The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-02/18/2015John M. Bredemeyer III, President �oF soar Michael J. Domino, Vice -President James F. King, Trustee N Dave Bergen, Trustee Charles J. Sanders, Trustee • COQ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, February 18, 2015 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice -President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist 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 2 0 Sou.; Board of Trustees 2 February 18, 2015 a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x+/-120' walkway using thru-flow decking with 6 diameter piles following existing path through wetlands; remove existing 4'x32' fixed dock and construct new 4'x79' fixed dock with 8" diameter piles at 9' finished grade using thru-flow decking; install a 3'x16' removable aluminum ramp; install an 8' wide at ramp end by 4' wide by 16' long with a 2'x2' at 45 degree corner brace "L" shaped floating dock using composite lumber; install two sets of (2) 8" diameter piles to secure floating dock; and to construct a new 1,045 square foot attached deck to dwelling. Located: 695 Howard Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. On page eight, number 19, Michael Kimack on behalf of MIMI COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing +/-24' long wood retaining wall, 4' wide wood decking and staircase; and replace with a proposed +/-24' long ACQ wood retaining wall with shoreguard sheathing; proposed 4'x+/-24' thru-flow decking along top of retaining wall; construct a 4'x60' fixed dock on 8" diameter pilings at V o.c.; a 3'x16' removable aluminum ramp; a 4'x16' floating dock with a 4'x4' float extension using trex decking; with four (4)10 diameter pilings in two sets; overall length of docking facility from retaining wall to be 80'. Located: 350 Oak Street, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number 20, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of MARK DAVIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a landward set of 4' wide steps leading to a 4'x27' catwalk with steps; a 3'x10' ramp; and a 6'x20' float with (2) 8" diameter pilings. Located: 1700 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number 21, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of KELLY MYERS, requests a Wetland Permit to remove +/-70 linear feet of timber bulkhead and construct 52' of bulkhead inplace using vinyl sheathing and closing off ramp; new bulkhead to be same height as neighbor's bulkhead to north; construct two (2) new 10' long vinyl returns; backfill disturbed area with 50 cubic yards clean fill; remove existing dock and construct a 4'x111' fixed dock; a 3'x15' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by 10" pilings. Located: 1730 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed. And number 22, Gary Steinfeld on behalf of MARK KING requests a Wetland Permit for the partial demolition and reconstruction of existing 30.5'x22.4' dwelling including removal of southern portion of structure (5.2'x22.2'); expansion of footprint to 28'x32' with additions on north and east elevations; addition of a second story; and construction of a 12'x29' deck on west elevation; and 4'x6' covered entry porch on north elevation. Located: 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck, has been postponed. At this time I'll take a motion to have the next field inspection to be held on March 11th at 8:00 AM in the Trustee office. Do I have a motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next Trustee meeting, I'll make a motion to hold it on March 18th, at 5:30 PM. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor. And to hold a worksession on Monday, March 16th, 2015, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm and on Wednesday, March 18th, at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall. Is there a motion? TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 3 February 18, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of January 21 st, 2015. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2015. A check for $14,530.75 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section V Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, February 18, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Leonard Rosenbaum - SCTM# 35-6-24.1 Jacqueline Bittner - SCTM# 64-1-31 Haywaters Road - SCTM# 111-1-2 John Venetis - SCTM#87-6-4 Theodore & Nathalie Strauel - SCTM# 24-2-21 430 WSD LLC, c/o Peter Cosola - SCTM# 80-5-2.1 Patricia & Thomas Nadherny - SCTM# 70-5-35.3 Elizabeth Sadik - SCTM# 33-1-15 Gary Mangus - SCTM# 57-2-16 Thomas & Nancy Eshelman - SCTM#113-9-3 Nicholas & Barbara Pallante - SCTM# 111-14-30 Shatswell Properties, Inc. - 72-1-1.8 Barbara B. Dai & Joseph Dai Living Trusts - SCTM# 47-2-28 NH SAG, LLC - SCTM# 81-3-19.7 Karmen Dadourian - SCTM# 123-4-10 David Schab - SCTM# 90-1-9 William F. Grella & Gary D. Osborne - SCTM# 117-7-30 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do I have a second to that resolution? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 4 February 18, 2015 IV. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to simplify our meetings and keep things moving along, for matters that are administrative or minor in nature, such as a permit extension or transfer of permit or an administrative amendment, which is minor in degree, the Board will group applications together. Accordingly, under item IV, I would make a motion to approve items one, two and three as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, LUCIEN BOHBOT requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8113, as issued on March 20, 2013. Located: 480 North Oakwood Road, Laurel. Number two, ARTHUR LEUDESDORF requests the Last One -Year Extension to Administrative Permit #7737A, as issued on February 22, 2012. Located: 1700 Hyatt Road, Southold. Number three, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests a One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #8125 and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit #8125C, as issued on April 17, 2013, and Amended on December 11, 2013. Located: Central Avenue, Southwest Corner of West Harbor, Fishers Island. Is there a second to that? