The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-11/19/2014John M. Bredemeyer III, President ISO ar y�11 Michael J. Domino, Vice -President �0�� James F. King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee CA �Q Charles J. Sanders, Trustee olyC4UN'(`I,�� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, November 19, 2014 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice -President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 RECEIVED 4 t IcJ JAN 2 3 2015C 31vf"rA - Sou old Town &A NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 5:30 PM WORKSESSIONS: Monday, December 15, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, December 17, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 22, 2014. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, welcome to the November meeting of the Board of Town Trustees. We have a fairly short agenda this evening, so the meeting may move fairly promptly. We have a few postponements. These items will not be heard tonight. Number eight, En -Consultants on behalf of SEAN P. FAHEY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 4'x77' fixed, seasonal timber dock constructed entirely of untreated materials except for 4"x4" treated timber support posts with attached "L" shaped 2'x3' platform on landward end which is accessed by 3'x6' steps attached to a 4'x6' platform off the bulkhead. Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold, has been postponed. Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of TOM & MAE MAURI requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x36' swimming pool with 4'x10' steps into pool, and existing pool drain; install 1,450sq.ft. patio pavers on concrete at grade starting at elevation of existing house; install 220 linear feet of retaining wall with height ranging from 1'6" to 3'19" beginning at the 18.5' contour line, running along seaward side of pool and returning to house for the purpose of maintaining grade of pool and patio; install 200 Board of Trustees 2 November 19, 2014 cubic yards clean fill as needed; install 4' high pool enclosure fencing; plant natural drought tolerant native vegetation on the seaward and landward sides of retaining wall; and install stone walkway and stone steps to existing slate patio, from walkway to dock, and from patio area to side yard. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Road, Southold, has been postponed. Number ten, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of GEORGE HALKIDIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family, two-story dwelling with a 2,800sq.ft. footprint; attached 720sq.ft. deck; new sanitary system; and new driveway. Located: 1600 Greenway East, Orient, has been postponed. And number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of PASQUALE & MARTIN ROMANELLI request a Wetland Permit for the existing 47'x40' dwelling; existing 20'x36.5' westerly wood deck attached to dwelling; existing 9.2'x10.4' wooden deck with 3' wide beach stairs with railings leading to a 5'x6' platform, and 3'x7' platform with stairs to beach; and for the existing 150 linear foot long wooden bulkhead. Located: 515 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel, has been postponed. At this time I would call for a resolution for the next field inspection for December 10th, 2014, at 8:00 AM. Our next Trustee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 17th, at 5:30 PM. Motion to set that meeting. TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And for work sessions, Monday, December 15th, at 5:30 PM Downs Farms, and Wednesday, December 17th, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall before the main meeting. Resolution? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of the October 22nd meeting? TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for October 2014. A check for $10,087.24 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. 111. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Board of Trustees 3 November 19, 2014 Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 19, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Fishers Island Development Corp., c/o Fishers Island Club — SCTM# 4-4-14.1 Town of Southold — SCTM# 116-6-6 Jack Farnsworth — SCTM# 123-8-1 Stephanie Neckles — SCTM# 38-2-32 George Halkidis — SCTM# 15-2-7 John Fischetti — SCTM# 86-2-1.2 Tom & Mae Mauri — SCTM# 63-7-33 William & Theresa Kainzbauer — SCTM# 57-2-29 Andrew & Linda Toga — SCTM# 51-6-40 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to expedite action at the meeting for items that are minor, we do an administrative review on projects that are minor in scope during the course of our monthly field inspection and our public meeting work sessions at Downs Farms. Accordingly, item IV on page two, we have items one through five are considered those type of actions, and the Board has reviewed them and already signaled they would be appropriate for approval. They are listed as follows: IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Number one, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of CARYLANNE & JAMES BAIS requests an Administrative Permit to remove existing deck and replace with new 16'x34' deck with 6' wide set of stairs to ground; and to repair existing 22.5'x40' patio underneath deck. Located: 2655 Calves Neck Road, Southold. Number two, FRED J. CARCICH & MARY ANN SMIGELSKI CARCICH request an Administrative Permit to install a 4' high by approximately 72' long fence running east to west along property line. Located: 350 Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue. Number three, APRIL & NORMAN WENK request an Administrative Permit to add approximately 100 cubic yards of clean fill, and re -grade area to restore the eroded slope of the bluff. Located: 415 Huckleberry Hill Road, East Marion. Number four, PINDAR DAMIANOS requests an Administrative Permit to install 5' high chain link enclosure fencing around perimeter of rear yard; install 4' high split -rail fencing around the perimeter of front yard; remove uprooted tree stump; clean up debris and dead vegetation in rear yard; and to install a 10'x10' shed on concrete pad. Located: 5485 Main Bayview Road, Southold. Number five, Walter J. Strohmeyer, Jr., Chairperson on behalf of ORIENT -EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Permit for a 10 -Year Maintenance Permit for periodic beach maintenance; removal of debris from parts beach from 10' above mean high water to parking area; manual or rubber -tired tractor only - no treads, as needed; and to install a 125' to 150' long 4' high post -and -rail fence beginning at an existing wall and ending landward of the average mean high water mark. Located: Board of Trustees 4 November 19, 2014 17805 Route 25, East Marion. I'll take a motion to approve these items one through five at this time. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Similarly, where applicants have required for extensions or transfers or administrative amendments to permits, we review the files and we conduct field inspections; when it comes to transferring permits, we make sure they are in compliance with current standards and that they have not changed in dimensions when we review them. For those sorts of reviews, I would take a motion to approve items one through five and number seven on page three and items eight and nine on page four. They are listed as follows: Number one, CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8025, as issued on January 23, 2013. Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. Number two, BEE—HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8020, as issued on January 23, 2013. Located: 440 Old Cove Boulevard, Southold. Number three, FERUCIO FRANKOLA requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7704, as issued on December 14, 2011. Located: 1900 Glenn Road, Southold. Number four, SCOTT D. & JULIA A. OSLER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4954 from Patrick Lohn to Scott D. & Julia A. Osler, as issued on August 31, 1998, and Amended on February 26, 1999, and Amended again on March 21, 2002. Located: 2480 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. Number five, SCOTT AMBROSIO requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #8418A to modify the dimensions of the concrete patio addition to on the east and west sides; add 2' onto the length of the southern back of the patio; install new steps off of the back of the patio; and to install a new 8'x12' shed 10' landward of the non-turf/no-mow boundary area. Located: 1940 Mason Drive, Cutchogue. Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of ORIENT WHARF COMPANY, c/o JOHN TUTHILL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8348 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit #8348C to extend the expiration dates to December 22, 2018. Located: 2110 Village Lane, Orient. Number eight, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of OLIVER FRANKEL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8263 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit #8263C to modify the proposed bluff restoration by installing a 6' tall, 9' wide, 190' long rock revetment along the toe of the bluff; add ±500 cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an approved upland source; install 16" diameter walnut or last waddle log terracing 10 feet on center and plant with beach grass one foot on center; modify the proposed beach access stairs by constructing a 4' wide set of stairs with a 4'x10' upper platform, two 4'x5.1' middle platforms, and a 4'x6' lower platform with steps to beach. Located: 29821 Main Road, Orient. And number nine, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of DORIS L. WILLS TRUST requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #8465A to include the re -surfacing Board of Trustees 5 November 19, 2014 of existing ±12'x39.9' deck; and to extend the deck an additional 6'x39.9', with the overall size of deck to be 658 square feet. Located: 1815 Bayshore Road, Southold. I'll take a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Item six, William C. Goggins, Esq., on behalf of MICHAEL RANSON requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8218 for the as -built 12'x15' stone patio; as -built 4'x10' shed under covered deck; as -built 4'x10' on -grade deck in front of shed; and for the 40 linear feet of two (2) as -built retaining walls. Located: 8740 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The local town waterfront revitalization coordinator found it is inconsistent with the Town's coastal policies, so we'll have to review this file to make a determination with respect to the inconsistency and whether the Board can bring it into compliance with the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was inconsistent because it was built without a permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Liz, is it possible that the IC came in late and it's not in the file? Or am I just missing it? MS. CANTRELL: This, right here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Oh, I see it. Thank you. The notation from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator indicates that the project would be brought into consistency through a permitting process, since the structures described were not constructed with a Board of Trustees permit. The project has been through and received a determination approving it for a grant of a variance from the Town Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees, upon inspecting the project determined that it met all our current standards. Accordingly, would move to approve this application noting that the granting of the permit for the structures which are subject to approval and meets current standards will bring the project into consistency with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. MOORINGS & WATERFOWL/DUCK BLINDS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number six on page four, I don't know if the individual Trustees carry the files, or I'll move these as a group also. Okay, I'll move these as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, THOMAS RAY MURRAY requests a Mooring Permit in Deep Board of Trustees 6 November 19, 2014 Hole Creek for a 30ft. Boat, replacing Mooring #135. Access: Private And number two, NICK KRUPSKI requests a Waterfowl/Duck Blind Permit to place a Waterfowl/Duck Blind in Cedar Beach Creek using public access. Located: Cedar Beach Creek, Southold. Accordingly, the Board found there were no issues with these placements. I would move to approve items one and two under category six on page four. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go off the agenda to open public hearings under the Wetland ordinance. TRUSTEE SANDERS: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under amendments, number one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES STABILE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8027 for the as -built +/-3' high by +/-63' long wood retaining wall located within the northeastern section of the property. Located: 9976 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent as it does not comply with normal Trustee permitting regulations, nor was it built with -- and it was built without the blessing of a permit. The CAC voted not to support this application based upon the following: Wood wall is already failing; the platform is undocumented and should be removed; and the project required a proper site plan. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. Filed with the application is a survey for the wood wall that is already part of your application. MS. STABILE: Can I just intercede for a minute. MR. ANDERSON: Let me just get started and we'll get into it. This is an application to legalize a secondary wall behind an existing bulkhead. With me tonight is Chris Stabile who is the owner of the property and also an engineer, licensed engineer. And also Ian Crowley, who has constructed the lower wall and had it inspected and is familiar with the upper wall. The upper walls are not uncommon along the Nassau Point, as everyone knows. But the reason why this was tabled is you wanted to hear testimony from an engineer or contractor. And it turns out we have both here, plus the owner. So I think I would like to turn it over to the owner, and he's going to tell his side of the story. We also have Ian here who can address any mechanical concerns relating to the wall. Going down there, you know that the bluff has been restored. That was done by Creative Environmental Design, Board of Trustees 7 November 19, 2014 including a series of lay logs as well as jute matting. My understanding it has been planted, and it appears at least to my observation that the bluff now is stable. It was not when it was first -- we experienced the damage that occurred as a result of Hurricane Sandy. So there has been a lot of positive things that have occurred on this property in relationship to repairing storm damage and controlling erosion, etcetera. Chris, maybe you should -- MR. STABILE: Christopher Stabile. The name on the sheet there is Charles Stabile. I don't know who that is. It's a typo. MS. HULSE: So we'll just amend the application to reflect the name Christopher. MR. STABILE: Christopher Stabile. And the address, 9976, should be 9975. Okay? And I would like to enter, I wrote a document here, I would like this to be included in the final disposition. Can I come up and hand it to you? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. STABILE: I only have four copies here. TRUSTEE KING: We can share. MR. STABILE: And I would like to read off one of them. Maybe you can share it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we'll do. MR. STABILE: Do you want to read it first or should we go through it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want to paraphrase it or read it? That's fine. It's fairly short. Go ahead. MR. STABILE: Right after the hurricane hit, as I indicate, I lost a major part of the bluff, blown out to sea. And what was left was the beach that normally is in front of the bulkhead, now came something like 15 feet inside on the bluff side. So was a little desperate and I had to take some action before the rest of the bluff was gone. What I did was I installed 8x8 posts, spaced six feet apart for 60 feet that was 12 feet long. And these were embedded in the sand ten feet in front of the old bulkhead, so that the open part of the post projected above the sand maybe five feet, six feet. And I used cross -boards across there -- this is all treated lumber -- cross -boards to maintain and carry the sand, which I installed. I put in four -hundred yards of sand. Now what happened when Ian came to put in the primary bulkhead, he had to excavate on the seaward side of the bulkhead. And this caused some bowing. Oh, incidentally, those posts were anchored with cement. All of them. Six feet apart. Now, when the primary bulkhead was in installed, it required excavating between the bulkhead and the retaining wall, to a deep depth. And this, lost, you know -- the ability of the bulkhead now was diminished by the sand that was originally in front of it. So that the bulkhead, retaining wall, bowed a little. But it still retained four -hundred yards of sand. Now, after the bulkhead was installed, seven hundred yards was put in between the retaining wall and the bulkhead. So now everything is all done, the posts Board of Trustees November 19, 2014 stick up above the sand, when everything was completed, two feet above the sand. Which means that the post is now ten feet deep in the ground. So there is no way that's going to move. And that's the status of things. MR. CROWLEY: Ian Crowley, on behalf of Chris. Are you guys inclined or disinclined to issue a permit as built? I just got wind you guys want some helical screws put in the upper wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not inclined either way. This is really the time we are taking information on it to make a determination. So -- MR. CROWLEY: Well, the wall was fairly straight when we started. We excavated probably 30 inches below the deck level that you see right there. The wall rotated over because there was not fill behind it. But right now, it's stable. It's not going to go anywhere. I didn't know if that was a concern of the Board or not to issue a permit on something that was -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Stability was definitely a concern on our field inspection. Because the problem is we had no idea what we were looking at. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, but it seems to be me you are starting to give us a history of construction that is giving us a notion that it may be stable. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. MR. CROWLEY: The wall right now is stable. It's not the best looking wall, but it's stable. But as far as the repair and stuff like that, that's a decision of the Board. I didn't construct the wall. But as far as stability goes, it's not going to fall over any further than it already has. Because now it's backfilled on both sides and, you know, plus the worst part of it has the deck in front of it. And the deck is not supposed hold a retaining wall, but it will. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Once again, what's the depth of the piles that I'm looking at there, below the deck? How far down does it go? You said six to seven feet. MR. CROWLEY: I don't know. We were probably 30 inches below the deck level, maybe a little more, and we didn't reach the bottom. But they are not deep enough where they rotated over. I don't know how deep they are. TRUSTEE KING: In the letter he says it's six to seven feet. MR. STABILE: I said 12 feet long, the posts, are 12 feet long. TRUSTEE SANDERS: The posts are 12 feet long, so they are ten feet in -- MR. STABILE: And they are out of the sand now two feet. And they are ten feet is below the sand. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The letter that is dated 11/19/2014, said that they were imbedded six to seven feet. The letter that you signed. MR. STABILE: No, that's not me. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Who wrote this letter? The one you just gave us? MR. STABILE: That's Bruce. TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is the one you just gave us today. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The one you stamped with your engineering Board of Trustees 9 November 19, 2014 stamp. TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is the one you just came up and gave us today. MR. CROWLEY: Six, seven feet in the sand. Even if it's six, seven feet in the sand, that's good. I don't know how long they are. I didn't put them in. But as of right now, it's my opinion that wall stays where it is. It's not going to get any worse. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of our challenges is, again, from an engineering perspective, usually when somebody applies for a permit for a retaining wall, they come in with a set of plans ahead of time so we can do an analysis of the plans and look and see what they are and see if there are some modifications that can be done. So, there is no plans here for us. There is a letter saying what's there, but there are no plans. And so that does create a little bit of a challenge for us. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let me ask you a question. Because you said you don't know how deep they are. Say they are only two feet -- MR. CROWLEY: They are more than two feet because we were down more than two feet. We were down approximately three feet. 30-36 inches, I don't remember exactly. TRUSTEE SANDERS: How deep would they have to be for you to be confident that -- MR. CROWLEY: If they were three feet, I would be confident. Because it's backfilled on both sides. When we got there, that wall was much taller that it is now. There was less fill in front of it than when we started. And it was fairly stable then. But we excavated for deadmen further down, it came over a little bit. And there is no way of getting it back unless we take the whole bluff out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's a concern to me because we received testimony from other engineers regarding the ratio of the exposed to the depth and it's somewhere in the ratio of five to one, which would mean, obviously, in this case, you would have to go much more than ten feet deep to be stable. And they say it's a concern, because the letter that is presented says -- and it's one of the questions we were going to ask -- how deep. This letter says six to seven feet. And that's nowhere near that ratio. MR. CROWLEY: Right. It's a Board decision. But it's my opinion it's not going to fall over. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since Christopher Stabile is an engineer in his own right, I would think if he's prepared to sign the set of operating plans, stamp and sign it, based on the information we have here, I would think it would be compelling to accept that as the liability would go to him as an engineer. I don't think there is a prohibition against an individual stamping or signing their own plans. MR. CROWLEY: What he's saying is they would like to see a set of plans, as built, stamped by you. MR. STABILE: Well, I stamped this letter. MR. CROWLEY: No, a set of plans, cross-section, showing how it Board of Trustees 10 November 19, 2014 was designed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, Trustee Domino -- sorry, I didn't speak clearly enough so Mr. Stabile can hear me. The notion is that obviously a licensed design professional such as an engineer can stamp and sign their own plans, but the plans in this case were drawn up by Suffolk Environmental Consulting. If you are prepared to work together and develop a plan that also shows the depth of penetration, even if it means going back out and excavating one to get an exact depth of the penetration, and then you can sign the plans as a licensed design professional and then bring that back to the Board, I think maybe we'd want to table it until we review that. And maybe that would bring this into conformity with answering our engineering concerns for depth of penetration and providing the assertions of the licensed design professional. I don't know if that sounds reasonable. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sounds reasonable to me. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It does sound reasonable. I don't disagree with what you are saying. My question, for Mr. Crowley. For retaining walls in that area, given the height of that bluff, would there normally be some type of backing system, whether they be helical screws or they be deadmen or whatever. MR. CROWLEY: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I know for myself, I would be more inclined to be in support of an application that would include some type of backing system here. Whether it's helical screws or, which would probably be a whole lot easier than -- MR. CROWLEY: Helical screws would be perfectly fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, it would be a whole lot easier to put in helical screws than it would be to dig out and put in a backing system. MR. CROWLEY: Oh, deadmen, forget it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Exactly. MR. CROWLEY: In order to straighten the wall, it's not going to be straight. It doesn't have to be straight. There is a lot of not -straight bulkheads out there. But just to putting in the helical screws, that's all I'm trying to say, for helical screws, I'm trying to save Mr. Stabile, it's probably going to be $15,000. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about helical screws on the lateral sides to particularly protect failure, in other words helical screws on the ends of adjoining, neighboring property so there is not a question of failure on the end of that. MR. CROWLEY: It doesn't come close to the property line. I don't think it does. And the bluff actually comes back on Murphy's side, which is the side that you can't see here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My goodness, okay. MR. CROWLEY: Whatever you guys feel. TRUSTEE KING: It looks to me you kind of built this backwards. You should have built the bulkhead first and then the retaining wall. MR. STABILE: You have to understand, the bluff was blown away Board of Trustees 11 November 19, 2014 and I had a beach 15 feet inside, beyond the old bulkhead. So was I going to stand there and wait for the rest of the property to just blow away or take some action. Which I did. TRUSTEE KING: The action should have probably been coming in for a permit. That should have been your first action. Unfortunately -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The circumstances after Sandy were very trying for a lot of people. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: I would just like to add that because it's so low and because it's of a limited distance and because the distance between that low secondary wall and the primary bulkhead is in the order of ten or 12 feet, there is really not a big risk to the environment that it stay, and there is probably a bigger risk to remove it, or dig behind it, or to further disturb this bluff. The photo in front of you shows that the proper steps have been maintained to stabilize this bluff with the coir logs and the jute matting. I understand that it is a plug or it will look much different next year because it will be all filled in with beach grass. And as an environmental professional, I don't see that there is a big risk in leaving things the way they are to the environment. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). I'm inclined to make a motion to table this pending receipt of new plans that reflect the depth of the posts and signed and stamped by Mr. Stabile would be fine. Because as Trustee Bredemeyer points out there is nothing that prevents somebody from signing his own plans on his own property. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. TRUSTEE KING: I think we need a set of plans showing how it was built. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that's reasonable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would ask for consideration seeing as what you've heard from feedback here tonight about possible additional supporting construction of this structure. That's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second on the motion? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under wetland and coastal erosion permits, number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit to reconstruct the existing +/-180 linear foot long by 8.75 feet wide fixed wood pile and timber pier with railings, including (4) existing ladders waterward of the apparent high Board of Trustees 12 November 19, 2014 water line. Located: 20449 East Main Road, Fishers Island. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. And this states that the proposed dock has a top surface area of 1,575 square feet, and it's fixed. Therefore the dock as proposed is prohibited on the north shore area and on the beach pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. And also no permit was found for this structure. The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. We all went out, well, myself and Mike Domino went and looked at this. We were out there on October 28th. It's right off the golf course. As a matter of fact, you have to drive through part of the golf course just to get to it. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: On behalf of the application, Keith Nielson of Docko, Incorporated. This structure has been here for decades. And the last time we got a permit for it was about 20 years ago. And the piles and the structure that you see there today is what was built in the mid '90's. And with regard to the inconsistency, is it possible that structures that have been here for so long are exempt or grandfathered? I guess that would be my only question. TRUSTEE KING: I have a feeling this was built before we had Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Coastal Erosion was adopted by the state somewhere around 1991. 1 think we put it on the Town books around 1992, but full implementation was not probably until '94 or'95. So the history of this may precede it. And probably precedes full Town implementation because of the vagaries of that ordinance. I guess the question is when it was actually constructed. TRUSTEE KING: Do you know when it was actually constructed? MR. NIELSON: I know that when we did the permitting 20 years ago it was a reconstruction process. So it existed before then. And my recollection was it was built of old creosoted timbers and such. It would be hard for me to have a real good idea of that. I'm sure that we might be able to track it down with aerial photographs and everything. But it seems to me that — I think when it was permitted in the mid-90s it came under the grandfather permit. I don't recall that exactly but I know that that is how a lot of reconstruction projects on Fishers Island at the time went. At any rate, the project is to rebuild it exactly the way it is now. It's a little over eight feet wide and almost 200 feet long. And it's used by members of the club to access the club by boat. And it needs reconstruction. believe that many of the outer piles may have been overstressed in Hurricane Sandy, because I could actually get parts of the dock to move just by ramming into the piles with, you know, just throwing my body at it. TRUSTEE KING: When we were out there, we had questioned why does it even need to rebuilt. Because it looks like it's in pretty sound condition. MR. NIELSON: It was. But I was able to get parts of the dock to move visibly just by hitting it myself. And I only weigh 170 pounds. So I had some concerns. I believe that most of the piles for the outer half of the need to be replaced. TRUSTEE KING: Lori, if this was built before we had jurisdiction as far as Coastal Erosion goes, can he rebuild it? MS. HULSE: Do you mean reconstruct the whole thing? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. HULSE: (Perusing). Board of Trustees 13 November 19, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Can they just repair it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I was thinking. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Repair it, a percentage. Grandfather permit through an active repair. MR. NIELSON: Is there a limit to how much can be repaired? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have to check our code. TRUSTEE KING: It's a percentage. But it's a fairly substantial percentage. It can be repaired. MR. NIELSON: The club would certainly be agreeable to that. MS. HULSE: It says the reconstruction without modification of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the estimated full replacement cost of the structure at time of restoration. Modifications however may be allowed if they do not exceed pre-existing size limits and are intended to mitigate impact to natural protected beaches and other natural resources. MR. NIELSON: Would the pre-existing size limits apply to the size of the existing structure or the current standard. MS. HULSE: The pre-existing structure. MR. NIELSON: Okay. So if we reconstruct or repair less than half of it, that would be acceptable? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. NIELSON: The club would be agreeable to that. MS. HULSE: The cost of which exceeds or equals 50% of the estimated full replacement cost. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. NIELSON: Okay, well, we can, if it would suit you, we can get bids for the full replacement cost and then prorate the repair work so that it is clearly defendable under those terms. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that based on the annualized? Or is that specified? MS. HULSE: It doesn't say. MR. NIELSON: Would that preclude the club from repairing another portion in a subsequent year? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It doesn't address that. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't really address it. MS. HULSE: The technical answer is you are not supposed to piecemeal it like that, because you are segmenting your overall application. So the answer is not really. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There are certain natural attributes of Fishers Island, and our frequency of going there, I'm not suggesting you do anything that's less than appropriate, but the fact this is an existing dock that's been there, I speak for myself, I don't have a problem with this on a repair basis. It has historically been there. Why should it be different for us than other communities. I know that during the course of enforcing 200 -square foot of open constructed decks in East Marion post Tropical Storm Sandy, a very astute homeowner who wanted to replace his deck, which is essentially 200 -square feet, researched how the State of New York through the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, they conveniently left all the boardwalks along the south shore of Long Island landward of the Coastal Board of Trustees 14 November 19, 2014 Erosion Hazard Act, so after Sandy hit they could actually replace actually square miles of boardwalks. So I don't see why a dock that has been in continual use on Fishers Island for the good and welfare of a goodly number of people, why they shouldn't have the ability to repair it and keep what they have. TRUSTEE KING: And maintain it. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree 100%. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, I don't know how the Board feels. I think on a repair basis it's a question that this application doesn't need to be moved on, Lori, because it's for a permit, and they don't need a permit if they have a previous grandfather permit. MS. HULSE: Correct. I mean you could require him to produce the figures he's going to do and you can mark this off if you want, sure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How does the Board feel about that? TRUSTEE SANDERS: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: Is there any sort of permit on it in place now? I didn't think there was. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a question, whether there is a permit now. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think there is. I would issue a permit for this make him repair it as needed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is, Lori, whether we can simply issue a permit as is and then they can reconstruct it as per code. TRUSTEE KING: Because right now if there is not a current permit on it, he can't do anything on it. MS. HULSE: I know. TRUSTEE KING: Right? MS. HULSE: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: If we issued a permit for the existing structure -- (A conversation is held off the record between the Board members and Counsel). TRUSTEE KING: Keith, where do you stand with DEC? Have you applied to them? They looked at it with us. MR. NIELSON: Right. I've met with Andrew Walker today and he was inclined they were going to issue a permit to repair it. And the question that I have is if repairing, if you your decision were to be to continue repairing an ongoing, pre-existing structure, would that still apply if we have another hurricane like Sandy and the dock was knocked down? TRUSTEE KING: Then I think you would have to apply. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. When a structure is destroyed, you start from scratch. You start with a brand new permitting process to build to today's standards, etcetera. (A conversation is held off the record between the Board members and Counsel). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understand that none of this discussion is on the record. Board of Trustees 15 November 19, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are just referring to counsel for a deliberate discussion on permitting of this aspect that Trustee King is going to try to bring us all up to date on the discussion. TRUSTEE KING: It seems to me this predates our jurisdiction as far as Coastal Erosion goes, and probably even the Wetland Code. So I think it's just a simple matter -- is there anybody else here to speak on this application? (No response). I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And I would make a motion to approve the issuance of a Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit for this dock. Not to reconstruct it. It's just a permit for the dock so ordinary maintenance can be continued on it, but not a complete reconstruction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And noting, if I might add, that the dock has been in continuous maintenance and therefore under Coastal Erosion, it would address the inconsistency under the Coastal Erosion because there is no permit needed for Coastal Erosion for consistently maintained docks. So by permitting and continuing the repair and the upkeep of the dock it would comply with facilities that predated coastal erosion that were held in continuous maintenance. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. Just so I'm clear, the motion is just what the Trustee King made. You just made comment on the motion. just want to make it clear. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, I made comments on the motion requesting it be included, if Trustee King is willing to include my comments into the motion, meaning the justification of the approval. There has been a motion made with some comments and discussion. Is there a second to the motion? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item one under wetland permits, Joan Chambers on behalf of JACK FARNSWORTH requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 172' long concrete seawall with 45' long westerly concrete return; and to replace the 4'x4'x172', and 4'x4'x45' toe armoring using 2001b. To 6001b. stone boulders against the face of the seawall; access to be on the beach via a right-of-way immediately to the west of the property. Located: 1140 Park Avenue, Mattituck. This project has been determined to be consistent with the LW RP. Board of Trustees 16 November 19, 2014 Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CHAMBERS: My name is Joan Chambers, and I'm just here to answer, if you have any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The CAC supports the application with a suggestion that better tools, a better piece of equipment might be considered to capture debris, such as a clamshell bucket, rather than a front-end loader for impact to the sea bottom during the construction phase. That was the CAC's request on this. The Trustees looked at the project on field inspection and I believe there were no issues or questions that came about from the field inspection, unless any Board members have any now. (No response). So we don't have any questions. MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing none, I'll take a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make that motion to close. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted with a request that due diligence be exercised during equipment operations to protect the littoral zone from unnecessary siltation. A silt boom for this project -- it's all open, sandy material, right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: All open material. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So I'll make a motion with the request that due diligence be exercised to prevent additional debris that might come up during the course of construction from getting into the littoral zone. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Donald Feiler on behalf of STEPHANIE NECKLES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 248sq.ft. two-story addition onto the existing 1,325sq.ft. two-story dwelling with attached 687sq.ft. deck. Located: 130 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FEILER: Good evening. I'm Don Feiler, Mrs. Neckles' architect, and also representing her on this application for a Wetland Permit. The project is a proposed two story, about 15x16 addition to the existing house. It's to extend parallel to the existing deck, 79 feet from the bulkhead. I could tell you the Board of Trustees 17 November 19, 2014 house has been there, it was built in 1962; additions all water side; 1980, two-story addition; 1988, addition and deck; 1989, addition -- or new garage in the front yard; and 1992, bulkhead reconstructed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. This project has been deemed to be consistent by the LWRP coordinator. I as the area Trustees have performed the inspection. It was very straightforward. The structure proposed is essentially within the general outline of the existing building. It did appear to me that there are existing gutters leading to drain pipes that may be going to drywells. The CAC just requested that we have gutters and leaders for drywells. It was unclear to me because I could not see where the conduit led. I don't know if either Jack McGreevey or Peter was on that field inspection. It didn't seem to be an issue with the direct discharge of roof runoff to the bay. But do you think the applicant would be willing to have a condition that drywells be put in during the course of construction? MR. FEILER: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). Any questions from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the stipulation that drywells, if not currently present, be installed with downspouts and leaders to drywells be installed for this project. That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANDREW & LINDA TOGA request a Wetland Permit to remove existing fixed pier, ramp and float; install new 4'x56' fixed pier consisting of a 4'x8' top platform to 4'x5' set of stairs to a 6'x6' middle platform to second set of 4'x5' stairs to a 4'x32' pier; a 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock supported by two (2) 8" diameter piles in same alignment as existing. Located: 2425 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. The Board did go out and looked at this project. The CAC resolved to support the application. However they noted at the time the seaward end of the dock was not staked; and they recommended gutters, leaders and drywell to contain the roof runoff on the dwelling. The LWRP review found this to be inconsistent, and if Board of Trustees 18 November 19, 2014 you'll just bear with me, it's a rather lengthy determination. (Perusing). First off, it would extend further into the current floating dock; and the applicant has not demonstrated the need to extend further into the navigable waterway than the current dock. Because it extends farther into the navigable waterway, it affects the navigation, ability to navigate in the area. There is a concern about the existing pier line. He was not sure, but this was not, if this did not conform to the existing pier line, it would be inconsistent; Hashamomuck Pond is a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat and a valuable pond in Long Island; and there be consideration given for the alternative use for the seasonal mooring in the area rather than extending this dock. And finally, the dock structure not extend further into public waters. So that's a summary of the LWRP findings. As I said, the Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. I definitely staked this. Because my pants were wet when I got out of the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we did see it staked when we were out there, the Board. MR. PATANJO: Okay, so you saw it staked. Okay. With regard to why we need to extend this out, it's just like many other applications that I have been here before you for. At low tide we don't have sufficient water depth. Shown on the survey that was done and stamped by Michael Wicks, land surveyor, at low tide right now, currently, we have about 18 to 24 inches of water at low tide at the floating dock. As you know, DEC requirement is 30 inches of water at low tide at the floating dock. We wanted to extend it out so that the I guess northeastern corner hits 30 inches of water at low tide. The water does slope down considerably. It goes from 30 to 43 inches to 46 inches. And I just provided you with a map, as I have in the past, showing the projection, it's kind of, this is a weird situation where this dock is. It's kind of tucked back in the cove, so I don't have a straight line I could show you where the dock extends out into. But if I go to the dock which is closest to the east and project that line down to the southwest, with the shoreline there, you can noticeably see there is no navigation change by extending out this dock. It moves it out about 12 to 14 feet into the water. And the width there, it's not going to pose any navigational hazard. However it will provide my applicant with the sufficient water depth for the DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jeff, would the applicant consider the use of flow-through grating for the steps going to the platform and from the platform down to and including the catwalk? I'm trying to address some of the inconsistencies. MR. PATANJO: Unfortunately they are not here. I would have no problem saying for them, on their behalf, that it would be okay. Board of Trustees 19 November 19, 2014 However, I didn't even propose that because there are no wetlands in the area. The wetlands are 50 feet in each direction. There is nothing there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were down there, we did notice, it looked like some attempts by Mother Nature to reestablish some wetlands, I would say to the right on the picture that is right now up there on the screen. So we think there is some potential there for it and that's why if we use the grated material it might encourage further development -- MR. PATANJO: I can modify the plans to show that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also just had a quick question. We noticed there is a bench there. Again, if you look at the picture there, on the first platform, but it's not shown on your proposed diagram. We didn't know if you wanted to include that bench or take that bench away. MR. PATANJO: I have the new 6x6 landing, did want to do a bench on that landing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. PATANJO: I didn't know if I needed to show it or not. But I showed the 6x6 landing. But we would like to put a bench back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. PATANJO: And where did you want to have that flow-through decking; from the last set of stairs out? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Actually, if you could see on the picture, the upper platform, once you go seaward of the upper platform that actually I'm standing on there in the picture, from that point forward we would want to have open -grate. MR. PATANJO: From the stairs waterward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that the seaward platform -- MR. PATANJO: Yes. Really on my plan, mean high water out to the end of the pier. TRUSTEE KING: From where that platform ends out to the -- MR. PATANJO: On the stairs as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And we had also looked while we were out there in the field to try to determine the pier line. The document you had submitted supports what our views were out there that this did not extend beyond the pier line. MR. PATANJO: Yes. Now, normally when we do, and it's up to the applicant, of course, but normally when we do the flow-through grating we would only go up to say the mean low tide line. If they wanted to transition it -- you know what, let's do it the whole way. It just looks better that way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, we would really like to see it from that landing seaward. MR. PATANJO: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Would the applicant have any objection to putting in drywells on Board of Trustees 20 November 19, 2014 the seaward side of the house? So that the seaward side of the house -- right now there's gutters and downspouts that exit directly on to that, you know, that surface. And I know that the CAC noted that, and we noted that also. I'm just asking if there would be any consideration of that by the applicant. MR. PATANJO: At this point I'll say we would not like to until we come in for any modifications for the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I just thought I would ask. That's all. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the Toga's with the condition that there will be flow-through grating used from the what is depicted as the proposed landing seaward; that a bench will be included on that 6'x6' landing; and noting that this structure will not extend further out into the waterway than neighboring docks, so staying within the pier line; and noting the use of the flow-through grating, would deem it to be consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, number four, on page six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of MICHAEL F. & COLLEEN M. LoGRANDE request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct and reconfigure existing dock assembly by removing existing 4'x32' catwalk, 3'x14' ramp, two 5'x20' floats, and one 6'x16' float; and construct new 4'x64' catwalk; 3'x15' ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock; install a gravel access area measuring approximately 15'x265'; and remove two trees along the existing fence line. Located: 555 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP has found this to be consistent. And the CAC has supported this with the following information. Actually, they just support it. They didn't have any comments to make. And we did go take a look at this on November 12th. The Trustees were all present, and the suggestions that we made were 12 -foot access path with crushed shell cover, retaining kick board following west property line with a slight dogleg east to avoid Baccharus, and to move the dock to the east for deeper water and less catwalk over the meadow. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I'll just hand up two documents. The first is called a comparative detail, and it's consistent with the suggestion I believe Trustee King made at the last hearing to shift the dock over to what used to be the easterly finger of the existing dock that is Board of Trustees 21 November 19, 2014 there today. So that is what that graphic shows you. I believe that's what he asked us to do. The second starts with an aerial photograph is our revised plans for the access path, if you will, sufficient to sail a boat, if needed. And that plan contains the crushed shell sub -base. There is a cross-section there which is contained by a timber curb that is staked into the ground. It does meander around, it hugs, obviously, the western property line. But it does meander around the high tide brush, which is the Baccharus that we discussed. And also we moved the access 30 feet east on Fleetwood Road to avoid the trees we were talking about, the power line and the well pit. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay. Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It appears you incorporated all of our suggestions into this design. I appreciate that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do we have to modify the project description to include the timber retaining section? MR. ANDERSON: Or as a condition, however you would like. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other thing, Trustee King suggested we might want to put natural material such as shell. MR. ANDERSON: That's on the plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, I didn't see that. I thought you were staying with the gravel. MR. ANDERSON: Sorry. I may have said gravel but the suggestion was crushed shell, so that's what we'll use. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Great. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, one of the concerns we had was that there had appeared to be mowing of wetland area, I'll say between the path and the wetlands; there had been mowing being done in there. MR. ANDERSON: I think the understanding was it would be a condition that the land to the east of the pathway would be left alone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are ahead of what I was saying. TRUSTEE KING: They changed the wetland boundary and moved it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So a condition would be there would no longer be any mowing of that. I wanted to make sure that condition was noted on the record. MR. ANDERSON: I have discussed that with the client and it's acceptable to the client. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: While we are discussing, I guess a point of confusion, if we stipulate crushed shell base because it still says proposed gravel access on the site plan, which also includes crushed shell. So as long as it's understood we'll have the shell. That's why I saw that. (A conversation is held off the record). TRUSTEE SANDERS: I want to make sure this letter is read into the record. This letter is by David W. Corcoran. It says I'm writing to you in response to the notice I received from the Department of the Army, New York District Corps of Engineers. I'm greatly opposed to this application of Mr. and Ms. LoGrande to remove an existing pier, ramp and float and construct a 64' Board of Trustees 22 November 19, 2014 long by four -foot wide timber pier. The proposed structure would have a negative impact on the shoreline's functionality, preservation and esthetics. The proposed structure would block the entrance where East Creek leads into the Eugene's Creek being that this waterway is very shallow and navigable only at high tides. It would severely limit the access the property owners on Eugene's Creek would have to enter and exit the waterway by their homes. I'm concerned with the impact this dock would have on the ecosystem. This area is a known nesting area for sea turtles, shallow clam beds and wintering birds. And finally, esthetically, I believe by jutting out so far into the creek it would create an eyesore, severely distracting from the natural beauty of the surrounding area. I sincerely hope that you will take all of my concerns into account as you review this proposed application. Dated October 16th, 2014. Any other thoughts from the Board? MR. CORCORAN: I would like to say something. My name is David Corcoran. I had sent you guys pictures on November 1 st at high tide. I'm not sure if you did receive them. I spoke to Amanda in the Trustees office, but I have a couple of pictures myself here. This is the proposed place you guys plan on allowing a gravel shell. And here is another picture out in front there. I listened to testimony from the gentleman over here before. He stated that in order to have a floating dock you need at least 30 inches at low tide. There is no way that dock will have 30 inches at low tide. Not even at high tide. So I'm wondering why to allow an existing dock to jut out even farther into the creek there. It's a piece of property that is submerged at high tide. MS. HULSE: That reference was made to the DEC regulations, not the Trustees. MR. CORCORAN: Which was? MS. HULSE: The 30 inches of water at low tide. Just to let you know. MR. CORCORAN: I'm just saying the pictures there clearly shows that property is under water at high tide. I'm not sure if you went there on high tide on the 12th. I was told you would be. But it was under water. TRUSTEE SANDERS: No, not at the time we went. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We went at the time of scheduled high tide. The date and time of your picture coincided with a storm, nor'easter event where it would cause flooding. The Board normally relies on markers and the rack line and normal tide conditions when we make determinations. It's standard practice for this agency as well as Department of Environmental Conservation. There will be those times when we have a lot more water in the bays. MR. CORCORAN: Sure. Of course. The question to you is what would be the reason for having a longer dock. I'm still trying to understand why. What's the accomplishment of that. The water doesn't change going out 30 feet or 60 feet. Board of Trustees 23 November 19, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily it's really bad form for us to start an interplay with individuals. It's for you to bring testimony. But just as a point of information, the Department of Environmental Conservation typically sets those depth requirements which then requires a dock to go out to meet those water depths to try and provide protection for the benthic zone, for marine organisms, so that propellers turning, on outboards in particular, are not disturbing the bottom, for all the reasons stated. Because it is a significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat where there is fish spawning. So the additional length is determined by virtue of getting the depth necessary to make it. Then the Board has to do a review of the fact that within those, meeting those depth requirements, that we don't greatly exceed the pier line of the natural flow of the coast or we don't exceed the one-third rule where we go more than a third of the way across a creek, which is a standard, which the Army Corps of Engineers will also enforce. In this case, of course, it doesn't go over one third of the way. MR. CORCORAN: But the DEC says they have 30 inches out there, you have nothing to do with that, correct? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Our review is independent. The applicant is responsible for making those depth assertions for the agencies. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I thought the application, based on several field inspections, appeared to be truthful for the depths presented. MR. CORCORAN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of this application? (No response). Anybody from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SANDERS: I make a motion to approve this application with the caveat that the area that was mowed in the past will no longer be mowed. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If there is a second, I would like some discussion. You may wish to include that the material be shell material in the construction. I think that was the only other -- MR. ANDERSON: If I may make a suggestion. We can revise the plans. I think I understand what is requested here. I'll revise the plans to show what will in essence be a buffer between the shell path and wetland boundary. And also to delete that word gravel and insert crushed shell. That should take care of it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. A motion has been made. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you want me to modify the motion? Board of Trustees 24 November 19, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you would kindly modify it. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application to reflect new plans and the removal the of the word "gravel" from the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just like to amend that motion to include no mowed lawn to be depicted on the new set of plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, motion is made and seconded. Do you accept the motion with the addition of no mowing? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and amended accepting new plans and having no mowing. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN FISCHETTI requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing dock and construct a 4'x112' elevated catwalk; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' floating dock; all materials to be non -treated and all hardware to be hot -dipped galvanized. Located: 2615 Wells Road, Peconic. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the proposed configuration does not comply with the permitted dock and notes that Richmond Creek is a critical environmental area, and the dock will extend 91 feet into navigable waters, and will have a negative impact. The CAC resolved to support this application with the condition that the catwalk is constructed with open -grate decking. There is a concern with runoff from the driveway and how that is being handled. The Trustees in field inspection on November 12th, noted that they should locate the catwalk further south than it was staked. Doing so would bring the catwalk through less Spartina and would reach deeper water allowing for a shortening of the catwalk. And also noted should remove the older floats which are damaging the wetlands, as soon as possible. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I apologize, if we go back to the LWRP, I think the comments he made was that the proposed dock extends further out than the existing dock; that there is an impact to navigable channel; and what was the third? Was that the critical environmental area? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. So I handed out some visual aids to kind of assist this discussion. The first visual aid is an aerial photograph, and what we did is we took the existing dock, it was always a dock out here. The dock was destroyed through Hurricane Sandy. And we overlaid that on to the dock that we are proposing now. And what you can see is that the dock we propose is the same dock that was there, less two differences. One difference Board of Trustees 125 November 19, 2014 is that the float extends straight out from the dock rather than the previous float that was in a "T" configuration to the dock. The second difference is we've extended the landward side of the catwalk further landward so that the marsh is not trampled by accessing the dock. So with all due respect, I believe the LWRP reviewer is mistaken in his first objection. The second objection deals with the navigable channel. And so we provide a blowup of that aerial photograph and we see that we have approximately 490 feet from one shoulder, from across the waterway, in a perpendicular distance. So it's 490 feet across Richmond Creek from one shoreline to the next. You'll also see a measurement of 78 feet which depicts the extension of the dock from what is essentially the seaward Spartina line out to the terminus of the proposed dock. And it is quite clear that there is no impact in navigable channels. The third is kind of an interesting aerial. And what we do is we show the proposed dock in relationship to the other docks that exist in Richmond Creek, and you'll see there is only one dock to the north, which is much shorter. And I would suspect would be substandard with respect to water depths. But needless to say, I think they clearly show that there are not any impacts to the navigable channel. And then as per the critical environmental area, we are simply replacing a dock that was lost through Hurricane Sandy. As to the Trustees' concerns, if you look at the second aerial to the extent we are crossing wetlands, the lesser distance is not substantial, in our view. The difference here is couple fold. The first is that if we are going to shift that to the south, you know, understand there is going to be an impact which is that you'll be disturbing two areas along the shoreline instead of one. The first disturbance would be the removal of the existing dock and the piles and whatnot that are already in place there. Then the second impact will be the construction of a new dock some distance to the south of that. So I bring that to your attention. The second aspect of this is we are not sure that we have deeper water to the south. We have sufficient water where we are, so we certainly don't want to locate a dock further to the south if it means putting it in more shallow water. Thirdly, it is our intention that we would use the flow-through across the marsh and perhaps along the entire length of the fixed catwalk to reduce any light -type impacts. But I do point out that this dock extends to the east and the sun essentially crossing the southern sky because we are in the northern hemisphere, the impacts of shading are probably minimal here in any event. So those are my basic comments. I'm free to discuss this and answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just an observation. I was on the tag end of the Town tape measure when Trustee King almost went swimming when we measured the difference between the proposed dock location and one we felt might be a little better, and actually Board of Trustees 26 November 19, 2014 we found that it was approximately 25 feet or less of currently high marsh. Now, there is an area that has been mowed to the landward that might figure into that. But it was a substantial shortening of the catwalk over the vegetated marsh for this inspection. And we were not moving it that much, and we were using your own depths from your soundings in the inspection to indicate that the depth was possibly slightly more but not less. We are not talking about moving the dock very much to the southerly. We were basically moving it 25 to 30 feet to the south. So it's essentially within the ranges you had already provided for depths. But there was very substantial narrowing of the mature marsh fringe. MR. ANDERSON: Like I said, it's not a huge point for us, but as long as the depth is there, we are amenable to it. But I just thought the disturbance argument would be important. Because you have to pull out that material. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not apparent when you look at it. Jim King really, he dug in and took the measurement. Standing from the shore line and even the aerial you don't see it, but when you actually tape it, it's a decent amount. We are not talking moving the dock to any great measure. The question I have, are you compelled to have a straight out configuration as opposed to the "T"? Because it appears that you are getting out beyond the even the natural lay of the coast and the pier line to, if you can get the depths that the DEC looks at, it seems the old configuration is more in keeping with the dock uses in the creek. MR. ANDERSON: If you look at the aerial, what you'll see is that some of the floats are in "T" fashion and some go straight out. Perhaps if you go to the secondary aerial, you can see that. You can see actually the boats that are moored to them. So in some cases we are showing in that aerial, beside ours, seven. Of the seven, five of them go straight out and two of them have "T" shapes. We are not opposed to it, and I'm not sure that it will matter from the standpoint of usability or what have you, nor do I think it will matter a tremendous amount from the standpoint of navigability, because the creek is so wide there. But again, we are looking to have, you know, a good two -and -a -half feet around it. Right now this dock on one end is at 2.5 feet at the seaward end of the float and it extends to almost three feet at low tide. Sorry, 0.5, the landward end of the float, and almost two -and -a -half feet -- three feet at the seaward end. If we turn that, we may run afoul. The difference in the length would be maybe six feet. That's what we are talking about. We are not opposed to doing it, but is it worth doing it, is the question. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to support Trustee Bredemeyer's comments and point out that if you are not entrenched in this particular plan, shifting it approximately 15 feet -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 25, 30 feet, in that range. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Would shorten it considerably and would make it much easier for us to bring this into compliance with the LWRP, Board of Trustees 27 November 19, 2014 which we have to do in order to issue a permit. So what I'm saying, if the applicant would agree to shift it 20, approximately 20 feet to the south -- TRUSTEE KING: I myself would prefer to go back out and meet in the field and show them where the dock goes and stake it out so we are all on the same page. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe that's what we should do. As I said, I'm not opposed to it, but I want a functional dock. And I don't think there is a lot of validity -- it's not that it matters so much, but the LWRP points, frankly, are probably not accurate anyway. So I would let that guide it. If it's a better plan, I'm willing to do it. But it's not something I say has to be done, because the LWRP coordinator makes three assertions that are not -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would rather not address that. But if we could meet again in the field and come up with a plan that we think will shorten it and address his concerns and get you the depth of water, and all parties benefit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If I can, again, for the purpose of carrying forward this thought if we meet in the field, I'm usually not too concerned about extension of docks but in this case, this is a very dark creek. We are getting up to, it's not well lit, the properties are fairly large. I'm thinking about a person in a small boat navigating, might have one of the docks further to the north, this dock the way it extends out, someone who might be hugging the shoreline and navigating up during the twilight or such, going back home, has this dock extending out even beyond the point of land that is shown on page two of the owner, so that I'm a little concerned about that. I think there are approved navigation aids like a flashing green light that could actually be applied to small docks in conformity with Coast Guard regulations. You can check on that. But I'm concerned about the extent this dock goes out. So I would like that to be part of our discussion when we go in the field. I'm thinking as a small boat user and things you might encounter, you would not want a small boat operator who is following the shoreline beyond the other docks in the area and takes a similar course could actually intercept this dock. I just want to enter that into the discussion going forward and revisit this. MR. ANDERSON: I would say let's table it. Because we can probably figure this out a little better in the field than we can here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KING: Another concern of mine is two large float sitting up the wetlands now that is really destroying that wetland area. MR. ANDERSON: The floats, I agree with you. TRUSTEE KING: They sat in one position just further seaward and now I guess a big tide has moved them further in. Now you have a whole area there that has been completely wiped out. MR. ANDERSON: I agree with you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If we can have the applicant consider removing Board of Trustees 28 November 19, 2014 those floats now, sooner rather than later, I'll say. MR. ANDERSON: I'll mention that. The other thing we can do is restore the area, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we also noted up to the north, and I'll call it the landward, there is also pieces of the dock or float in there, deeper in there. Same thing, get those removed. Because they are destroying the habitat. MR. ANDERSON: This whole property will be redeveloped, so there will be lots that can be done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It is a violation of the code, so. Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of TOWN OF SOUTHOLD requests a Wetland Permit to excavate a new 25' to 30' wide inlet in Downs Creek to Peconic Bay to -2' below mean low water; re -grade both banks on side of new inlet; construct new dike closing off existing creek inlet reusing the approximately 3,000 cubic yards of excavated material as fill for the closing. Located: Downs Creek Inlet, Cutchogue. This was reviewed by the LWRP and found to be consistent. And part of the recommendation for the consistency was an historical aerial analysis he did that showed that there was, this channel had been in what is the proposed location or closer to the proposed location for many years, and that improves the flushing of the water, improved flushing of water bodies, improved water quality and habitat conditions. The CAC resolved to support the application with the recommendation to widen the inlet to 30 feet so there is a greater flow of water in and out. And the constructed jetty on the bay side of the new and wider inlet, on the southwest side of the inlet, to protect the inlet from shoaling is due to natural west to east littoral drift. The project is not a permanent solution and will require maintenance dredging. That's recommendations from the CAC. There is a letter here that I'll stipulate will be entered into the record in its entirety. What I'll do is basically go over what I feel are the high points of the letter. This is a letter submitted November 16th, by the Weil family, signed by four members of the Weil family. And it states, again, I'm just highlighting or hitting the high points of the letter. As adjacent property owner we are very interested in the possible consequences of this project forecasting what these may be is problematic. For over four generations they have lived in this area; they mention the history of the dredging of Board of Trustees 29 November 19, 2014 this area; the last proposed dredging of the creek was some time in the 1980s. According to their conversation with the then -patriarch of the McCall family Adrian McCall, the proposal was rejected because he feared the proposed dredging of a channel extending hundreds of yards in the bay would erode his concrete barrier wall. They talk about the dredging of Deep Hole Creek and the movement of sand down the shoreline adjacent to the concrete wall. The original channel into Downs Creek was west and adjacent to where the project is now proposed. They have some questions: What is the depth of the channel to be dug? Why the channel should not be placed further west closer to the concrete wall? How far will the channel extend into the Downs Creek? What's the informed prediction of the littoral drift within the creek that would result from the current flow? Due to change in tidal flow patterns, they observed the growth of marshland in the center at Downs Creek that did not originally exist; erosion of marshland on east side of the Weil property; depth of water immediately in front of the Weil bulkhead is declined; and again, I'll stipulate that the rest of this letter is entered into the record. One other point of information -- well, first, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, from Costello Marine Contracting, and we made the application for the McCall's, and we did make an application to Southold for the same project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could, just for clarification, we know that this is, what is before us here is on behalf of the Town of Southold. We are looking to amend that description tonight so it will be read Costello Marine on behalf of Russell McCall, looking for the applicant to agree to that, and in doing so, the Trustees will agree to, if this project is approved, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here, but if this project was approved, the Trustees would agree to it as the owners of the underwater lands in this area. MR. COSTELLO: I was hoping you would both pay, but since you are bailing out, we'll agree to amend the permit for Mr. McCall and family. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would like to, I don't know if you have a presentation to make. MR. COSTELLO: One of the comments was suggested, even on this photograph, you see the little dark spot leading into the inlet, we are trying to minimize the amount of dredging. You can also find out the littoral drift of sand is going from east to west. That peninsula, the water -- there is a lot of water in Downs Creek, in total. It's trying to get its way out. By trying to get its way out, it is eroding into the wetlands area along the shoreline. If we open that up where it's proposed, you will see that little peninsula migrate back in toward and re -enforce the existing eroding bluff line that it has. I think you will probably have windage and whatnot restore much of that sand into the bluff line and protect Downs Creek much more than it's being Board of Trustees 30 November 19, 2014 protected now. The flow of water, as you can see, it's going to find its way out. If you help it locate where, back where originally it was, and it was west of what is proposed, but there is major quantity of sand, and we want to try to eliminate the cost. We are not going to make it any deeper. But what you are going to find out when you open up something that is 30 feet wide, the sluffing along the shoreline will narrow it up and it will shoal to some degree, but the water will want to get out. It will want to maintain some original depth. So it might narrow up and it may need additional dredging in the future. But I think that the Board should probably consider maintenance dredging in the same area, once it's proven. There was dredging before and it's relocated itself by the amount of water coming out of there and some of the weather conditions. So by just opening the water up and getting the flushing action into Downs Creek, is certainly a major environmental improvement to Downs Creek. Whether it can be maintained or for how long a period of time, I'm not going to be forecasting weather conditions, but we are going to have some storms and it may have to be a re -opening, but it will be minor compared to what is intended now to re -close that off, so that major portion of that peninsula can migrate back to where it belongs. And think it will happen. Now we did consult with Jay Tanski of Sea Grant in order to try to find out the whole history of where the inlets were in there. And the major inlet was a little bit to the west of that, what is being proposed, but as you can see there is a bigger build-up of sand, and in order to not drive up the costs of what we are trying to do, is close it off and let nature migrate the major portion of that sand, not dredging, but the major portion of that sand will be done by Mother Nature. And hopefully she will help. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also want to make the Board aware I met out there with Mr. Tanski of Sea Grant, who is a coastal zone management expert for New York State, as well as Rob Marsh with the DEC. And they concurred with what Mr. Costello said as far as there is an opportunity here for this sand spit to migrate to the north, which will do a couple of things. One, it will create a larger barrier island to protect the inside of the entrance to the creek. It will also result in the creation of habitat, possibly for birds in there, since it's an undeveloped area, they feel it could potentially be a protected habitat area for birds. So from both a concern for the water quality in the creek as well as concern for habitat, they strongly supported this application when we were there in the field. I know one of the questions that comes up in this letter is what is the depth this will be dredged, and I see it's in the description, two feet below mean low water. So that answers that question that was brought up. I think you've also addressed the questions as why the Board of Trustees 31 November 19, 2014 present location rather than a location farther to the west. I think you have addressed those here. MR. COSTELLO: To minimize the amount of fill that is necessary to be moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing I would ask, if the applicant would consider and the Board would consider amending this to be a ten-year maintenance permit also, which would allow the applicant to dredge it, depending on DEC permitting to be able to dredge it over a ten-year period as needed. MR. COSTELLO: I think that would behoove seeing you wonderful people again and again and again. But I think our initial dredging will be reasonably significant in quantity, and approximately three -thousand yards. But I think, additionally, after that, it would probably be minimum, four or five -hundred yards, just to keep the flow in the same general direction and think it can be accomplished economically reasonably. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the Board have any objection to amending this to be a ten-year maintenance permit? (Affirmative response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I know we normally have done that with dredging permits. MR. COSTELLO: I think Downs Creek being the asset it is for the Town -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: In studying older, meandering streams, they usually do cut in a shorter pathway. So essentially what you are trying to do is speed up what would be a natural process here anyhow, and it probably will require less dredging. MR. COSTELLO: It will in the future, yes. MR. MCGREEVEY: Dave, I would like to get John's opinion on putting in an adequate length and well -constructed jetty at that southwest new opening. I just would like to get his opinion. Pete and I were just talking about engineering concepts. Neither one of us are engineers. But I would like to get John's opinion on the CAC recommendation to the Trustees about adequate length jetty at the southwest opening at the inlet so that shoaling does not take place in a very short period of time and wipe out the investment of whoever is going to pay the bill. I just would like his opinion. MR. COSTELLO: I'll certainly offer my opinion here. I have been doing this for over 50 years. But I think that most of the littoral drift is, you are not going to get a jetty or groin of adequate length to stop the littoral drift. The onshore/offshore drift you can almost see at the end of that, much of the sand will go off. But in the bay it's shoal. A lot of times you'll see more shoaling going directly offshore with differing weather conditions, east winds, and you'll see it migrate back into Downs. I think the configuration that you are seeing is duly to empty Downs Creek, and it's just taking the sand and moving that location. The DEC, I would like to get some help to getting a groin put in. But they want you to stop at low water. You do not -- Board of Trustees 32 November 19, 2014 adequate length, the end of the jetty is the most productive portion of it, and what that does is brings the after the low water mark, it will bring the sand in and deposit it on the inshore end. One time, I think most of the jetties that were built along that whole bay front, too high. You have to fill them and go over top of them. But I doubt, there is too much sand, littoral drift of sand here. And you would never get the permit from the DEC, anyway. Maybe from the Army Corps. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I want to ask a question. I want to make sure I understand the concept. You'll dredge here and the natural flow will cut this all out. You won't be dredging anywhere here (indicating). You open this up and this will all backfill with sand. MR. COSTELLO: I'll place the sand right up against that dune so it's cut off, so it doesn't go back to the east. And we'll try to help that dune rebuild by itself. And you'll see that little peninsula naturally migrate back where there is no flow of water. It will move inland. MR. MCGREEVEY: So it seems from what I hear John saying is the length of the groin that determines whether if it's a good idea or not a good idea. So if we are limited to a short groin, there is no -- but if we have a longer groin it would serve what you are saying. MR. COSTELLO: Absolutely. But you can't get them permitted. Unfortunately. MR. MCGREEVEY: So we were not far off base here. Just by a few feet. MR. COSTELLO: You were on base. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else here in the audience that wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). All right, any other comment from the Board? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just want to point out no new jetties or groins are permitted unless the work results in a net decrease in the total number of jetties in the subject area. So it's not allowed anyhow. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As per code. Okay, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine noting for the record it's on behalf of Russell McCall as has been agreed to, with the Trustees approval to allow the Trustee bottoms to be dredged. And that this will be a ten-year maintenance permit. And those are my conditions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of discussion do we want, because this is in the public interest, do we want to wave Trustee fees in moving material from Trustee bottom? I think it would be warranted. Board of Trustees 33 November 19, 2014 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would agree to that, considering the expense that is already being incurred by the applicant to do this, and the fact that this will greatly benefit environmentally not just that creek itself but the region, I would fully support waiving those fees. MS. HULSE: Are the spoils being placed on public land? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, they are. Okay, motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, you know, I know we closed the hearing, but I want to commend the McCall family for taking on this project. This will, again, greatly benefit the area, as previous work the McCall family has done for that area. So thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Duly noted. This is a really great project. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. On behalf of WILLIAM & THERESA KAINZBAUER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x64' fixed catwalk with a 4' wide stairway at offshore end; add install seasonal storage racks for kayaks along sides of catwalk. Located: 295 Island View Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 57-2-29 REVISED DESCRIPTION AS OF OCTOBER 24,2014: Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of WILLIAM & THERESA KAINZBAUER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x64' fixed catwalk with a 4' wide stairway at offshore end; install storage racks for kayaks along the side of catwalk; and for the existing "L" shaped 15.8'x25.5'x26.0'x9.7'x1 0.2'xl 5.8' as -built deck attached to dwelling. Located: 295 Island View Lane, Greenport. This is for a catwalk. The LWRP found this inconsistent. It's in a critical environmental area, and it's also located within the significant wildlife habitat area. It's recommended an alternative design to the dock structure is to maintain the existing mowed path to the water to launch kayaks and also there is further access to public waters can be achieved at the end of Island View Lane. Those are the comments from the LWRP. The CAC supports the application with the condition the grade is no higher than the adjacent property. I don't quite know what that means or how it can affect the grade. I don't know. Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello, and we are the agents for Mr. Kainzbauer. And any questions that the Board has, you can see on the application that we are going to use all open -grate decking so that the vegetation is less impacted than walking through it as they do now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to make an observation. It is a bit divergent from the LWRP coordinator. If you have a dock that is constructed with open -grating and you allow the marsh to flourish underneath it as opposed to trampling and cutting it, you allow the marsh to flourish to its full extent, and the marsh in its fullest extend is participating in the nutrient Board of Trustees 34 November 19, 2014 cycle of the creek. So when you deny that, you don't have the proper uptake and accumulation of nutrients in the root mass and in the growing vegetation, which is subsequently given back during the winter cycle, which all provides natural nutrients to the creek and also provides a vegetated buffer that keeps pollutants from getting into the creek and is a much better way to go. At one time minimal disturbance with just a small amount of disruption for the small, I think it was 44 posts, then allowing that grass to flourish will bring tons of square feet feet of productive Spartina grass back into the ecosystem. MR. COSTELLO: The other thing, we are not building any major structure to get out to accommodate a boat. The only thing you are doing in this area is to get out to a kayak and that's why the rack, to be able to support two kayaks so you don't have to walk through the wetlands. It makes it hopefully reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: There was a violation. MS. HULSE: Yes, it was cleared up. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, any other comments from anybody? Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I fully support the application for the dock. My concern is the application for an as -built deck. What we saw was this deck was built when, I guess it was reconstructed, was built farther seaward. You can tell by looking underneath it was built farther seaward, so it's much closer to the wetlands. And I know there was a violation issued on this and the violation has been addressed. But for myself, I'm not comfortable approving this deck farther out, closer to the wetlands. I would like to see this deck to be brought back to where it was originally prior to the reconstruction. And again, the reason is for environmental reasons. I have no problem at all with the catwalk, stairway, or the storage racks for kayaks, et cetera. MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one suggestion. It could be a possible mitigating circumstance. If we expanded the buffer area in the area of the previous violation, if we expanded the buffer area to have some natural vegetation in there, would you consider that to be a mitigating factor? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe your suggestion actually had come up during the course of our worksession. The Board itself had started to mull that over as a possibility. The deck as constructed is approximately five feet from that fringe. Allowing the marsh to come back that five feet, possibly removing the sod and simply having some woodchips or other loose material, organic nature that might subside, that would allow the marsh to come back, and they could then maintain a four -foot wide path from steps, particularly would be on the west side, and have a continuous path so they can could get to waterfront and dock, presumably, there is no problem with the dock, seems to be a possibility. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If this six-foot area was designated as a Board of Trustees 35 November 19, 2014 non -turf buffer area, I think that would help mitigate the extension that was built on the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or maybe non -disturbance to allow the marsh to come back. The marsh is so well developed there, I would not be surprised if it reclaims -- TRUSTEE KING: I would let it stay in its natural condition and leave it alone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So make it a non -disturbance buffer with a four -foot path. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, non -disturbance buffer with a four -foot path. I don't know if you took the sod out if it would speed it up or just basically leave it alone and high tide should probably populate the whole area. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would have a more positive impact than disturbing the area by removing the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we could have that along the entire seaward perimeter then that would probably improve the property to the extent of several hundred square feet of functional wetlands and also there again ties in the whole nutrient flow so actually, net, the project will have increased wetland underneath the flow-through, increase wetland along the property perimeter and that should address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the only comment I have. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response). Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the condition there be a six-foot non -disturbance area seaward of the deck along the entire edge of the property, with a four -foot woodchip path to the dock. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with that change it will bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). RECEIVED 4 JAN 2 3 2015 e3:topm TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn. �TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. Oeo Town Clerk TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, *WS dam--6JU� John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustee