredge, and the spoils in all cases have been left on the Brennan property. Never on the Burrell property, for the past 20 years. Before that, I can't speak. I had filed actually the permit back in 1992. From the standpoint of your question of ownership, I contend what I'm handing you there, that was done off the VanTuyl records, in 1947, half of that entrance to the lagoon was sold to the current owners, which is now Brennan. I'm not sure where or why the tax map does not match the county records, but it doesn't. And I don't want to argue that. I'm looking to get a permit to continue to dredge to keep this lagoon open so it doesn't smell and stink and trap and have all Board of Trustees 30 January 22, 2014 animals and deer and everything else all about. I also don't see any permits from the Burrell family as well to this. They haven't in the 20 years that I have been there. And we are looking to keep the channel open. We believe that we have ownership to the midpoint, we are staying off their property, and that's where we stand. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a current DEC dredge permit now? MR. FLOTTERON: Yes. It was in the file. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see it. (Perusing). MR. FLOTTERON: The DEC has supported the dredging of the entire lagoon, not just half the entrance. And excuse me, I misstated, they are supporting the entire entrance, the full 30 feet. I also stand here before you confused why somebody would not want to keep the lagoon open. TRUSTEE KING: You would not happen to have a copy of the plans from the DEC, would you? MR. FLOTTERON: Yes, I do. I handed them to John. They are stamped also. Right here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is the approved DEC plan? MR. FLOTTERON: Yes. They are stamped on the bottom right-hand corner. If not, I can get you another copy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a dredge window? MR. FLOTTERON: At this point there is. Our hope is to get initially the permission to dredge. From there, the ten-year permit, and from there if we can get an extension, that would be wonderful. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a DEC limiting window, if granted, would have to conduct operations by a certain time because fish and wildlife concerns, typically they close dredge windows at this time of year to protect winter flounder spawning and that sort of thing. MR. FLOTTERON: Historically we had a dredge permit through April 30th. I can't answer for you what it is currently. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The project plan is not a licensed surrey. And we don't have a current survey. So if, to provide a licensed survey that is a recent survey as a requirement of an application process for the wetlands code, and accordingly, with the additional information you provided, a licensed land survey, a current one, of the Brennan property, with an overlay of the hydrographic survey so that the Board could see the Brennan property as a current survey would show in relation to the hydrographic data, and that along with other documents submitted might provide clarification to the Board with respect to the operations that you propose. MR. FLOTTERON: Are you questioning or asking that TRUSTEE KING: I found what you gave me, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not questioning. I'm stating the fact that the Board needs accurate information upon which to make Board of Trustees 31 January 22, 2014 decisions, and the town wetland ordinance is specific in requiring a recent licensed survey of the property for the proposed activity as an application requirement. It's simply it's a code requirement. MR. FLOTTERON: There is a copy of the plans that were delivered to you in the first week of January. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, but a plan does not constitute a licensed land survey. A licensed land survey is drawn by an individual who is licensed by the State of New York as a licensed land surveyor and they usually, you know, describe the survey as to the ownership, possibly title insurance, and such matters. I think under the circumstances, the project plan, which is a hydrographic survey which is by a licensed design professional, while it may accurately comport the depth in the vicinity of your proposed activity, it exists in isolation where that is in relation to a licensed land survey, either done as an overlay or done in the same scale so that the Board can make a determination based on the meets and bounds from the licensed survey against what you have, and then if it clearly shows that the activity you are proposing is within the bounds of the Brennan property, I think that would be self-evident from the licensed land survey that you could deliver to the Board. TRUSTEE SANDERS: When was the last time it was dredged? MR. FLOTTERON: Last year. March-April. It's been dredged almost every year for the past 20 years. And winter basically northwesterlies fill it in and the natural sand that builds up on the inside. TRUSTEE KING: I notice the DEC puts some language in their permit also. MR. FLOTTERON: We are fine with that language. TRUSTEE KING: You are responsible for any other permits, approvals, easements or rights of way. This permit doesn't authorize you to go ahead and do the work. MR. FLOTTERON: We are having a discussion this evening of the ownership of the bottom, which is my frustration with this whole process. MS. HULSE: But it's necessary MR. FLOTTERON: I'm not questioning it's occurring, I'm questioning the DEC, I hope, in their wisdom saw past this and said in their wisdom we see the need for the action and if there is a need of ownership, that should be kept outside this area. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Beside your worry of ownership, what is your primary reason for not wanting them to dredge, if I may ask. MR. CARDINALE: I indicated earlier, I'll mention one or two things, then I'll let Dr. Perry speak. A primary reason, the dredge that was last done, then maintained for ten years, was with our permission and with the Lagoon Association as our Board of Trustees 32 January 22, 2014 agent. We would like this to be dredged. The problem is that even the maintenance dredging has caused damage to our bulkhead, and further dredging will cause more. And we are asking, we are willing to participate in the dredge. We are willing to participate in the bulkhead repair, but we want to be sure if the dredging occurs, it does not result in the bulkhead being at the bottom of the inlet. I believe that, from everything I've known about this over two years listening to this, listening to Dr. Perry, this is not a situation in which we are disputing who owns the bottom land and the area that is to dredged. And if you do get a survey, I think you'll find that that deed does not reflect the land that is sought to be dredged. The deed is a deed. We have deeds, too. But the deed that we have is to the land they are seeking to dredge. And that deed is not it. So I think a survey is a wonderful idea and we support it because that will clarify that issue. The DEC I'll let Dr. Perry speak to that we spoke with the DEC and asked them about the permit they issued and maybe you can begin with that, what they indicated. DR. PERRY: First, as you said, they did indeed issue a permit, and on the cover letter to the Lagoon Association, they clearly say that we wish to emphasize items A, C and D. Item D notifies all recipients of DEC permits that the issuance of this permit is not a tacit approval of any represented rights or interest in real property. Now, when I called Roger Evans last week and said to him how could you possibly issue this without ownership rights, his response was a basic we don't want to get involved with the legal ramifications. We approved the project from an environment standpoint. We see nothing wrong with the dredge from an environmental standpoint. You guys have to fight it out as to ownership. That was his response. And I let it go at that. And I think it's clear from his cover letter that he's under the impression that you better make damn sure you have ownership before you start to do the dredge. That is number one. TRUSTEE KING: That's why I mentioned that. It's in the file. DR. PERRY: Right. And that was his point. Basically he said we don't want to be involved in your legal activities. We'll issue the permit. That doesn't give you the right to proceed. That's number one. Number two, if I could ask, the deed that was submitted from Hammer to Fyfe, is that liber 2822, page 303? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 2822, page 303. DR. PERRY: Here is the same deed. Two copies. Here is the map, the survey, that goes with this deed. The area in question of what is to be dredged is only the channel between the two bulkheads. That is what is asking permission by this permit to be dredged. Nothing interior of that lagoon. If one reads what Board of Trustees 33 January 22, 2014 1 have highlighted in green, I think it's worth it to take a minute and let's look at it. And it says that there is four courses to go through the lagoon, that supposedly Hammer sold to Fyfe in 1947. Whether this occurred, I don't know. Whether it was sold back to Hammer at some point, I don't know. Whether it was sold by Fyfe to somebody else other than Hammer, I don't know. And no one else that I'm aware of has any other deeds. But let's assume for a second that this deed is accurate, okay, assume this is correct. If you start at lot 112, if you look at 112 and you start, it says it goes four courses through the lagoon. It goes south 68 degrees, 40 minutes, 100 feet. That is the first leg of the four courses, correct? Then it goes 38 degrees, 30 minutes, 230 feet. That's the second course. Then it goes, course three, south 48 degrees, 40 minutes, 425 feet. This is the key leg of the survey. The 425 feet stops at the entrance to the piece of property that is in question. Okay? It does not proceed to the midpoint of the channel, as Mr. Flotteron claims. It stops at from within the lagoon coming out is where that stops. Then the last piece is, it takes a 90 degree turn, 15 feet to the bulkhead, and then it follows the shoreline back to the beginning, okay? So his deed, which he presents as definitive proof of ownership by granted is false, even by his own standards. He obviously has not done the research and has not put the time in to know that what he is saying is not accurate. It's clearly false, okay? The final thing is if you look at Brennan's deed, which is part, I have a couple copies for you as well, Brennan submitted four deeds. The first one and three revisions. This is the last of the revisions of his deed, and the other three copies with the letter that I sent to Mr. Bredemeyer back on January 9th. If you read, and on the back of the last page is a current survey from 1994, which is the most recent survey I could find of Brennan. And if you read number 12, which is highlighted in green, it says that it goes south 27 degrees, 32 minutes, ten seconds; 359 feet to the northwesterly side of the dredge canal. Not to the middle of the canal. To the northwesterly side of the canal. Then it proceeds another 65 feet until it meets the high water mark of Peconic Bay. So even by their fourth revision, they still have not shown ownership of the particular piece of property in question. Finally, there is a long history with this Board, with the assessor's office, with the Town attorney, of ownership. This has been going to for numerous years. The property was, they tried to remove the property from my ownership via Andros Patent a couple of years ago and we fought that and the town at that time, in 2011, conceded that we had ownership of the bottom of the lagoon. Personally, I'm quite tired of being here defending my Board of Trustees 34 January 22, 2014 rights, my property rights. I pay taxes on this. I maintain it. And I'm constantly being challenged with this type of argument which has no basis in fact. And I think that, I'm hoping, that this particular meeting will trigger something that these applications will just not be accepted and will be rejected upon submission, so we don't have to waste your time and my time and my attorney's time arguing about the same thing for the last 40 years. Which is if you look at my title policy and my predecessor's title policy, it clearly shows ownership of the bottom of the lagoon, from 1974 to the present. So I'm prepared to answer any other questions or any questions that anybody has. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I would like to move this along. I think that the presentation has been fairly lengthy but fairly detailed and I think the Board can appreciate that. Are there any additional comments? MR. FLOTTERON: Just one. The 1947 deed takes precedence over any further ownership. There was no sale, there could never have been a sale. If Fyfe had purchased the land up to the midpoint of the lagoon. The deed he's referring to, Brennan's property, most surveyors have not been surveying for the last 30 years. The underground areas, not just our lagoon, but all lagoons in Southold. You have a land survey. You don't have anything dealing with the 1947 ownership. It's, as far as they would DR. PERRY: There is no basis in fact to what is being said. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Address your comments to the chair, one at a time. Finish up, please, sir. MR. FLOTTERON: All I'm stating is that the 1947 deed, half the lagoon was sold. It's in the Fyfe chain of ownership, which is now the Brennan chain of ownership. That's why I presented to you today a copy of the 1947 deed. DR. PERRY: And once again, by his own deed, that he's presenting, clearly does not show ownership of the channel. That is the point. It only shows ownership up until the exit point from the lagoon to the bay. So you can argue all you want. The fact of the matter is the meets and bounds of the survey done in 1947, which go with that deed, don't support your position. End of story. You can try to persuade, that is not true. MR. CORAZZINI: If I can make one comment. Rich Corazzini. I also live in the Lagoon Association. One question I have, I didn't quite get the answer. You do want to dredge MS. HULSE: Sir, the comments have to be addressed to the Chair. MR. CORAZZINI: They don't want us to dredge but they do want us to dredge? I didn't get that part of it. They are for the dredging, but with their permission? MS. HULSE: Mr. Perry, would you consent to any dredging on any portion of the mouth of the lagoon? DR. PERRY: This is not about dredging, this is about Board of Trustees 35 January 22, 2014 MS. HULSE: I'm asking you the question, would you consent under certain circumstances to any dredging? DR. PERRY: The answer to the question is too multi-layered. It's not a yes or no answer. The point of fact is there is a presentation today in front of this Board challenging my ownership. I'm here today to defend the ownership of my property, okay? As have I been for the last five years. That's what this is about. Our family has always been in favor of dredging. Not at the expense and the damages to my property that are now resulting because of a failing bulkhead and a dredge that every time they dredge, I get washout and I have tremendous craters on my side of the channel, which to me pose a hazard to the people who are potentially walking the beach. That's my liability and I don't want to personally assume that liability. Do I want this to fill in, absolutely not. It's in nobody's interest for this to fill in. But by the same token, the Lagoon Association's position has been your bulkhead, you pay for it. My position has been, as you well know, that everybody benefits from that bulkhead being there. And back in 1985, when that bulkhead was built, everybody on the lagoon contributed to the cost of that bulkhead except for Mr. Sturdy, who is the only person that is aware of the detailed history, because everybody else has come later on. Okay, and he was actually sued by the lagoon association for not contributing to the cost of the bulkhead. So there has been a precedence of recognizing that that bulkhead is valuable and is required to keep the channel open. Unfortunately, my opponents have taken the position that it's your problem, you pay for it. And therein lies the rub of the answer to your question, which is not a yes no answer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take maybe one more comment, unless there is another individual who is here or a Board member wants to speak. I'm going to suggest that Trustee King close the hearing and conduct action in this matter. Anyone else? MR. FLOTTERON: Mr. Sturdy actually won in supreme court, which was not mentioned, against the Lagoon Association. The hole that he is referring to, and I have a picture. You have a picture of a survey of what has been dredged since then. And the surveyor actually came to us and asked how can you only dredge to the middle. We have not dredged his side for years. We had Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Irene and an eight-foot surge, and 90% of the bulkhead for two miles wiped out on the east side. Numerous buildings on the west side including the point and a couple of houses in, buildings fall. This is normal damage. He's talking about a fist-sized hole. I actually have a picture of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think this is material to the matter at hand. I'm going to leave with former president King to move on the matter. I don't think this is appropriate. MR. FLOTTERON: Thank you. Board of Trustees 36 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: I take it there is no way you folks can sit down and work out something? DR. PERRY: I have only been trying for the last six or seven years, since I paid for the last repair. It doesn't appear the answer is yes. MR. CORAZZINI: I guess as residents we don't understand why we maintain our properties and he doesn't maintain his. Nobody went and asked him MS. HULSE: Before the Trustees is really simply the issue of can there be a dredging that takes place. That's it. That's what they are considering. If there is, that's great, then the Board will consider it. If not MR. CARDINALE: One final comment. To make life simple, because I sat on a town board for a long time and I know it's helpful to make it simple. From a legal perspective, we are contending that you ask for, when the agent Lagoon Association to serve on behalf of the owner of the land in question. We maintain if you get a survey or you insist the applicant get a survey, you will find they don't own the land in question and that would resolve this matter. And that would be it. But I thank you for your time. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). (Off the record). TRUSTEE KING: I'll rescind that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are rescinding the motion. We'll rescind the motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I guess that's the general feeling of the Board, we would like to see a current survey of this property, and we'll table this until we receive one. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. You are tabling it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Subject to a survey by a licensed surveyor with an overlay or a meeting up with the hydrographic survey so the hydrographic detailing is shown as an overlay to that or as a continuation to that survey. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Lehnert Construction on behalf of NASSAU POINT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 17'6" vinyl bulkhead connected to adjacent properties; and for the as-built 4' wide x 6' long beach access stairs. Located: End of Bayview Road off Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Board of Trustees 37 January 22, 2014 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency lies in the fact it was constructed without a wetland permit. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application on December 4th. The Trustees in their site visitation found this to be straightforward. No problems. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Lehnert Construction on behalf of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I just have two letters I received late this afternoon in support of this from adjoining property owners. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Duly noted. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MR. LEHNERT: It's a pretty straightforward application. It's just a bulkhead connecting two existing bulkheads due to Superstorm Sandy damage. MR. WACKER: Tom Wacker. My family has owned the property next to it for 45 years or so. Our property is rather low lying and it routinely is a throughway, routinely floods our property. And also during, I just wanted to speak to the environment impact of this bulkhead. In heavy rains, storm water runs, floods through there and it serves to basically drain Nassau Point Road, which is not in especially good thing. If you look at the throughway a quarter mile to the south of that, the old Menhaden throughway, there is in fact a drain culvert. I have a picture of that I want to hand you. And so it seems to me this serves three good purposes. It maintains public access, it shuts off the storm water runoff and it stops flooding my property. We don't use any fertilizers on our property but future owners may. You know, with the tides crushing onto our property and rushing out, it's not entirety a good thing for the bay. That's my thoughts. TRUSTEE KING: We need to see something on the survey that shows where it is. If I remember right, there is another return here. Just a point of clarification, this does not join two bulkheads. It's landward. It looks like it's up on the end of a return. Am I right or am I wrong? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Because by code no new bulkheads are allowed. So in my mind, this is at the landward end of a return. So we should see survey with that indicated on it. Where the actual location of that is, is more of a retaining wall than it is a bulkhead. Just to clear things up a little bit. MR. MONAGHAN: Good evening, my name is Kenneth Monaghan, I reside at and own 2715 Nassau Point Road for the last 32 years. I'm here to speak on behalf of some of the neighbors who are very upset about what is going on. We have provided a letter to each one of the Trustees, which I apologize if you have gotten late, but there is a copy with pictures in there for you in color. And there is nothing straightforward about this. We are Board of Trustees 38 January 22, 2014 here because of a mistake or error on the part Nassau Point Property Owners Association, and we object to the construction of the bulkhead and we would like to see it removed. We are sympathetic with the Wacker's issue regarding flooding but this is detrimental to the enjoying of our property, which we have enjoyed for a number of years. I should mention the letter is signed by three of the property owners; two, in addition to myself, who were the ones that were notified about the meeting. That includes the Goldmans, Shannon and Deb, who are with us this evening, and the Carsons, who were not able to be here this evening. I should mention when Sandy hit in 2012, like everyone, we were faced with damage to our property. There was however no damage at all done to this right-of-way. It has been in its natural condition for many, many years. As I said, I have been there over 30. There was no existing bulkheads. The right-of-way had natural soft-scaping with pebbles and sea grass and sand that absorbed and dissipated the force of the storm. Yes, there was water that covered it at one point, you can see that in the pictures. And when the water receded there was lots of flotsam and debris that was left behind. However there was no disturbance of the right-of-way itself. There was no scouring. And since there was no bulkhead there, there was no structure to replace or repair. Shortly after the cleanup from Sandy, we were shocked to discover that a bulkhead had been built across the right-of-way. We subsequently learned that the Wackers had contacted the Nassau Point Property Owners Association, which owns the right-of-way and I should mention we are all, each of the neighbors are active in supporting and dues-paying members of that organization. And they were given the verbal authority to extend the bulkhead. Now, the reason they were given verbal authority is that the individual who was contacted, who is an executive member of the board of the property owners association was of the belief that there was already a bulkhead there. He thought what the Wackers were doing was offering to replace a pre-existing structure. Not put a new one in place. So here you had a mistake and the Wackers didn't, or their representatives, didn't disabuse them of that notion. And that is what has happened. Now, as the neighbors who use that right-of-way, we were stunned. None of us had been informed. No notice was given. No calls were made by the neighbors, either before or frankly even subsequent to this, which is from our perspective just absolutely appalling; nor by the property owners association itself. It was only when we investigated at the end of the summer with the assistance of your office that we discovered that a work permit the work had proceeded without a permit. In fact the permit that the Wackers had received for the Board of Trustees 39 January 22, 2014 work on their property only entitled them to return the property, and I'm using the quotation from the permit, "to pre-storm condition." Rather than doing anything else. So the work that was done across the right-of-way itself was not any part of the permit, which is why now the Nassau Point Property Owners Association have had to submit a subsequent request. If the Wackers and the property owners association had sought a permit at that time, we would have been notified and given an opportunity to voice our objections before any work had started. In fact, the president, in a phone call I've had with him over the last several months, of the property owners association, had told us that they certainly would have reached out to us and asked our views before building a bulkhead if he had known that one didn't exist. And if we objected, they would not have proceeded. Because there was no damage that was done to that property. I might mention as well that it's the neighbors that have maintained that property, at least for the 31 years I been there. Not the property owners association. I don't begrudge them that. We have gotten full and fair use of it, and it has been very enjoyable to use, and the property owners association doesn't have two nickels to rub together. But the property has been maintained by us, whether it's mowing the lawn or clearing up all the debris that was left in the storm's wake. Now, from our perspective, the problem is a bulkhead is now in place and we want it removed and the right-of-way returned to its previous condition. And as I mentioned, the property owners association doesn't have the money to spend for it, so we actually recently offered to them to provide funding to help take care of the removal of the bulkhead. It's not a large expense. Something would have to be done on a return on the Wacker's property. They obviously didn't incur the expense of building a 24' right-of-way return, which is what is on the other side, the Palmieri side, as a result of just bridging the gap between the two bulkheads. Now, allowing residents to bypass the permitting process and build what they please, with no consideration to the rights and views of their neighbors, and then allowing them to ask for forgiveness once caught, is a practice that has to be stopped. Sandy is not the first storm that hit this beach. I at least observed three other storms of major proportion in the time period I have been there and in each one of those storms there has never been significant damage done. There is debris left behind but the thought there has been scouring or the right-of-way in some way had been damaged is inaccurate. It's maintained itself very well. And that has not been an issue. Now the bulkhead, if it's not removed, will have to be maintained. And we all know what happens to bulkheads Board of Trustees 40 January 22, 2014 eventually. And the bulkhead is at a height where stairs need to be used. In order to placate or compromise, the property owners association also offered to put in a ramp. And we know those will have to be eventually replaced on a periodic basis as well. We have talked to different people about what the appropriate course of action would be. I talked to some people I know who are dock builders. They told us the cost, as I said, of removing it, is small. So we implore you at this point to deny the permit and mandate that the bulkhead be removed. This is not only reducing our enjoyment of property that we have long enjoyed, it is destroying a natural right-of-way which existed before. It doesn't solve necessarily the problems the Wackers have. If you actually look at the video that was taken during the storm, the problem they have is they are in a low lying area that is right on the bulkhead line. And if the tide had been even slightly higher or the winds a bit more fierce, the house would have been wiped away. So I'm sympathetic to their plight, but that's a problem of placement of the house rather than the right-of-way itself. If the bulkhead stays in place, we are effectively as neighbors, because we have a poor property owners association, are being taxed. We have an ongoing financial obligation. We'll have to replace the bulkhead eventually when it breaks, and it will; we are going to have to replace the stairs when they periodically disappear, which they will; and if a ramp is to be built as well, we will be the ones responsible for its replacement. And from our perspective, that is quite disturbing, not only financially, but we will be assuming a financial obligation for something that we have vehemently opposed from the getgo. As I said again, this all occurred because of error on the part of the property owners association. Mistakes exist and happen. We are all active members of the board. Sometimes things happen that you wish didn't and you have to go back and rectify it. That's what we are asking for at this point. We are going to ask not only for you to deny the permit but for the property owners association to rectify the situation. And we are willing to assume some of the financial obligation of fixing the issue by putting forward money to help them remove the bulkhead. Thank you. Before I forget, I should complement you on your staff as well, since I have been in constant conversation with since late August, early September, and they have been very professional and helpful. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just a quick question. Had you, amongst those of you who are so vehemently opposed to this structure, have you considered or discussed any alternatives that might better meet what you all think is appropriate? Because Board of Trustees 41 January 22, 2014 obviously we have issues with increasing frequency of strength of storms and such, are there other issues that you feel should be addressed with respect to the types of access, whether it be handicap access steps or other issues where there might be a commonality where the association members can go back and work on something cooperatively? MR. MONAGHAN: Look, the association and Rob is not only here to represent the association, Rob is also a member of the executive board, and he is in charge of right-of-ways for the board. And he can speak probably not only as a board member but as a resident very clearly about the problem the board has in terms of finances. His family residence abuts another right-of-way, and they have had to replace TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not really what we are about. Okay, thank you. MR. MONAGHAN: If the answer is what else could be done, if a culvert needs to be put there in order to take care of the runoff, are we willing to put up some funding to take care of that? Sure. The runoff situation is not solved necessarily by having a bulkhead there at the end of the property. In regards to handicap access, there is handicap access on the beach right now for the beach at the beginning of the causeway. And there is ramps there for that purpose. The problem we have is not only is the appearance of the bulkhead and one of my neighbors has referred to it looking like a marina at the moment but the problem as well is access. Some of us have small children. My children are grown up by now. I have been there a long time. I'm hoping to spend time there with grandchildren eventually. The bulkhead is over five feet high. All this period of time we have been able to move up and down the bulkhead, without a bulkhead there, and take boats in and out of the water. People swim. That has really now been seriously compromised because of what has been done. MR. WACKER: May I address some of these accusations? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think at this point, the issues have been addressed are very clear. MR. WACKER: There are many inaccuracies, though. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, if you make your comments brief, we'll entertain them. MR. WACKER: Sure. Well, first off, I very much resent the suggestion that we in any way hoodwinked the property owners association, and I think Rob can attest that they were well aware of the condition of the right-of-way before it was suggested that we bulkhead it. And secondly, it's about the only two spots on the entire east side of Nassau Point that are not bulkheaded. And, um, thirdly, the only thing that way it inhibits his use of the beach is in bringing boats down there, which actually is not permitted under the Nassau Point Property Board of Trustees 42 January 22, 2014 Owners charter; bringing in a boat launch. It is not supposed to be used as a boat launch. That's my points. MR. MONAGHAN: If I may quickly comment. I've never used the ramp, that situation, as a boat launch. Ever. But walking down there with a kayak or sunfish is another point. And as to the point as to whether or not the board knew of the condition, I can tell you categorically, that the president of the board told me he was unaware that there was not a bulkhead there. Which is the only reason he approved it. (Inaudible verbal interaction between opposing parties). MR. MONAGHAN: And our key point is this is only up for approval because it's in place. And it's only in place because they didn't go through the process. And if they had gone through the process it would never have been approved. MR. LEHNERT: As you guys know, the east side of Nassau Point, I mean most of the bulkheads got wiped out in Sandy. I have been here, lots of other homeowners have been here. Bulkheads repairs, bulkhead replacements. Some new work that has gone above and beyond what was originally there for years and years. This would be the last lot on Nassau Point that is not armored for a storm. As the owner of the property, the property owners association, their feeling is they need protect their property from the next storm. They are the last one that doesn't have anything. The next storm will just come and scour out that right-of-way, scour out that access road. And you are talking 20, 30 feet back after the next storm when the wave action comes in there. We are doing nothing that anyone else along the east side of the point has not done to protect their property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. MR. MONAGHAN: If I may say something in closing. As I said, I have been over there, I have been across the street over 31 years. This is not the first storm, there has never been scouring when I have been there that has been significant. This is not the cause of any damage. The property the way it is set, if you look at the pictures that we provided, and if you want more pictures, we can provide them. It absorbed the force of the storm. That's what it is it supposed to do. The pebbles are there and the grasses are there, dissipated the force of the storm, and the right-of-way was in fine condition. All it needed to do was to be cleaned up. No one had to put any fill in or anything else. TRUSTEE KING: Mr. Lehnert, you represent the Nassau Property Owners Association? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: And you are in favor of this? MR. LEHNERT: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I would rather call this a retaining wall. Because the definition of a bulkhead, a bulkhead separates the water Board of Trustees 43 January 22, 2014 from the land. A retaining wall prevents erosion. If I remember right, you put a return there on both sides and that bulkhead was built across the landward end of those two returns. It's not joining two bulkheads on the face. MR. LEHNERT: Right. MR. WACKER: My bulkhead runs on a diagonal up there. It's difficult to join it right at the front. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a prohibition against joining at the front. TRUSTEE KING: There is a prohibition in the code against new bulkheads. Get it? MR. WACKER: Okay. MS. HULSE: The code doesn't allow for new bulkheads. So if this is truly a bulkhead, the Board is obligated to deny it. So if it doesn't function as a bulkhead and doesn't meet the definition of a bulkhead in the code, then I would call it more of a retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: It's technically a retaining wall. A retaining wall stops erosion, usually in a beach area. It's usually landward of a bulkhead. MR. LEHNERT: Yes. Correct. MS. HULSE: The Board needs to find there is substantial erosion if they are going to construct a bulkhead or reconstruct a bulkhead. But not for a retaining wall. MR. MONAGHAN: But there is no erosion here in advance. The only place where there is any erosion is on the Wacker property. There was no erosion, there was no damage done to the right-of-way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I'll move that we close this hearing. And are there any other questions or concerns from the Board? (No response). I think we heard the various discussion and interest concerns from all parties. (No response). Hearing no additional questions or concerns, I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the Board, in conducting its monthly field inspection and reviewing the project application, has deemed this structure is in fact a retaining wall. It is not by definition a bulkhead under the terms of the town wetland code; and whereas the Nassau Point Property Owners Association is the legal owner of the property and is entitled to make a request of a permit before this Board, I think it's appropriate that we Board of Trustees 44 January 22, 2014 move forward and I move to approve this application accordingly. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I have to recuse myself. I didn't see this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. Vote of the Board? (Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Sanders, abstained). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let the record note that Trustee Sanders was unable to make that inspection, so the vote is three ayes and one abstention. MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven under Wetland Permits, Geoffrey Freeman, Architect on behalf of CHARLOTTE RAIBLE & WAYNE WEISS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 2-car garage addition connecting the two existing dwellings; raising portions of the roof to enlarge loft area; construct an 18'x35' addition to dwelling on southerly side; re-construct and expand existing second-story deck; construct an approximate 2,274 sq.ft. in-ground pool with paver patio with fire pit area; install 4' high pool fencing; the installation of drywells and a pool backwash drywell; and a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to and during construction. Located: 625 East Side Avenue, Mattituck. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF JANUARY 6,2014: To construct a 2-car garage addition connecting the two existing dwellings in conjunction with a 35'x11' upper addition (1 floors total 1,050 sq.ft.) in the area between the existing structures; raising portions of the existing roof to enlarge loft area; adding a 6'x12'deck off of loft; construct an 23'x22' addition (2 floors total 1,040 sq.ft.) to dwelling on southerly side; re-construct and expand existing second-story +1-535 sq.ft. deck; construct an approximate 18,x35' in-ground pool with paver patio with fire pit area for a total of 2,274 sq.ft.; install 4' high pool fencing; the installation of drywells and a pool backwash drywell; and a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to and during construction; install an 8' long retaining wall on southerly side of dwelling and a 35' long retaining wall on east side of dwelling; establish a 25' wide Non-Disturbance Buffer along the landward edge of wetlands with a 25' wide Non-Turf Buffer landward of the Non-Disturbance Buffer and re-vegetate cleared areas with 3 Almelanchier Canadensis (Serviceberry) trees, 10 Junipernus Virginiana (Eastern Red Cedar) trees, 7 Viburnum Prunifoliu (Blackhaw Viburnum) trees, 3 Myrica (Morelia) Pennsylvania (Northern Bayberry) shrubs, 5 Rosa Virginiana (Virginia Rose) Baccharis shrubs, 10 (Groundsel Bushes) shrubs, and 19 Andropogon Gerardii (Big Bluestem) perennials; and maintain a 4' wide path to marsh. Board of Trustees 45 January 22, 2014 The Board has been to this site numerous times. We have a revised project description that we used in performing the monthly field inspection. We reviewed a proposed planting plan for the project. The application has been deemed to be consistent by LWRP coordinator, but he did make specific comments and had concerns concerning the application; the first being that he suggested that the Board may wish to consider an as-built plan once the plants are planted in the proposed restoration, and that the Board consider a guaranteed survival for a period of three years, which in fact is a discussion the Board had during the course of field inspections. And he did note, and I had seen the plan list, and it's interesting, because I had some similar thoughts, he noted specifically that the Blackhaw Viburnum will not serve the applicant well, or the wetlands, since on the US plant database, it has a zero salt tolerance. So it might be foolhardy to try to grow that species there because it would simply succumb to possibly salt Trustee King is very familiar with the conditions there, and probably salt spray comes from the Long Island Sound, I don't know if it's an issue, but anyhow, I'm sure we can deal with not having Blackhaw Viburnum and not holding it out for its survival and finding it would die. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the extremely sensitive area in zone ten line seaward to the wetland line is managed appropriately using best management practices. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore here on behalf of Charlotte Raible and Wayne Weiss. And Jeffrey Friedman is here as well. I noted the recommendation regarding the Blackhaw Viburnum. What I would suggest as a notation you can say alternative salt-tolerant plants in lieu of that. I think it really depends on what is available at the time. But that could be chosen when we know what is available. TRUSTEE KING: If you are talking trees, I would suggest wild cherry or scrub oak. Either one of those would survive there. MS. MOORE: Okay, thank you. Those are two alternatives. TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact I think there were some cherries there before they were cut down. MS. MOORE: Maybe either/or, or a combination of the two, If that's all right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MS. MOORE: We did have, based on our field inspection, you asked for additional plants along the edge of wetlands. That was done. So we have the revised plan. It's essentially the same plan, however there is significant addition of the Groundsel bushes that the Board recommended. I also, before I got to the field Board of Trustees 46 January 22, 2014 inspection, my understanding is you had suggested some mulch for maintenance of the plants, and it didn't get on to the plans themselves, but we wanted to make sure mulch is permissible because I had, in the past 20 years or so, sometimes if you don't say you are going to put mulch, then somebody makes you take it out because it's not there, so. TRUSTEE KING: I thought that was more of a suggestion to stop erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was more of a suggestion. Maybe hay bales with a silt fence put up in fairly, you know, short order of time from now, just to prevent. We were concerned about, you know, even before the construction takes place, actively, that, you know, winter and spring rains would be discharging into the wetland. But I think a silt fence and hay bale barrier, if we did it at the ten-foot contour. MS. MOORE: It's not on this plan. It's on the construction plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's on the construction plan, okay. That if we could request that, maybe the comments of the LWRP coordinator, that we consider a survivability inspection for plant survival two or three years out, particularly since I think the comments of your landscape professional that there is a lot of material will start to grow back naturally, would be something the Board may wish to consider. And I know MS. MOORE: How will we deal with the plants that come back naturally that will strangle the ones that are being planted. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think that will happen, Pat. MS. MOORE: You don't think so? TRUSTEE KING: No. MS. MOORE: Okay, we'll see. TRUSTEE KING: You said ten foot. That really doesn't give them enough room. MS. MOORE: Well, nine foot and then the berm. Because the berm is a natural barrier. TRUSTEE KING: I would say along the nine-foot contour. That gives you more working room around the house. MS. MOORE: Thank you, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. TRUSTEE KING: The way that berm is by the fire pit, it would not really be necessary. MS. MOORE: No, exactly. So to the berm, kind of creating a seal. That's fine. That makes sense. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, are there any other questions or concerns? TRUSTEE KING: This was a violation, right? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Has it been satisfied? MS. HULSE: Pretty much, almost before it was issued. Board of Trustees 47 January 22, 2014 MS. MOORE: They have been very cooperative from the beginning. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other questions or concerns from the Trustees? TRUSTEE KING: I have just a comment. I'm very familiar with the area around here on Mattituck Creek. And if you go across, there used to be a marina across the creek, the Petersons, which is now a state facility. What I'm trying to get at is when you clear for a view, the view works both ways. That house, you can only see the very upper portion of it, none of the yard and just the top part of the garage across the creek from Petersons. Now you see exactly that. So it cuts both ways. Now you've lost some of your privacy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And you are looking at TRUSTEE KING: Right. I mean the marsh out in front is beautiful. Like a say, it's a loss of privacy when you open it up. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good point. Okay, hearing no further concerns, I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I would make a motion to approve this application with the revised plan submitted this evening with the addition of Baccharus, with stipulation a hay bale and silt fence be installed within 30 days and be inspected, and that the wetland planting be stipulated that the restoration and revegetation take place by June 30th, and that an additional inspection be put in the Trustee tickler files to be conducted in let's make it in two years when the permit is running. So that would be in the Spring of 2016. That's my motion to approve. Three additional inspections to be made: A hay bale inspection, a planting inspection prior to June of 2014, and a Spring inspection before June of 2016. So that would be three inspections, One now, one for plants and one for plant survivability. MS. HULSE: Is that a motion, John? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that is my motion. There is no second on the motion. Is there discussion on the motion? TRUSTEE KING: The planting to be accomplished by June 30th? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To be accomplished by June 30th of this year and inspected. MS. MOORE: Just a practical question. MS. HULSE: One second, Pat. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The motion is seconded. Discussion on the motion? MS. MOORE: Just a practical question. Hay bales, weather permitting? Because I don't know, as far as snow. Board of Trustees 48 January 22, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Prior to construction. MS. MOORE: Because we still need a building permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 30 days is not enough? MS. MOORE: I don't know what the weather will do. We have frozen ground. How do we stake them? Can you stake in the winter? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can. Even if they are temporarily placed, the silt fence can be folded under and wait MS. MOORE: So we can do some kind of interim I'm sure we can do interim within 30 days. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not part of the hearing. I think hay bales and silt fence within 30 days. And a Board member will inspect it. We'll certainly work with you on that. MS. MOORE: Obviously we'll do this before we get the building permit and your Trustee permit, too? Because I don't know how long the processing takes with your, because we'll do covenants, I'm sure, and back and forth. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a motion on the floor. The hearing is closed. The clerk can help you with any of those matters. A motion was made and seconded. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Vote of the Board? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can talk to the clerk. MS. MOORE: I know how long it takes for processing and we may be putting hay bales before we have an actual permit in hand, so as long as that's okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hay bales are in the order of usual conservation activity. Conservation activity is actually, are not a requirement. MS. MOORE: No, we don't want another violation. That's clear. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are adjourned. Respectfully submitted by, John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED +Souhold Z Q?0~ Town Clerk