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go off the meeting agenda for public hearings. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry, I didn't get the postponements. Is the one on page seven -- you said everything on page seven? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On page seven, no, only items 17 and 18 are postponed on page seven. You'll notice under each item individually, if it were postponed, you would see the word "postponed." (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Sorry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's okay. Motion to go onto our public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, LEONARD ROSENBAUM requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #1704 to install approximately 254 linear feet of vinyl sheathing against the landward side of existing bulkhead with sheathing height to match existing bulkhead height; and place approximately 270 cubic yards of Board of Trustees 5 February 18, 2015 clean sand backfill. Located: 965 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC, on February 11th, did not make an inspection therefore no recommendations were made. The Trustees visited the site on field inspection on February 11 th and noted that because of the snow, it was difficult to see if the pipes that had previously been in the bulkhead had been in fact capped. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing no comments, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Siyu Liu on behalf of JACQUELINE BITTNER requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8362 to remove and reframe entire first floor and second floor of proposed two-story dwelling with attached garage while keeping existing cellar, total first floor area to be 3,262 square feet; extend proposed attached garage landward an additional three feet for a total of 558 square feet; square off and slightly enlarge proposed rear porch for a total of 756 square feet; and square off and enlarge proposed front porch for a total of 133 square feet. Located: 809 Maple Lane, Southold. The CAC has voted to support this project, and the project has been deemed to be consistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. LIU: Siyu Liu. I am the agent/architect, but I have nothing to say. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I believe we have just two questions, the Board has, based on our field inspections. One is, are you going to be installing a new sanitary system for this proposal? MS. LIU: Yes, 1 do have the approval from the Suffolk County Health Department. 1 have a copy, if you want to see it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be nice to include in the file, thank you. Also, I noticed a note here from the clerks. I don't know, were you bringing additional notices of mailing to the meeting? MS. LIU: I brought the affidavits, yes, I did. MS. CANTRELL: Yes, I have them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. And the Board, during field inspection, the Board noted that on the previous inspection on Board of Trustees 6 February 18, 2015 this one, that the Board felt there should be at least a ten -foot non -turf buffer along the embankment so that there would be protection from lawn chemicals and fertilizer. Do you think the applicant, Ms. Bittner, do you think there would be a problem with the ten -foot non -turf buffer? MS. LIU: Not at all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe there were any other concerns. Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). It's pretty straightforward. Do you have any questions. MS. LIU: No, I was just going to give you the septic approval. Would you like the DEC -- it's non -jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: NJ, okay, our approval was what was in question. You can bring it up. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on behalf of or against this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve this application as submitted with the stipulation that a ten -foot non -turf buffer be installed along the top of the bank. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, En -Consultants on behalf of HAYWATERS ROAD, LLC requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #492 to modify the existing "L" shaped fixed dock as follows: Maintain existing +/-4'x32' fixed timber catwalk and +/-4'x1.5' steps at landward end; and in place of 5.3'x16' fixed "L" shaped platform to be removed, construct a +/-4'x5.3' extension to seaward end of catwalk; a 3'x14' ramp; and a 6'x20' "L" shaped floating dock secured by (2) 8" diameter piles. Located: 75 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. This is found to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator, and he states the purpose of the dock extension has not been identified. And the applicant has not demonstrated the following dock standards; whether it will impede navigation and so forth and so on. The CAC resolved to support the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. For the applicant, Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants. This is a fixed "L" dock that we had looked at with the Board last year. A little over a year ago, actually. This is a permit that had originally been granted back in 1968, and it had been transferred, it was Wetland Permit #492, Board of Trustees 7 February 18, 2015 transferred to the current owner, actually on February 19th of last year. So about a year ago. I had met with the Board at the site and we had talked- about alkedabout the fact that at the time the narrow portion of the catwalk could be rebuilt under the benefit of the permit that was being transferred. And we had talked about the fact that we would come back for an amendment that would accomplish basically removing most of that permanent fixed "L" and replacing it with a seasonal ramp and float. Basically the, when we did the water depth soundings there with the survey, we didn't really find much more than about 2.2, 2.4 feet of water up to about 50 feet out off of the existing dock. So we showed a proposal that would extend about 20 feet off the fixed "L" as it is now. There is one mistake