The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-05/21/2014 John M.Bredemeyer III,President OF SU!/T�Q Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino,Vice-President �� l0 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen,Trustee G Q Charles J.Sanders,Trustee 'Q Telephone(631) 765-1892 I�COUm,� Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 5:30 PM WORKSESSIONS: Monday, June 16, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on Wednesday, June 18, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to the Board of Town Trustees regular monthly meeting and Wetland hearings. Just by way of information, this evening we are down two members of the Board of Town Trustees because they have other governmental requirements this evening. So we are down to three members. We probably can get out of here relatively quickly if everybody keeps their comments fairly cogent and limits them to five minutes at the max speaking during public hearings section. I'll try to go through all the postponements at this time, so if there is a matter that I list as a postponement, but that you have otherwise come a long distance to speak at, we might open the public hearing just for comment. It might be appended to the record but because of either a lack of information for the project at hand or for some other reason where the applicant has requested a postponement, some of these items can't go forward. The first postponement I have is on page two, item five John Bredemeyer on behalf of JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, JR. &JEANNE R. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST, c/o JOHN BREDEMEYER requests an Administrative Permit to expand the non-turf buffer area on north of dwelling; install a +/-3.6' high architectural picket"village Board of Trustees 2 May 21, 2014 style" fence along north property line; install a 4'wide dual purpose French drain/access path along northeast corner and north side of dwelling; install a +/-12' long kayak rack along south property line with seasonal cantilever kayak slide over bulkhead. Located: 2660 Village Lane, Orient. The second postponement is on page nine, item 13, Lehnert Construction on behalf of JOSHUA KELINSON requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 4'x33' wood catwalk and replace with new 4'x52' catwalk with flow-through decking, new 4'x10' ramp, and new 6'x20' seasonal float. Located: 560 Oak Street, Cutchogue. And I believe that is it for the evening. I'll take a motion for the next field inspection scheduled for Wednesday, June 11th at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion for the next Trustee meeting to be held on June 18th, at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With a 5:00 PM worksession. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to hold worksessions on Monday, June 16th, 5:30 PM at Down's Farm and on Wednesday at 5:00 PM before the regular meeting, June 18th. I'll move that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for April 2014. A check for$9,919.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, May 21, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: New Suffolk Waterfront Fund SCTM# 117-8-18&23 Alvin Schein SCTM# 90-1-15 Stephan Kalaijian SCTM# 112-1-18 Board of Trustees 3 May 21, 2014 Robert & Mary Ann Amabile SCTM#22-2-1 Charles & Mary Southard SCTM# 90-3-13 Steve Flotteron SCTM# 53-5-12.6 Ronald & Theresa Furman SCTM# 116-7-7 George Curis SCTM# 15-1-5 Kevin Gallagher SCTM# 51-1-7 Joshua Kelinson SCTM# 136-1-44 Silverman M. 2012 Irrevocable Trust#2 &#3, c/o Peter Neyland SCTM#37-4-5 Richard &Anne Moore SCTM# 136-1-38 Vincent & Barbara Claps SCTM#35-5-33 Patricia A. Coady SCTM#77-1-1 Alexander& Pauline LeDonne 77-1-5 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a second for that motion? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). To expedite applications at the meeting that are of a minor or administrative nature, the Board of Town Trustees will often group applications for administrative permits as a group. Accordingly, under item four of your agenda, the Board is in a position to approve items one through four, and number six for consideration. They are listed as follows: IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Number one, ALBERT PALUMBO requests an Administrative Permit to replace the sound-side windows and doors on the existing dwelling; re-construct and re-configure existing deck and tiered steps within the existing 12.6'x17.6' footprint; and construct a roof over the deck. Located: 1095 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. Number two, JOHN R. &SUSAN K. CORBLEY request an Administrative Permit to construct an approximately 16'x42' elevated first-floor deck with stairs to grade onto seaward side of dwelling; and install a 7'x7' hot tub on the proposed deck. Located: 680 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. Number three, VICKY PAPSON requests an Administrative Permit to replace approximately 200 feet of 4' high aluminum fencing along the south eastern property line. Located: 11120 Route 25, East Marion. Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of NITIN P. DESAI & C. BARSI, LLC requests an Administrative Permit to demolish and remove existing single family dwelling, one-story frame building and shed, gazebo, concrete surface and sanitary system; and construct new one and two-story, single family dwelling with attached deck and porch located 100' from bluff crest; install drainage system of leaders, gutters, and drywells to collect roof runoff; and establish a 15' wide, approximately 1,500 square foot non-turf buffer adjacent to the bluff crest. Located: 18915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. And number six, SCOTT & SUSAN AMBROSIO request an Administrative Permit for the existing 26'x20'concrete patio; install a 54" wide by 20' long concrete addition to each side of patio; install pavers or stone on top of patio; and to install a 8'x12' shed. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. I'll take a motion to approve these as a group. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. Board of Trustees 4 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For applications dealing with extensions or transfers or administrative amendments, also items that are reviewed administratively by the entire Board during their worksessions, I would make a motion on approve items one through five plus eight and nine for approval. They are listed as follows: Number one, Suzanne K. Smith on behalf of WEE HOUSE PARTNERS/EDGAR J. SMITH, JR. requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7809 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7809C, as issued on June 20, 2012. Located: 650 Bay Lane, Orient. Number two, 1300 PROPERTIES, LLC requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7590 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7590C, as issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 1300 Leeton Drive, Southold. Number three, JOANNE BURR requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7580, as issued on June 22, 2011. Located: Peninsula Road, Fishers Island. Number four, En-Consultants on behalf of ALFONSO &ANTONIA ROMANO requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7589 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7589C, as issued on July 20, 2011. Located: 1380 Leeton Drive, Southold. Number five, MORANDINA LIVING TRUST requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit#7866A from Patricia Fitzpatrick to Morandina Living Trust, as issued on August 22, 2012; and for a One Year Extension to Administrative Permit#7866A, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 1035 Calves Neck Road, Southold. Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of CHARLOTTE RAIBLE &WAYNE WEISS request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8365 for the existing two-story, two-car garage to remain; the proposed new two-story garage will not be constructed connecting the existing structures, instead a proposed 1-1/2 story (5'x28') corridor will connect the existing dwelling to the existing garage; the proposed swimming pool to be reduced in size to 10'x35'; the main deck on first floor to be smaller and reconfigured as a proposed 50'2"x157' deck with an exterior 8'x13'4" staircase to grade on north side of dwelling; and increase the number of plantings within the non-turf buffer area. Located: 625 East Side Drive, Mattituck. And number nine, Apex Companies, LLC on behalf of U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7909 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7909C to modify the harbor jetty and bulkhead in that the proposed stone revetment has been removed from the breakwater portion of the project area; the existing bulkheads around the existing revetment to be replaced 12 inches seaward with new sheet piles; the original extension of the breakwater has been replaced with a wave attenuator consisting of two parallel panels, the bottom of which do not intersect the seafloor; a 12-cluster dolphin has been added to the southern tip of the wave attenuator; along the beach bulkhead the seaward extent of the revetment stone has been "tightened up" in the vicinity of the eel grass bed near the southeast portion of the area; Board of Trustees 5 May 21, 2014 demarcate with buoys the boundaries of the eel grass beds prior to conducting any work; and the beach bulkhead work will be conducted from the land-side to protect the eel grass beds; and in the Orient Point area replenish sand lost by storms by bringing in sand from a nearby dredging project. Located: 40550 Route 25, 41425 Route 25, Orient & 3250 & 3380 Point Road, Orient Point. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That leaves item six for consideration for the Board. This is Patricia Walker. Would you like to take that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, PATRICIA WALKER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8137 for the as-built reconstruction of an existing 8'x8' upper platform to 4'x8' stairs in-place; and install approximately 140' of post & rail fencing along eastern side of property. Located: 1020 Ruch Lane, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency is the 8'x8' upper platform was not constructed with benefit of a Trustee permit. So they would bring it into compliance with this application. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's an Administrative Permit. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is not a public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is not a public hearing, right. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is an issue. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, we are approving this Administrative amendment to the permit. That will address the inconsistency and bring this into compliance with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, BRUNO FRANKOLA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#5999 for an 11'-1/2" x 8' expansion to the existing deck. Located: 840 Northfield Lane, Southold. The members of the Board of Trustees met with the applicant, and a deficiency in prior land use practices there led to an agreement that they would be establishing -- in connection with this application, that they would be establishing a barrier between the non-disturbance buffer and the existing lawn area, and the result of a meeting with the applicant, I believe that the Board feels that two additional inspections are required in addition to the one for the deck requiring that we see that barrier between the non-disturbance area be installed and that an opportunity be given for the non-disturbance area to naturally flourish with vegetation that is in the area. Accordingly, I would move to approve this application with the stipulation that Board of Trustees 6 May 21, 2014 a total of three compliance inspections be required; two relating to the non-disturbance area: One for a barrier between it and the lawn area, and one subsequent next Spring to make sure that area is being left alone. And the compliance inspection associated with the expansion of the deck. And I would move this application with those stipulations. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next on the Resolutions, proposals for mooring permits were reviewed by the Trustees during their worksession. They are listed as follows: Number one, MICHAEL SANATOR requests a Mooring Permit in Little Creek for a 10' SeaDoo Jet-Ski, replacing Mooring #830. Access: Public. Number two, FRANK CASHIN requests a Mooring Permit in Little Creek for a 21' Hobie Cat, replacing Mooring #110. Access: Public. Number three, JOE MELLY requests a Mooring Permit in Mud Creek for a 14.4' Proca-Azura outboard motor boat, replacing Mooring #105. Access: Public. Number four, CLAUDIA & RONALD BRANKER request a Mooring Permit in Broadwaters Cove for a 6' row boat, replacing Mooring #BC-1. Access: Public. Number five, MELANIE BELKIN requests a Mooring Permit in Cedar Beach Creek for an 18' Bayliner, replacing Mooring #897. Access: Private. I'll take a motion to approve all five moorings which were sited in creeks according to the standing rules for mooring placement. I'll take a motion to approve. Do I hear a motion? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Do I hear a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. RESOLUTIONS OTHER: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item seven on the agenda is for a resolution, continuation of a matter which the public hearing was closed last month. I would like to offer a resolution in the matter of 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 on beach (N/VV 375' of entry). Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. And accordingly, the resolution is to approve the application as submitted, with three conditions, and provide supporting reasons supporting the application as submitted. So I would move to approve this application as submitted, with three conditions: Board of Trustees 7 May 21, 2014 The applicant or their agent shall notify the Trustee office in writing at least one week prior to any and all operations under this permit, providing contact information of those persons/entities actually scheduled to perform operations under the permit. Condition number two, this permit makes no representation or determination with respect to any purported ownership of natural lands, wetlands or lands underwater. And condition number three, this permit is not intended to allow or license operations on lands other than those of the applicant. Those are the conditions of the permit. The reasons supporting this determination are a bit longer, but entail five reasons. Reasons supporting this determination: Failure to perform maintenance dredging operations on inlets to water bodies where such operations have been routinely and historically performed may result in adverse affects to wetlands and waterways insofar as they may: One, reduce the flow of waters resulting in the upset of nutrient balances, required dissolved oxygen levels and the dilution or elimination of manmade and/or natural toxins directly impacting fish, shellfish, crustacean and other beneficial marine organisms, potentially inhibiting their natural life stages, their migrations or their motile reproductive stages needing access to or from Peconic Bay. Number two, reduce or adversely affect navigation, diminishing private and public access to the Town's coastal waterways and the resources associated therewith. Number three, change the natural flow of waters within the Wunneweta Pond complex with unknown consequences. Number four, reduce the people's general enjoyment of their waters, coastal living and associated property values. Number five, potentially affect the aesthetic value of wetlands and adjacent areas should diminished flow of waters result in greatly diminished dissolved oxygen values often associated with fish kills and resultant nuisance odors. I would move that resolution to approve with those conditions and those supporting reasons. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go off the regular agenda to open up public hearings, please try and keep your comments as brief as possible, if you will. Thank you. AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, Patricia McIntyre on behalf of NEW SUFFOLK Board of Trustees 8 May 21, 2014 WATERFRONT FUND request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8378 to repair the existing 352 linear foot stone jetty; existing large rocks and concrete parts of the jetty will remain in place; the wood molds on the poured concrete will be removed and large rocks will be placed so as to hide as much of the concrete as possible and to reinforce the structure; and add one layer of large rock up to 30" in height along the top row of the jetty. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously to support this application. The Trustees have been out there numerous times to inspect the site. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MCINTYRE: Pat McIntyre and Greg Rivara. We have nothing to say, unless you have any questions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, we met outside with the contractor. I don't have any questions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, MARY DESETTA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7779 to construct a ±312 sq.ft. first-story addition and ±160 sq.ft. porch addition onto the landward side of the dwelling in lieu of constructing the second-story addition and lantern addition; and install a drainage system of gutters to leaders to drywells. Located: 1325 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. This was found to be exempt from the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application as it was submitted. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response). We were out there and saw it. It's additions on the landward side of the house. It's really pretty minor. I don't think any of us had any problems with it. I make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next public hearing 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. Board of Trustees 9 May 21, 2014 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. D'AMARO: Yes. Chairman, members of the Board, I'm Jerry D'Amaro, from D'Amaro Engineering & Surveying. I left the stenographer with my card which has my business address on it and phone number. I was last here, as you may remember, at the January meeting, where I was directed on behalf of my client to prepare surveys and a plan for reducing the height of the wall. Subsequent to that I produced that plan. It was submitted. I believe you have it in front of you there. And my client has decided to acquiesce, go with what is proposed by the Board, and remove the capstone, remove the top course of stones, put those in front of the wall and replace with capstone. There is one further request that my client would like to make, because there are three-inch high domed nubs on top of the top course of stone, he would like to put a course of four-inch high stone between the replaced capstone and the stone below it, which would raise the proposed height of the wall by four inches from my plan. And I have been asked to ask the Board to consider that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we have a problem with that. It doesn't seem significant. There wasn't a thought to a custom casting to just lock into those? I guess one concern would be, where we saw such tremendous wave heights with Sandy, are you sure you don't want to consider whatever cap you have locking in, because those dimples may be holding -- MR. D'AMARO: I can address that. The cap actually doesn't lock in. There is no method of doing that. These stones have to be placed in between, would be epoxy grouted in, they would be permanently affixed. These are not placed loosely on the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So architectural grade stone that would be applied in a typical mason fashion with mortar or some kind of adhesive? MR. D'AMARO: Yes, exactly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we have a problem with that. We appreciate the fact that you, as you say, acquiesced to the Board's request. It was the terms of the permit approval as granted, so we do appreciate you working with us. I for one did an extensive survey of all the bulkheads and the groins from Bay Avenue in East Marion all the way to Cleaves Point to try to better ascertain whether the determination, our initial determination and what we requested you to do was in keeping with the area and the types of erosion we had, because it had been such a difficult time after Sandy, and the Board reviewed this during our regular worksession, and we felt that your cooperating with us does bring the structure into the nature of what the general run of retaining structures, bulkheads and groins along there are. So I think that we appreciate your efforts in cooperating with us. There remains one question I was not able to follow-up on Board of Trustees 10 May 21, 2014 and that was it was high tide -- not high, it was mid-tide when I was there with boots. There was a prior Trustee permit granted to Mr. Aprea which set terms and conditions for the westerly most groin on the property. And the Board of Town Trustees will have to review this to make sure it was supposed to be shortened or diminished in size. We'll have to take the prior permit out and ascertain whether those conditions of the prior permit were met, because that particular structure is, on my survey, of close to maybe 20 or 25 bulkheads and groins, seemed to be the most significant in the fact that it was preventing the westerly natural drift of sand and sediment. I'm not saying it is or is not in compliance, but we never had a chance to follow up, and as a condition of this amendment, the Board would have to review to make sure that the prior terms and conditions of prior permits are fully met. So I hope you understand that. But I don't think we would have a problem with what are you saying on the four-inch cap. And the other concern we have is the safety of mariners and compliance with the Town's Dark Sky initiative as far as the lighting that was projecting in front of the structure. We would request that all of the lighting be Dark Sky compliant. And if you wish to have lighting, that a supplementary plan be shown that you can submit to us showing it would be compliant with the Dark Sky initiative. Seamen, sailors coming from points to the east, approaching East Marion/Greenpoint waterfront, conceivably could be confused by the prior lighting plan you had. We are concerned for both their safety. We are also concerned about the splash lighting off the structure being compliant with the Dark Sky initiative that may affect the migration of fish and shore birds and also impede people's enjoyment of the dark sky. Is that okay, the lighting can be -- MR. D'AMARO: I would like to speak to that, Mr. Bredemeyer. First of all, my client is here, the homeowner is behind me in the seat, and has directed me to conform with whatever requirements the Board requests. We had discussed the lighting and he has already said he would be willing to move that behind the wall so it would not splash across the face. We had discussed that. I don't think there is any problem with that. The groin issue, the westerly or I think it's the southwesterly-most groin, is news to me. It's the first I heard about that. But if I may speak for my client, I don't think there is any problem in shortening that or whatever. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate that. In other words you would agree mutually that it's a housekeeping matter for the Board of Trustees and you will bring it into the compliance with the prior permit, and that allows us to move forward. MR. D'AMARO: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional input from the Board of Board of Trustees 11 May 21, 2014 Trustees? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I would like make a motion to approve this application with the amendments noting that the applicant also is reducing the height by one of the redi-block structures to be used in front of the structure as toe protection; that the Board will permit the use of not higher than four-inch architectural stone embedded on top of the wall to complete the wall to make it aesthetic; that any lighting associated with the face of the wall be Dark Sky compliant; and that a review of the southwesterly groin be made to make sure that it's in compliance with prior Trustee approvals and permits. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. D'AMARO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ALVIN SCHEIN requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8373 for a proposed landward catwalk extension of(4'x40') supported by twelve (12) additional pilings for a combined total of a 4'x66'fixed catwalk; and repositioning the access steps (4'x2') to the resultant landward terminus; all catwalk decking to be Thru-Flow or similar decking; water and electric utilities, and two (2) Dark Sky compliant lights to be installed onto the dock. Located: 2145 Little Peconic Bay Lane, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted unanimously to support this application. The Trustees did a field inspection on May 14th and noted that. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant Alvin Schein. When we originally laid out this dock, it's sort of sited right at the top of the escarpment, and there is this sort of naturalized area that we should have extended back. So the purpose of just bringing it back is to provide a little better access to a dock that is already approved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Bruce, just one question. On the landward terminus, would there be a walkway up to those steps? MR. ANDERSON: There would be a path. Just a path. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? Board of Trustees 12 May 21, 2014 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of STEPHAN KALAIJIAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the proposed installation of toe-stone armor system consisting of a base layer of quarry stone (±3 rows at±3-5 tons), a secondary layer of quarry stone (±2 rows at±3-5 tons) and a top layer of quarry stone (±1 layer at±3-5 tons); all arranged in a pyramidal fashion, and all atop a keyway comprised of core stone (±100-300lbs.); filter cloth is proposed to wrap the base layer of quarry stone and the keyway together for added strength; the area landward and atop the proposed toe armor system is to receive clean fill (±200 cubic yards) obtained from an approved upland source and is to be graded; following grading and grooming, this area will be planted with Cape American beach grass (Ammophilia breviligulata) planted at 1' on-center; construct a bluff stairway consisting of an upper stairway comprised of a 4'x13' top platform, to a 4'x47' stairway, to a 4'x 4' platform; to a middle section comprised of a 4'x4' upper and 4'x4' lower platform with 4'x4' steps between, and 4'x44' stairway; to a lower section comprised of a 4'x4' platform, to a 4'x46' stairway, a 4'x4' platform to a 4'x9' bottom stairway; measuring ±162' in overall length and supported by 6"x6" posts while maintaining an elevation of±3'-4' above the bluff grade where applicable; the existing vegetation located on the face of the bluff will be supplemented with Cape American beach grass (Ammophilia breviligulata) planted at 1' on-center where applicable in order to provide further stabilization of the bluff. Located: 1977 Bergen Avenue, Mattituck. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC revolved to not support the application to install toe armor along the northern shoreline. The CAC does not support the application because there was a concern that the impacts of beach replenishment of the shoreline to the east. The unvegetated bluffs are a major source of sediment to the properties downstream. These bluffs should be carefully managed in a broader scope. Those are the comments from the CAC. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Stephen Kalaijian. First, I want to say that this particular project has been under study for quite some time, including the DEC. In your file jacket you should have a copy of the DEC permit, which I submitted. The second thing, item of import, is the top of the bluff is 126 feet above sea level. And the bottom of the bluff is about six feet above sea level. So there is a drop of 120 feet of bluff down to where you encounter the revetment. Most of this bluff is denuded of vegetation, and part of our application is to replant it as best we can. But we are talking about a revetment that extends some five feet above grade on a bluff that is 126 feet high. So the notion that the revetment will Board of Trustees 13 May 21, 2014 block or prevent sediment from or sand from the bluff hitting the beach is just counter to the geology of the site. It's such a high bluff that, you know, there is going to be some movement of sand down this bluff. Now, having said that, this applicant has lost probably about 40 feet of bluff since I have been involved in this, which is several years now. He tells me, and I believe him, that he lost at least ten or 15 feet of bluff after Hurricane Sandy. And so when you are losing land of that significance, it's our position you should have a right to protect that land, and that's why we build these revetments along The Sound. This particular revetment is similar to numerous other revetments that have been built in this location, and so we think it should be approved because all it will do will be to anchor the toe of the bluff. And that's its purpose. And we hope that together with the planting of the bluff will stabilize the overall structure so that the land doesn't continue to drop off there. I hope and I believe the Trustees have seen the -- been to the site and looked at it, and I think if you looked, you went to the top of the bluff where the stairs are planned and you look west, what you would have seen is some of the vegetation that used to occur on this bluff. Some of that extended about halfway down the bluff. And so our hope is to reestablish vegetation along that bluff and protect it. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, what are the intentions to do something with the top of the bluff? Because it's really, you have turf right down to the edge. MR. ANDERSON: The truth of the matter is there is probably nothing we can do with the top. Because it's almost vertical, it's not concave. TRUSTEE KING: Can you reshape it at all? MR. ANDERSON: Whether we reshape it or not, there is probably another ten or 15 feet of bluff no matter what we do. Because it will collapse. Because it has been collapsing. I don't have a solution for that because I can't extend the bluff seaward. TRUSTEE DOMINO: When we were at --would you consider terracing it? Might that help? MR. ANDERSON: Well, it could. And I would not be opposed to it, but I must tell you that our application process with DEC went on for several years. I'm going to say, I could tell you in a second, but that we would have started our application (perusing) in early 2012. And it was viewed as the smallest and lightest-- I mean, to us, we would have liked to have put more in there. We would have liked a taller revetment, um, and perhaps some terracing. Now, the problem with the terracing is the bluff is so steep that I'm not sure there is a good way of doing it without -- in other words, if you were to build terracing, you might end up doing more harm than good. So really the best we can come up with is to try to anchor the toe so that there would not be any storm, tidal surge type losses to it. Then also to plant the face of it. It's really the best solution Board of Trustees 14 May 21, 2014 we could come up with given the height of the bluff and also its very steep slope. Now, I'm wrong. We started our application in the Fall of 2011. TRUSTEE KING: Looking through it, it will be ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top, that's part of the DEC permit. I would like to be consistent with their permit. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else who wants to make any comments on this application? (No response). Hearing none, 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 it has been submitted, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer at the top of the bluff TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. WETLAND PERMITS. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland Permits, number one, Eastern End Pools, LLC on behalf of ROBERT & MARY ANN AMABILE request a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x36' steel wall and vinyl in-ground pool with an approximately 1,600 sq.ft. (±631 sq.ft. Raised on fill & ±969 sq.ft. on-grade with pavers) pool patio; install a 3'x8' equipment pad; install a drywell for pool de-watering; install a ±2' high retaining wall along the east side of pool patio; and install 4' high pool enclosure fencing. Located: 1365 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The CAC on a previous date voted to support the application with the request that the shed be on the survey and that it's subject to ZBA approval. The shed is on the survey we received on April 24th, 2014. And the ZBA granted relief in this application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. DELVAGLIO: Hi, I'm Jennifer Delvaglio of East End Pool King, and this is Robert Amabile, the property owner. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees have no comment on this at this time. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 15 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of KEVIN GALLAGHER requests a Wetland Permit for the existing +/-3' (var.) Wide timber bluff stairway consisting of a 4'x4' concrete pad on grade; four sections of steps with lengths of 23', 8', 21', and 43'; two triangular landings; and a trapezoidal deck (2'x10'x12'x15'). Located: 17975 Soundview Avenue, Southold. The project has been determined to be both consistent and inconsistent with the Town's LWRP. I'll refer to that in a minute. The Town's CAC supported the application with the following recommendations: The requirement of an engineered plan, no hardening of the shoreline as this area is a source of sediment for replenishment of the beach; flow-thru material on the trapezoidal decks and requirement of bluff stabilization management plan. The Trustees have performed a field inspection, and going back to amplify the consistency and inconsistency, the project was deemed consistent for the stairway sections, but since it was unclear when the trapezoidal deck was constructed, it's therefore considered inconsistent with the LWRP policies noted below. And it is also inconsistent with the LWRP. The action is located within a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and does not meet policy 4.1 which states it has to minimize loss of human life and structures from floating and erosion hazards. The location of the trapezoidal deck is within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. All development is prohibited on the bluff pursuant to 111-12 unless specifically provided by Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit pursuant to 11-6, allowable activities on a bluff may include open timber piles or similar open work with a top surface area of less than 200-square feet, or which are removed annually. The deck as proposed is prohibited on the bluff pursuant to 111, coastal erosion hazard areas. We are talking about the trapezoidal deck. I don't believe the other deck that is a pre-existing nonconforming deck was part of the application. TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also, it doesn't comply with Trustee recommendations, requirements and recommendations in that pursuant to 275 Wetlands and Shore lands, the trapezoidal deck should be seaward of the top of the bluff line. It conflicts with section 275-11. Platforms may not exceed 200-square feet and must be landward of the top of the bluff. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Good evening, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants, on behalf of the applicant, Kevin Gallagher. Basically, the reason we are here is because Mr. Gallagher is the recent purchaser of the property. I think he was before the Board even last month for some sort of plantings application at the top of the bluff. And basically we have looked at this site with Jeff Butler, who as the Board knows is a local professional engineer, and basically at some point in the very near future we'll have to come in with a fairly comprehensive plan. This bluff has, the amount of vegetation on the bluff has decreased significantly Board of Trustees 16 May 21, 2014 over the past couple of years. It's actually a couple of parcels down to the west, you may remember the Nicholas and McAllister properties where revetments have been approved by this Board. They have not yet been built. I don't know if you've gotten down to the beach on this site but those bluffs are continuing to erode severely. There is some of the old block cesspools that are now becoming exposed on the face of the bluff. So we are going to have to come in with a proposal, basically to remove the existing stairways, decks, platforms, et cetera and propose to construct a new stairway that I think as you mentioned, I can't remember if you just noted it was an LWRP recommendation or CAC recommendation, that there be some sort of bluff restoration plan that would go along with that. However in the meantime, obviously, the owner would like to continue to enjoy the ability to get down to the beach, and legally he can't make even simple repairs, ordinary maintenance type repairs to the structure without a permit. We have found a couple of historical references. You can see that the stairway dates back to at least 1980, when it would have predated the time at which a Trustees permit would have been required. The prior owner was before this Board in 1997, and I have a copy, I assume you have this in your file, but Carolyn Fischer had applied to the Board June 27, 1997, regarding a deck addition to the house, and the survey that was submitted from Tony Lewandowski at that time shows the entire stairway, the trapezoidal deck, the other deck at the top of the bluff, et cetera. The application didn't speak to those structures at the time. I don't think any action the Board made spoke to the structures, but again, it's just further documentation of the age of the structure. It certainly appears from the materials that the trapezoidal deck was built at the same time that the stairway was. So, really what we are here to try to do is just get a permit for the structures that are there, including the stairway and the structures that are associated with the stairway, simply so they can be repaired for the purpose of maintaining safety and access until we come pack with a plan to completely rebuild the entire stairway, which would be the next step. So I don't know how that affects the disposition of the Board. The trapezoidal deck, although odd, part of it is actually integrated into the stairway. It's less than 100-square feet in area, so it's well less than what would be the 200-square feet allowed under Coastal Erosion. It's also now well less than the hundred feet -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Associated with decks associated with stairs. MR. HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had a sticky note on my refrigerator to look up the area of a trapezoid. It's been a long time. Board of Trustees 17 May 21, 2014 MR. HERRMANN: Well, we went through this. I think it was like 50 or 60 feet. I could try to do it again. But even if you ignore the little two-foot line on the side of it, you can almost do it as the area of a triangle. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The area of a triangle, looking at the other deck, which is calculated at about 203-square feet, it's reasonably close. I don't think that's a point of contention. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. So, again, the intention here is to not try to memorialize in perpetuity this deck. There is no intention to rebuild the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. It's the intention to try to keep that deck, okay, since it is compliant with respect to the hundred square feet of deck associated with stairs. It's certainly less than the 200-square feet that is required in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, so it would be capable of current permitting. It's the CAC advice to go with flow-through board, given the current state of the bluff. Would that be -- MR. HERRMANN: I think if he actually undertook the process of resurfacing the deck. That would not be a problem. Again, my concern was really just to be able to keep it stable so it remains -- so it doesn't make the stairway unstable. But if they were going to re-deck it, I think the condition to make it flow-through decking for however long it would live would not be a problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Question for you. Since the pre-existing non-conforming, some 203-square feet, approximately 200-square feet, is over the bluff, would it be possible that could be, in your approaching the Board subsequently with a new set of stairs and a planting and conservation plan for the bluff, could that be moved back to bring it into compliance? MR. HERRMANN: I think we would have to be deal with the deck at that time, if it were even to be kept. Again, it's a relic that dates back, there is no proposal to do anything at all to it now. I don't know that it would be part any of longterm plan to stay where it is. If we did propose to rebuild it, it would have to be moved back and I don't-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are saying at this time it's premature. MR. HERRMANN: Well, because what is coming up now, we've always followed this sort of rule of thumb where we have these decks adjacent to these bluffs, that your Board has typically moved the decks back, um, I don't know now whether we would even be able to do that successfully. Because if it was going to be a proper deck that was moved landward of the top of the bluff, I suspect we might be required to have a building permit for that, in which case we would also then be compelled to go to Zoning Board of Appeals. That's why I'm saying I don't know whether that deck would ever be something that would be maintained there or not. If it was going to be, I would expect it would have to be moved back, and I think we would have to go through the appeals process. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the concern of the Building Board of Trustees 18 May 21, 2014 Department, when I previewed this application with them and the Trustees doing the field inspection, was the concern that we left that deck hanging there. So it would seem if we were to perform an iteration on this permit, that the pre-existing non-conforming deck would require those authorizations necessary when or if it were to be modified, that would be acceptable? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I think what you are suggesting is to simply, formally state what would be required anyway, if I'm understanding you correctly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Because there was a real concern on the part of the Building Department that they didn't really want to see this hanging out there. And I don't think the Trustees do either. Given the fact we just recently moved to increase to 100-square feet decks associated with stairs to make them more user friendly, and allow people to use as a place of rest when they get winded going up and down the hundred-foot increments. MR. HERRMANN: Right. And that deck is arguably --we are still talking about a deck at the top of the bluff, it's separate from the stairway, it's really not associated with stairway anyway. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question. Specifically the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area really doesn't want to see hard, concrete structures in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. I was not at the last field inspection so I don't have the full take on it, but I know the CAC was concerned about a hard structure, and I think the Board would be, can we go to open construct and remove the concrete? MR. HERRMANN: I would think so. I mean, it's just a little piece of masonry that sits right at the top. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anything to add on that? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I believe that addresses some of the concerns of myself and the Building Department and the Trustees. Any further comments from the Board? MR. HERRMANN: And it all sounds acceptable to me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional concerns or questions? (No response). Hearing none, I 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 stipulation that the trapezoidal wood deck be surfaced in flow-through, and that the concrete pad at the base of the steps be removed in favor of open construction wood pilings, and that the pre-existing non-conforming deck at the top of the bluff be subject to such necessary governmental permissions from the Trustees, the Building Department and Zoning Board of Appeals, should or if the owner wished to continue with a deck somewhere in that vicinity. And of course if they wish to remove the deck. This is just an aside -- that's my motion -- as an aside, Board of Trustees 19 May 21, 2014 they could always apply with it for an Administrative Permit to remove that structure. But anyhow, that's my motion. Flow-through and remove the concrete and that permissions are needed on the deck at the top. So I would move that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to take five-minute recess. (After a brief recess, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, we're back on the record. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ESTATE OF FRED ADLER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 24'x40' two-story single family dwelling with a 15'x20' attached deck; install a gravel driveway; install a septic system; and connect to public water. Located: 415 Lakeside Drive, Southold. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. And there is a recommendation here the establishment of a 30-foot wide non-disturbance buffer landward from the wetland line. The CAC resolved to support the application and recommends removal of debris along the edge of the canal, and the septic system should comply with the Department of Health requirements, as there is a concern with groundwater seepage into the creek. Those are the comments from the CAC. There is also a letter that was received on May 20th. It's fairly lengthy. I'll just try and pick out some of the highlights, but the whole letter will be put into the record. There was a question about, they want to bring to our attention the regards of a map with unbuilt street, adjacent to the applicant's lot, and they want to know what if any building constraints that would bring to this application. It just goes on to say the proposed structure will be built 50 feet from the banks of the creek at its narrowest part, disrupting long established wildlife movement patterns and disturbing the land during construction. So it's basically in opposition to this project. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant, the Estate of Fred Adler. What we have here today is a vacant lot, the lot is approximately16,000-square feet. The proposal is to construct a 960-square foot house footprint on it with an attached 15x20' deck. When we started with this design of this layout, we started with the septic system, so we reserved the area closest to the road for the septic system. This is a septic system that will comply in all respects to your requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. It is a shallow system. It will be located, its leaching pools will be located 100 feet from the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary is the top of Board of Trustees 20 May 21, 2014 the escarpment that runs along the shoreline here. And that is where it was flagged. The soil conditions here are good, they are sandy soils, so the septic system will function as it is supposed to function. The parcel is served by public water. It is actually a corner lot because the roadbed for Lakeside Drive veers northerly and terminates at the creek. I believe that's what the letter of objection is pointing out. And the roadbed is shown on the survey before you. The project is a minimal house, as I think I have explained. We provided the required drainage to comply with the Town's storm water requirements, so it complies in all respects. It is also setback 35 feet from the road. The 35-foot setback is the minimum setback in this town and in this area. And its proximity to the wetlands comes about as a result of the depth of the house. The depth of the house is 24 feet, which is considered minimal. So we think what we have done here is we've tried to design a house with a deck that fits the land. I think we have taken into account the constraints of the lot in coming up with this plan. Hearing the recommendations of the CAC, the only thing I would ask is that we have a 25-foot buffer instead of a 30-foot buffer. And I say that because the amount of the available yard for these people will only be, in that event, 30 feet or 31 feet. Which is minimal. So I would request that we consider a 25-foot buffer rather than a 30-foot buffer. The lot itself, the dominant trees are locust, which tells me that at one point the lot was cleared. Because locusts are an early-successional tree. There are no particular trees or special habitat considerations on this lot. And I'm not saying it's not used by wildlife, but there is nothing, quite honestly, that is significant here. I note that the property lies in Zone X, which is outside of the hundred year flood plain, so there are no particular coastal flooding concerns associated with this lot. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KING: 25 instead of 30, that's very close to what we want. Are there any other comments from the Board? (No response). It's a small lot. It is what it is. Are there any other comments on this application from anybody? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, I'm looking at the survey. There is a flood zone line on here, already on here, the dotted line. I would like to make that the limit of non-disturbance. It varies between 25 and 30 feet. It's on the survey and it would be a good place to put a staked hay bale line during construction. MR. ANDERSON: That's acceptable. Absolutely, I agree with that. Board of Trustees 21 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Silt fence. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Do you need a plan modification to depict that? Or if you could describe it in your permit, that would be fine. TRUSTEE KING: I think we can describe it right on that line. It's pretty obvious. It's right on the survey here now. So if there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You did that already. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the flood zone line indicated on the survey to be the non-disturbance, landward of the non-disturbance line, and also the same line to put a staked row of hay bales and silt fence during construction. MR. ANDERSON: The only caveat I would add is that there should be a pathway to the shoreline. TRUSTEE KING: We could add a four-foot walking path to the shoreline. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: And we'll get a copy of this letter for the record. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of GEORGE CURIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x32' in-ground pool with a ±791 square foot pool patio on the seaward side of their existing 1.5 story residence with a pool backwash system, and pool fencing. Located: 3190 North Sea Drive, Orient. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted unanimously to support this application. The Trustees did a field inspection on May 14th, and suggested a non-turf buffer along the 14-foot contour line. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. We originally brought this application in, I'll say, about six months ago. And at that time the Board was going through a bit of a transition, they were just starting to refer to the Building Department. And in that process, the Building Department determined that the proposal would require a Zoning variance. As I understand it, the setbacks of the Zoning Board, as per Zoning, is 100 feet from the top of the bluff. The top of the bank, as I refer to your survey, is the top of the bluff. And so that extends to approximately, you'll see a 14-foot contour, there is a top of the bank. So I'm a little unclear as to what the CAC is referring to. The land does drop off, kind of flattens, then drops off a second time. And the top of the bank that has shown there, there seems to be agreement, at least among DEC and Coastal Erosion, as to where that top of the bank is. Because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, although it shoots Board of Trustees 22 May 21, 2014 across here, is supposed to be 25 feet landward of the top of that bank. So I do say that. When we brought this in originally, the pool was already entered in a north/south direction, so that it was approximately 20 feet closer to the top of the bank than what you are seeing today. It was in the course of the Zoning Board that we turned the pool so that it ran sort of parallel with the house. And in doing so that's what made it comply with the LWRP. So we are through with that. We have our variance. Now, the only thing left is what sort of buffer is required here. And all I can say is, you know, the property owner would prefer to keep the land as is. If there is a problem with that, you know, I would suggest we maybe split the difference and come in with some beach grass-type plantings, if that is acceptable to the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We were concerned, the mowing down to what appears to be the ten-foot contour line. My recollection. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Along the top, below the top of the bank. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, which is below the top of the bank. MR. ANDERSON: We won't be doing any mowing below what is called the top of the bank. There will be no mowing at all seaward of that line. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. And from that follows the suggestion at that to use the 14-foot contour line as the limit of the non-turf buffer. MR. ANDERSON: That is what is suggested. What I'm simply suggesting is that if you look at the survey, the top of the bank is marked at eleven feet at the western boundary. It's marked at 12.1 toward the east. Then it goes straight south to 17, to almost 18 feet, and veers off the property. Do you see what I'm referring to? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, we see that. MR. ANDERSON: So what I would simply say is that obviously we are not going to mow anything that is going to be seaward of the top of the bank, which places it at 18 feet at the eastern edge and nearly 12 feet at the western edge. But a 14-foot contour as shown, takes out an area of approximately, you know, ten feet. And if that's with a we are talking about, I don't know that that is a big deal, but that is, I think that's what you are talking about. I'm not quite sure what they are talking about, is what I'm trying to say. (Trustees discussing off the record). TRUSTEE DOMINO: What Trustee Bredemeyer is suggesting -- can you approach? MR. ANDERSON: Sure. Maybe you can point to it and show me. TRUSTEE DOMINO: See this. This is the top of the bank. Currently they are mowing all the way down to here (indicating). MR. ANDERSON: No, we are mowing to here, to the top (indicating). TRUSTEE DOMINO: It appears to here (indicating). MR. ANDERSON: What happens, it's flat and drops, then it drops again. So the top of the bank is the bluff, actually. TRUSTEE DOMINO: But a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of this Board of Trustees 23 May 21, 2014 line. MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine. Except that what I want to do is I just want to bring it straight across to here (indicating). In other words, I don't want to bring it up to here (indicating). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Understood. MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine. Do you want a planting plan for that? Because we could provide that for you. What you are essentially doing is you are increasing the -- you are creating a second tier bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To protect that. MR. ANDERSON: That's what you're doing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a suitable site for American beach grass. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we need a second planting plan for that. MR. ANDERSON: So we could plant that in American beach grass. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And let it go. MR. ANDERSON: One foot on center, if you were to write that in. But again, my only concern is that it shows, where that 14-foot contour intersects with the top of the bluff along the eastern side, you see where it comes up, that is where it would end. Otherwise you'll wind up with something that is very awkward. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Perhaps you can submit a drawing that would show that. MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And show it shaded in with American beach grass. MR. ANDERSON: Shaded in to show where it is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: That would be fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Now to word that motion. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any further questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the addition of a non-turf buffer planted with American beach grass, ten-foot landward of the line depicted at the top of the bank on the survey received April 25th, 2014. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With amended plan at the 14-foot contour terminating at the east side of the bluff face. TRUSTEE DOMINO: With the non-turf buffer, correct, to follow the 12-foot contour line on the eastern terminus of the property. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Do I have a second? Board of Trustees 24 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next Wetland permit, number five, CHARLES & MARILYN SOUTHARD requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 2,832 sq.ft. two-story dwelling with basement and garage under; add approximately 200 cubic yards of clean fill to raise the grade for proposed sanitary system and around dwelling; install two (2) ±12' stepped retaining walls for basement entrance; construct a wood deck 36' long by 8'-12' wide with steps to grade; establish and subsequently maintain a 50' wide Non-Disturbance buffer adjacent to and landward of the edge of wetlands with a 4' wide access path to the water; install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; and a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed and maintained during construction. Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. Before I go to open it up for comment, the application has been determined to be consistent under the LWRP. The CAC has supported the application. The Trustees are familiar with this application, having been the site of a prior permit which expired in May of 2011. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SOUTHARD: I'm the applicant, Charles Southard. I have no comments. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's straightforward, other than the fact it was considered an as-built at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it looks like construction was started without-- after the permit had expired. MR. SOUTHARD: I apologize for that, gentlemen. I had renewed the Building permit early last summer and I renewed the DEC permit then. I went ahead and spoke with the Building Department, went ahead and put in the foundation, and after the foundation was in, the Building Department notified me that the Trustees permit had expired. So I apologize for that. All the other permits are in place. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, thank you. I don't think there was any concerns. The project plans are consistent with the current land use regulations and the Trustee permits had not changed since your initial submission. So I don't think there is an issue with it. There is the requirement for as-built fees for a project of this nature, which has started again, in deference to the fact you had a prior approval. That's in lieu of a violation. I don't believe you received a violation or stop work order. MR. SOUTHARD: No, sir. That fee has been paid. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, well, thank you. Any additional comments? (No response). Board of Trustees 25 May 21, 2014 Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SOUTHARD: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of RICHARD & ANNE MOORE request a Wetland Permit to remove existing storm damaged pier and construct a 4'x101' fixed pier; a 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock supported by four (4) 8" diameter piles and 3"x10" cross-bracing to support the float a minimum of 30" off creek bottom. Located: 790 Oak Street, Cutchogue. This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. I'll just briefly run through it. He lists the definition of a dock, which is any permanent or seasonal structure, except a building located or proposed to be located on lands abutting or comprised of freshwater or tidal wetlands, or connected to a bulkhead or the upland extending over the water surface designed to secure vessels that provide access from the shore to the body of water. The proposed action does not identify the purpose of extending the dock structure and details of the proposed vessel. The CAC, the project was not staked therefore no recommendation was made. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant, Richard and Anne Moore. The purpose to extend the dock is to gain a little bit more water depth at low tide. As we have had other applications in front of you guys, some of these sites, there is not enough water. The adjacent land owners have floating docks, which may or may not have sufficient water depth at low tide. We did provide, as with some others that I have done before the Trustees, we provided the chocking system to maintain separation of 30 inches from the floating dock to the mud line at low tide. His boat is a 23-foot boat. It draws about 18 to 20 inches of water at low tide. Other than that, the applicant would like to relocate the floating dock as well as the pier alignment to keep it further away from the property line. That's why it's in the new location. TRUSTEE KING: I think we questioned why not rebuild the existing dock and maybe extend that a little bit, rather than go to a whole different location. MR. PATANJO: We can definitely do that, but isn't code ten feet away from the property line, projected? TRUSTEE KING: 15. MR. PATANJO: 15? So I would not be able to extend it any more if I do it that way. Board of Trustees 26 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out where the channel is. MR. PATANJO: I pulled it up on my folder before. We are kind of at a weird point in the channel. It's kind of a bending point. Looking at it, and the channel route, as it's being pulled up now, extending it out does not impact, in my opinion, with any navigation down the channel. It's kind of off to the east, and it bends around. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to figure out which way to extend these property lines. I can't really tell from what's here. MR. PATANJO: It's not on your plans? TRUSTEE KING: It's just that this is not necessarily the correct way to extend the property line. That's the point I'm trying to make. MR. PATANJO: You don't project it straight out? TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. PATANJO: How do you do it? TRUSTEE KING: Well, if you know where the channel is, this is a misconception by a lot of people. They think the property lines continue on the same angle as you go out. That's not necessarily true. If you can find the channel, usually the line is extended perpendicular to the channel. So it makes a difference. It makes a difference whether you are in a cove or whether you are on a peninsula. MR. PATANJO: I didn't know that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's up on the screen now. TRUSTEE KING: It's hard to tell from this. THE SECRETARY: You can see it on the computer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If the dog leg is parallel to the extension, it can go a little closer to the middle of the creek, then put his ramp and float. TRUSTEE KING: Because you have the same depth of water as you have here. If he came out, and like you said, give him the dog leg. MR. PATANJO: Since the new construction id going to be all through-flow decking, which is going to inhibit --will allow for more growth of any wetlands, not like it is right now, does it really matter the location of the proposed dock? Because having a dock with a dog leg on it, just for construction purposes, is kind of tough. TRUSTEE KING: You have pretty good depth of water just off the seaward end of the existing dock. You have almost the same depth of water as you have at this newer one, and it's closer to the shoreline. MR. PATANJO: What location are you looking at, the north or the south? TRUSTEE KING: It would be to the south, I guess. MR. PATANJO: Which is right on the projected property line. TRUSTEE KING: It would be to the south. MR. PATANJO: If you are looking at that, I understand it is a little deeper, but we are talking three inches. (Inaudible). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a question have, is where that line Board of Trustees 27 May 21, 2014 is, it will violate the 15-foot rule. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Looking at that -- MR. PATANJO: I understand you are trying to get additional dock depth, and I'm using just one we just did, which is on Stillwell Avenue, as an example, we approved it, or the Trustees approved it, having it chocked off the bottom. I know the DEC will have a problem with this because their requirement is 30 inches. I know that will happen, and that's the battle I'll have to fight. So as far as the location, moving it to any location to gain a little bit of additional water depth, at this point I don't know if it matters, because it will be chocked off the bottom regardless, if I have 0.8 or if I have 1.1. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If that's not an issue with the channel impeding navigation, so it's just a matter of code requirements coming off the property. MR. PATANJO: I would love to go out further, closer to the channel. TRUSTEE KING: It's a tough call. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can't move it much further because of the one-third rule. TRUSTEE KING: It's right above Oak Street. That's it right there. It's going to be changed to a new location. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's already out there with the other docks. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically all the docks approach from the center of the creek and navigate. This approaches the same as the other docks in the area. TRUSTEE KING: This is it right here, right? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Your dock will come like this (indicating). MR. PATANJO: Out a little more. Pretty much in line with the projection of this right here. Right out to there (indicating). And the channel, if you look, I saw it on my phone, the channel is actually out here, and it wraps around. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody else on this application? (No response). Being no comments, I'I 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 this application as it has been submitted, and with the stipulation that the old dock that will be removed, that that wetland area be restored, maybe planting some spartina, whatever it is in there, so it cleans it up and makes it look undisturbed. MR. PATANJO: Are you going to put some sort of a notation on the permit itself? MS. HULSE: Jim, you have a motion on the table now. You are making a motion. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion with the stipulation on the motion to approve is that the area where the old dock is now that Board of Trustees 28 May 21, 2014 will be removed is restored and planted with the proper vegetation. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. PATANJO: Do you need plan revisions or just note that on the permit? TRUSTEE KING: It will be on the permit. We can make a notation on the present plan. We'll just indicate with an arrow where the old dock is that will be revegetated. MR. PATANJO: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of VINCENT & BARBARA CLAPS request a Wetland Permit to remove the existing timber bulkhead and concrete boat ramp; construct a 100' long vinyl bulkhead with a 12' northerly and a 20' southerly return; bulkhead to be placed in same location and raised to a height of 1' above existing; install 4' wide decking along the landward side of the bulkhead; construct a 4'x6' platform; install new Tx14' aluminum ramp; and install existing 6'x20' float. Located: 450 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support this application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees did a field inspection on May 14th, 2014. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I do have in hand a DEC permit for the project, with the same plans that you have in front of you. I'm providing a proposed four-foot wide deck along the face of the bulkhead and wondering if a 15-foot buffer can be reduced to the standard ten-foot buffer. TRUSTEE KING: When did we come up with a standard ten-foot non-turf buffer? MR. PATANJO: Isn't that the standard? TRUSTEE KING: Maybe one of your standards. MS. HULSE: Only on your applications. TRUSTEE KING: It's a Jeff standard. MR. PATANJO: I have no comment. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Speaking for myself, I would not have a problem with ten-foot non-turf buffer. MS. HULSE: It's just become standard. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Provided it not become standard. Is there anyone else to speak to this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the four-foot deck. TRUSTEE KING: So 15-foot off the walkway? Board of Trustees 29 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, he asked for ten-foot down to here (indicating). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I'll second it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eight, Shore Solutions, Inc., on behalf of PATRICIA A. COADY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 110 linear foot long by 4.5' high undulating rock revetment upland of spring high water by excavating a 2' wide by 1' deep row to install toe stone 1' below grade; lay filter fabric on existing slope; truck in 100 tons of quarry and core stone and set into place; truck in 100 cubic yards of clean fill to add 6" to 8" of sand over stone and cover with jute mesh and vegetate with American beach grass; and establish a 10' wide non-turf, non-fertilizer dependent buffer along the landward edge of the rock revetment. Located: 2625 Cedar Avenue, Southold. The project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC has supported the application but at the time of their field inspection in April it had not been staked for their viewing. The Board of Trustees has been to the site two times now, requesting it to be re-staked. Upon field inspection, the Trustees placed additional flags into the adjoining beach area because the proposed revetment was placed too far into the creek, according to the field inspection. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MYERS: I'm Donna Myers, from Shore Solutions, for Patricia Coady. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was not present at the staking. I did not know, was there a follow-up? Did you have the opportunity to hear that the Board had reflagged? I'm not aware. MS. MYERS: No, I went back. When I did the site visit, I used stakes and surveyors tape, whatever, and I didn't want to leave it there to get tangled in the shore. So I went back and staked it out with blue flags, and I put them at the toe of the revetment, and some of them were between the rocks. They were not all the way out. I went at low tide. And what's going on there is they have lost over 25 feet of land right at that point, in about 14 years. So what is there now is not really protecting it. And there is a volleyball court that has been there since the 1930s, and it's on concrete footings, and we are just trying to protect that. And we felt putting more of an established revetment and then covering it with the sand and putting plantings would stabilize the shoreline better. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees did place additional numbered flags, and we could provide you the information directly from the field inspection. MS. MYERS: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another concern has arisen in that there is an unnamed street running along the shoreline there. Are the roads in this very old subdivision, are they privately owned or Board of Trustees 30 May 21, 2014 are they town roads? MS. MYERS: I'm not certain of that. I don't know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We don't know either. This just came to our attention late today. So we may need to get a determination with respect to uses of the street that is in front of the property. MS. MYERS: Obviously it's not a street. But it could be what they call a paper road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a paper road. But I don't know if there is an issue with the legal status of paper roads. MS. HULSE: Looking at the survey, I looked at the other applications before you tonight, it looks like part of that road is under Goose Creek. And I know precedent has been established to allow permitted structures on a paper road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, that was the question. We didn't get a chance to preview with you. TRUSTEE KING: That's what it looked like to me, when I was there. It looked like it was underwater. MS. HULSE: It is. According to the survey, it is. MS. MYERS: You said it was to prevent structures? MS. HULSE: To permit. The precedent has been to permit structures there. MS. MYERS: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for that clarification. TRUSTEE KING: What we did, when we flagged, where you can see where the stones are out, there is like a point coming out, we wanted that moved landward. We felt that was kind of almost, so you see, there are our flags, we went along, we tried to follow as best we could. But we kept it up a little higher. MS. MYERS: Is that the toe of what you want? That's the toe? TRUSTEE KING: That would be the toe, yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we could do is we could table this matter and give you a written copy of the field notes and the numbered flags that were staked, and then if there is a question of moving it inland we could always have a Trustee go back that was on field survey, go back and confirm that for you. Because I would think we would want to have the new flag staked area incorporated in your set of plans before the Board would be in a position to move on the application. TRUSTEE KING: Because if you take to the right, further down, that's at Spring high tide. Spring high tide is much further landward. MS. MYERS: Well, it probably eroded over the winter. I had done the stake out in, I think, December. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. A lot of areas look entirely different over the last couple of years and they are still settling in after Tropical Storm Sandy and Irene. Nonetheless, the Board is reluctant to have hard structure go below Spring high water. Anyhow, I think that would be our best course of action. We would be glad to work with you and help you get those lines fixed on your survey and then we can be in a position to reconsider it. MS. MYERS: Okay. Basically, when we went there, there was a rack line of high tide, so we went along, you know, the seaweed Board of Trustees 31 May 21, 2014 line, we went along where that was. And of course storms would make the tide go higher. I don't know if when you went there on May 14th, was it extreme high tide? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's fairly low. MS. MYERS: Okay. And I don't know why this area is eroding so much. It's just changing currents, I suppose. It used to be 45 feet of beach out there. So we just propose to try keep what's left. But I'm willing to work with you on the line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate that. MS. MYERS: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to table this application, to work with the applicant to get her the information from the Board's field inspection so she could transfer it onto her project plan. That's my motion. MS. MYERS: Okay, now am I going to have to -- MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, there is a motion on the table. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: I'll second it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Would you wish a clarification? MS. MYERS: I'm going to have to go back and re-stake it out after you give me the notes? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hopefully the flags that the Board placed there, which are numbered flags, we'll give you a written hard copy of the flag numbers and their placement and that way you can check that they are there and then you'll need to place them on your project plan, and if there is any notion that--flags tend to get destroyed by tides and little kids running around having fun with them. So we'll work with you. We'll get a member of the Trustees may have to go back out in the interim, but we'll get you where our flagging was and you can incorporate it on your plan. MS. MYERS: Okay, good. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of RONALD & THERESA FURMAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a low profile 4'x67' fixed dock with thru-flow decking 18" above grade, and with six (6) steps to grade at seaward end. Located: 1455 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. This is found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. The proposed action has not identified the details of the proposed vessel. In my mind, if you have a catwalk with stairs at the end, I don't think you are going to be tying a vessel to it. MS. MOORE: No, it's kayak and rowboat. My client is here. Mrs. Furman is here. She said no boats. TRUSTEE KING: These are recommendations from the LWRP coordinator. In the event the action is approved, it was recommended that to further policy six, was a non-disturbance buffer landward of the wetland edge be required. It is further recommended that the non-disturbance buffer incorporate the existing vegetation on site. Board of Trustees 32 May 21, 2014 The CAC supports the application with the condition of a drywell for the pool, because several members observed the pool being emptied into the wetlands. Those are the CAC. MS. FURMAN: They've never been emptied. Never. MS. MOORE: You actually have a drywell. MS. FURMAN: And it's never been emptied. TRUSTEE KING: Those are the comments. MS. MOORE: They may have gone somewhere else, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is a drywell there or not. MS. MOORE: I know there is because we got the permits for the pool and that was part of the permit. So, right? MS. FURMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This is one that we thought if the landward edge of that catwalk, if that was moved 12 feet to the south, it's a better place to put it, and you are disturbing a lot less vegetation. It's a better spot for it. MS. MOORE: Come on up, sorry. I mean, it looks like it's about the same amount of disturbance based on -- TRUSTEE KING: But the cedar trees and stuff cannot be cut down in the present -- if you move it -- MS. FURMAN: That baby one there, I think we were going to go around it. I don't think it's going through it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think you could. Like I say, if you go that way a little bit, to the right. MS. FURMAN: I would be thrilled if we could go -- because my garage is to the left. Is that what you are calling -- MS. MOORE: Well, north is here MS. FURMAN: My garage is north. So going right would even be further toward my neighbor. MS. HULSE: Jim, can we have the record reflect there is a photo being displayed now on the screen that they are referring to. I don't know if it's numbered. Is it numbered? It's identified as their property. They are using left and right on the record. They are not going to know what they are talking about. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to table this and go back out? MS. MOORE: No, there is room. There is not a problem. She is willing to -- TRUSTEE KING: As a matter of fact where Dave is standing there now-- MS. MOORE: Which would be to the south slightly. MS. FURMAN: I don't think we have to take the tree down. It goes along it, right? MS. MOORE: The flags, we staked it, it's to the left. MS. HULSE: Pat, I'm sorry, one of you has to speak at a time. MS. MOORE: No, no, I'm talking to my client. MS. HULSE: I know, but she is on the record and Wayne is trying to take two of you at once. MS. MOORE: Sorry. I'm looking at the staking in the photograph, to try to figure out if the staking was just north of the cedar tree. TRUSTEE KING: I think we put the stake where we wanted it. Because we moved it. Board of Trustees 33 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe this photograph was taken to show where Trustee King is bringing it up. That would be approximately where Trustee Bergen is standing. To avoid taking down the cedar tree. MS. MOORE: That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a big deal, it's just a little better place to put it. That's all we're trying to do. MS. MOORE: It doesn't matter. I just have to send it to the DEC. TRUSTEE KING: You're going to need like a four-foot walking path to get to it, too. MS. MOORE: Yes, that was going to be added to my request. TRUSTEE KING: I would suggest a woodchip four-foot wide path to the catwalk. MS. FURMAN: I agree with you. MS. MOORE: Okay, I'll have Bob Fox draw it. So that it's about -- well, I'll point out -- TRUSTEE KING: Where the stake is now. I put the stake there. MS. MOORE: You put the stake there? Okay, good. Okay. Where stake is. TRUSTEE KING: It's been relocated for you. MS. MOORE: Wonderful. Then I could have Bob take a look. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else to comment on this application? (No response). Seeing none I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the addition of a four-foot wide woodchip path to get to the dock. And it's open-grate, so that's good. This is an area where there is not going to be any boating in there. It's really not much navigability. It's good for kayaks and canoes. That's about it. So I think with the open-grate decking and just stairs at the end, it brings it into compliance with the LWRP. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion on the motion. Do you want to stipulate non-toxic woodchips? I don't think it's an issue, people are not chipping too much these days. TRUSTEE KING: No, it hasn't been an issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Fairweather& Brown Associates on behalf of STEVE FLOTTERON requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing cottage using cement block piers to a floor elevation of 9% enclose the existing 37.8 sq.ft. entry deck; construct a 2'x10'3" addition to the cottage; reconstruct existing landings and stairs for egress to the new elevation; and install gutters to leaders to drywells for roof runoff. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage#7, Greenport. Board of Trustees 34 May 21, 2014 The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt as this is a minor action. The CAC voted to support this application. The Trustees did a field inspection on May 14th and noted it was a straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, for Steve Flotteron. I'm from Fairweather& Brown. Basically this is just a list with the allowed 3% increase in floor that was, of footprint, which was allowed by the ZBA recently, which in this tiny cottage amounts to 20-square feet on the land side. Everything else will just be listed. There will be, they're enclosing an existing deck as was stated, then they'll just be stairs as needed to reach ground level. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MARTIN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number eleven, David Corwin, P.E. on behalf of SILVERMAN M. 2012 IRREV. TRUST#2 & #3, c/o PETER NEYLAND requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge approximately 200 cubic yards from the existing basin using a clamshell bucket on a land mounted crane; drying area to be filtered with a hay bale and silt fencing barrier; and spoils to be trucked off site after dried. Located: 60 Bayview Drive, East Marion. The project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP. The CAC supports the application. The Trustees performed a field inspection noting we had to confirm there was a letter from the property owners association which owns the underwater land in this particular location, which we have, it's noted in the file. It's an operation which has taken place in the past for maintenance dredging to allow for navigation for private watercraft to approach the adjacent upland properties of the landowners. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Seeing no one speaking, do any member of the Board have any questions? (No response). No questions, it's straightforward. Accordingly, no comments, it's a straightforward application with approvals already lined up, permission from the underwater landowner, I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. Board of Trustees 35 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, McCarthy Management on behalf of ALEXANDER & PAULINE LeDONNE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 3'x39' catwalk with 6" diameter pilings; a 32"x14' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock. Located: 910 Oak Avenue, Southold. Again, the LWRP coordinator, the dock structure does not originate on or over or occupy lands owned by the applicant. This is that paper road again that we just reviewed a couple applications ago. It really does not exist. So I don't think it's an issue. The CAC, the project was not staked and the property was not posted, therefore no recommendation was made. Now, we have been out there a couple of times, if I remember right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: And I think the first time we had suggested moving the dock, and then the DEC wants it to go out further if it's put in that location. And I think the Trustees would rather just move it back to the original, rather than go out further, put it back where it was originally proposed. MR. MCCARTHY: I feel like we are in the army going left, right, left. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I didn't think there was much change in the contour of the lot. TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. MCCARTHY: We are happy to locate it at the pleasure of your Board. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy Management. TRUSTEE KING: So I'll guess we go back to the original location. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Is that open-grate decking? I think it was. MR. MCCARTHY: That would be a requirement from the DEC, and we are happy to do that. I don't know if it was noted on the plan that was submitted to you. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see it noted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It does tend to grow Spartina along that shore. TRUSTEE KING: We'll make that part of it. Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response). Any questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 36 May 21, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, the first go around in the original location, and it will be open-grate decking on the catwalk. MR. MCCARTHY: Great. TRUSTEE KING: That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn, everyone? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make the motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED e�4_ John M. Bredemeyer III, resident 4UN 19 Board of Trustees muthom Town Clerj