in the project description. I describe on the plan a 3x14 ramp. The drawing, it's supposed to be a 16 -foot ramp. The drawing actually scales to a 16 -foot foot ramp, and what you saw staked in the field reflects a 16 -foot ramp. So it's about a 20 -foot seaward extension off the fixed "L", which is what you saw. So this really is just a fulfillment of that conversation of when we met with the Board in the field. And the purpose of it with respect to the LWRP, I mean I'm not sure what the mystery of that would be to really just to improve the dockage facility to allow the owners to access the boat with a floating dock, as is typical and customary in the Town, rather than a fixed "L" structure, and it would get to a little better water depth, which certainly the Board would typically want to see, and the DEC would want to see. So despite the characterization of it by Mark Terry, we think of it as a beneficial application both for the applicants and for the Town. TRUSTEE KING: I think one of his concerns was it extends further into the public waters. I'll read it: Resulting in a net decrease of public access to public underwater lands. MR. HERRMANN: Well, that's -- TRUSTEE KING: I thought we had some questions about what the channel location was. MR. HERRMANN: That's what Amanda had mentioned to me was there was some question about the location of the channel and whether you had wanted us to collect some additional data. So I was just trying to find that out this evening if that is in fact the case. You should have a survey with the application that shows water depths quite an additional distance out. I don't know if it will satisfy what you are looking to see, but on the survey submitted with the application, which is a 50 scale up to, yes, again about almost 50 feet, 1 would say 45 feet or so seaward of the existing "L" dock, we were still getting depths of water around two feet. Plus some number of inches. So the idea that the channel, that the navigational channel coming in here did not occur to me based on the soundings, but, Dave, I don't know if you know this particular spot, knowing where we are located, I'm guessing that might be the case. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Very intuitive. Yes, I'm very familiar with this Board of Trustees 8 February 18, 2015 area and I know when the channel was dredged in the 60s it actually ended, what they came in and dredged, it ended to the first house at the entrance to Fisherman's Beach there. Then there was a natural channel that formed due to the natural circulation of water along the shore going into the little cove that is immediately to the south of this, and coming around that point right past this dock. And at that point, the natural channel, as most natural channels, were very narrow, probably ten -foot wide. So for boats to get through there was at high tide, pretty much only motorized boats could get through. It was pretty much high tide only, and it was a pretty narrow channel. That was my concern when we went out in the field. Now that the soundings have produced the fact that you are telling us that two -and -a -half foot depth actually extends farther out, it would no longer block that natural channel that was created, because there was a very large mud flat out there that was completely out of the water at low tide. MR. HERRMANN: I didn't mean to interrupt you. Do you know about what the depth, I mean you are describing a pretty narrow channel. Do you know what the depth is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm talking back many years ago, it was maximum depth at low tide of probably two, two -and -a- half feet. But again, this was many years ago, and my concern when we were out in the field was that channel is still the same, the natural channel is still the same width, meaning very narrow. And extending this dock out another ten feet would impede navigation for any boats that would want to get to the north. But now you are saying that now the soundings, you have soundings that go out further, you said approximately 50 feet, going to two -and -a -half feet. So it could be the depth in there has changed over the years. MR. HERRMANN: And again, that's why I was asking about the width and the depth. Because it varies. You know, fairly close to the dock is a foot -and -a -half then its 1.8, then 2, 2.3, 2.2, 2.4 and then back to 2. So I don't know if that spot that is 2.4, you know, if you are talking about something that is only ten feet wide it's quite possible that that 2.4 could be the center point of that channel, which would then set the channel about, maybe 25, 30 feet just off the dock. Which essentially is what your concern is. But it's hard for me with the numbers here to know if that's the case. In other words if we went out another 20 feet would that then fall off to say a consistent two -and -a -half or three feet and then go back up. I just don't know if there is enough data that we picked up to say with absolute certainty that there is no concern. I mean I would love to say that and walk out with the approval, but I don't want to say that if we can't substantiate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm trying to determine the date the soundings were taken. I see the date on the bottom is October, 2013. If that's approximately when the soundings were taken. MR. HERRMANN: I can tell you when they were taken. June 4, 2014 Board of Trustees 9 February 18, 2015 was the dated soundings. And these soundings are referenced to mean lower low tide. So these are going to be somewhere around eight inches shallower than your typical low tide. And again, that's just consistent with the DEC sort of official or unofficial policy we reference these to mean lower low because they are trying to get an idea of the worst-case scenario. So the only thing I can suggest to the Board, if you are not comfortable with it, we can go out, obviously it won't happen any time in the immediate near future, but we could go back out and try to collect some more data around that area now that we know what we think we are looking for. But that's your call. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with what he's presented here tonight. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the survey and it looks like it gets shallower further out. So I would say whether it's 2.2 or 2.3 feet, it's probably the center of the channel, in my mind, looking at this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave is our -- TRUSTEE KING: Dave, you're familiar with the area. MR. HERRMANN: But if you look at the plans, those depths, the 2.2 and 2.3 and 2.4 are within about 15 feet of where the float would be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What size boat is going at the dock, do you know? MR. HERRMANN: You know, I don't know. I'm pretty sure he used the fixed "L" but I'm not sure what size boat he uses. If it's that tight, I'm not sure it would matter. don't know, I'm not sure how you want to deal with it. His primary goal was to modify the fixed "L" with a floating assemblage. The reason we are going out as far as we are is to try to satisfy the DEC and pick up the deeper water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, what do you have, Jim, from the proposed "L" to the 2.4 is approximately how many feet? MR. HERRMANN: It's only about 12, 13 feet to the 2.4. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's more than that. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE KING: This is a 50 scale, am I right? MR. HERRMANN: If you are looking at the survey, you are looking at the existing dock. TRUSTEE KING: I see. Sorry, you're right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Obviously there won't be a big vessel going here, a large vessel going here, because there is no depth to support that. It will be a small vessel. We can always condition it with a vessel of no more than nine -foot beam. Something like that. I know we have done that at docks before. MR. HERRMANN: The other thing, Dave, we even looked at one point, took some shots on the other side here, you can see this goes out a little more gradually, one -and -one-half, 2, two -and -a -half, 3 out on that side. So if it bends around out here, we're in good shape. If it's cutting through here, its a problem. Board of Trustees 10 February 18, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with it, I would just say condition it with a vessel no more than a nine -foot beam in there. That would also take care of prohibiting a very large vessel with prop wash that would disturb the bottom. That's just a thought in my head. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to think what size boat would have a nine -foot beam. It's a pretty small boat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nowadays that could be a 22 or 23 -foot boat. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And again, smaller boat means smaller engine, which means less likely prop damage to the bottom. MR. HERRMANN: The only thing I would say, if he had a problem with that, that that would not work then I think we would have to at that point we could ask you to amend the approval. But we would have to provide you with more data at that point. I mean, that seems reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any other comments on this application? Board comments? (Negative response). Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation that a vessel with no greater beam than nine feet shall be used, tied to the float, on the outside of the float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. TRUSTEE KING: (Continuing), by removing the existing platform, being removed, so there is less structure, and we are reducing the size of the vessel, I think that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. And with the addition of information concerning addressing the inconsistency. Just as a point of discussion, we limit boats by size and length now I think for launching ramps, and also our moorings to 27 feet. Is there any consideration to have a maximum length? I'm not sure, Jim, what do you think? TRUSTEE KING: The beam of the boat is the width, and that's what determines how far it extends. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's our concern at this point. Okay, well said. TRUSTEE KING: That's more of a controlling factor. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: WETLANDS PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Wetland Permits, number one, McCarthy Board of Trustees 11 February 18, 2015 Management, Inc., on behalf of 850 PRESIDENT LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30'x59' single-family dwelling with drywells; proposed sanitary system landward of dwelling; and driveway. Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. We had a public hearing on this matter back in December of 2013. I'll stipulate that the Minutes from that public hearing will be entered into the record here tonight so we don't have to repeat the items that were brought up back then. Just for review, this application was reviewed under the LWRP, and was found consistent with the condition that a — excuse me, a recommendation the driveway be designated as pervious. It was also reviewed back then and again, in December, 2013, by the CAC, and the CAC supports the application with the condition that the dwelling is compliant with FEMA and the sanitary system complies with the Health Department requirements. In that hearing back in December 2013, there was testimony given by a neighbor concerning the septic system and the location of wells, because this is a very small lot, and the lots in the area were very small, and so we had the concern of the location of wells in the vicinity of septic systems. And so we asked the applicants back then to consider those concerns and come back to us. The applicant, McCarthy Management, has submitted a letter saying the Health Department will not issue an approval for their permit until they receive a Trustee approval. So its one of those Catch 22's we are in here, where one agency is waiting for the other agency to approve this. There has been also a letter that the adjoining neighbor is willing to hook up to public water. And the adjoining neighbor is the person who came in at the December meeting, Michele Chaussabel, who lives at 35 Orchard Street. So that's the information we have in the file. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the application? MR. MCCARTHY: Good evening. Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management, 46520 Rt. 48, Southold. I appreciate you putting us back on Here, because we are in a Catch 22 between the Health Department and yourself. We did try to minimize the impact to the wetlands with the septic system we proposed. We believe we did, with our latest iteration, moved it just slightly beyond your jurisdiction, outside the 100 -foot boundary. We have proposed a septic tank and leaching galleys so we can get them as close to the road as the code will allow us to, as far away from the wetlands. And we tried to minimize that impact. We are also working together with the New York State DEC to try to comply with their regulations as well as your regulations to try to move this forward. So we have agreed with the neighbor to hook the neighbor up to public water, and we are trying to be a good neighbor and still allow the applicant a decent building envelope in which to build a home on this property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do notice you have moved the septic system, as Board of Trustees 12 February 18, 2015 you alluded to, as close to the road as possible, to New Suffolk Road. Its a similar situation to the house next to it, when they built that they moved it as close as they could to the road, as close as allowed. You have to have a certain setback from the public road. So I do appreciate that. MR. MCCARTHY: So I'm happy to answer any particular questions. We are trying to minimize the setback relief that will be necessary for the New York State DEC from the wetlands. So we have reconfigured the footprint of the house in order to move things as far away. We had come in with a rectangular footprint to try to minimize the impact to the DEC, to their regulations. We are happy to do a reasonable proposal on the property as long as we can move this forward. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Tom, there were a couple of old, I'll call them sheds, platforms, I see on the survey, new survey you submitted. It's a frame shed, down, essentially right at the edge of the wetland limit line. Do you know what the applicant intends to do with these? MR. MCCARTHY: The existing owner had some sort of mariculture operation going on down there. The property is actually a split zone. So the very, I'll call it the flag portion that has the reach out to the creek that has the dock on it, is actually in a marine zone, I believe it's M-2 over there. So the dock structure itself does enjoy a permit from the Trustees and all involved agencies. And the wooden platforms I would assume could be taken out and we could certainly relocate that shed to another area on the site. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You had mentioned that floating dock. That floating dock we had noticed on more recent field inspections is pretty much destroyed, between the storms that had come through there over the years, and of course the winter ice. It's in pretty rough shape. So we just wanted to note that for the record that probably if the applicant would want to do anything with that dock, to do any repairs, it would require coming in here for a permit MR. MCCARTHY: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the Board's feelings, is there any feeling from the Board regarding those wood platforms or the frame shed? TRUSTEE KING: I would address that at the time they do the float and dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are the others comfortable with that also? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it's a fairly minor structure. I think possibly something we might want to discuss tonight with the applicant would be a non -turf buffer, possibly with a border of a fence or, you know, low timber retaining structure, something that would set a natural boundary. The irregular nature of the wetland boundary of this property would be one that a future homeowner might inadvertently cut into the area. So it might be good to set a boundary with some sort of physical delimiter, typically like a low profile split -rail fence or a small wooden Board of Trustees 13 February 18, 2015 barrier, something of that sort. MR. MCCARTHY: We would be happy to do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In this is the kind of situation, split rail -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: We actually did that with the property next door, the Christiansen property, there was a non -disturbance buffer that was designated with that approval and a limit of that. MR. MCCARTHY: And that property also was much closer to the wetland line than what we are proposing. We are significantly farther away. But it's unique set of circumstances beach property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see on the plan you submitted, it took me a while to find it, but it says split -rail fence going from north to south. Do you see what I'm referring to here? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, the bottom of the page. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. MCCARTHY: I believe that's property delineation, going -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I see the arrow going to it. Okay, I apologize. That dotted line that is there, going from north to south, if you would like to step up, I'll show you exactly what I'm talking about. MR. MCCARTHY: That looks like the four -foot elevation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. Would the applicant be willing to have that four -foot elevation as the designated non -disturbance area seaward of that, with the approval of a four -foot path that would be allowed through there, of course, to gain access to the waterfront? MR. MCCARTHY: We would be more inclined to do a set off from the wetland line as perhaps a 20 or 25 -foot offset from the actual wetland line versus the four -foot contour that transverses the entire property, which would then, I believe, allow us to get through the flagged portion to the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm looking at, what we had done to the property adjacent to this -- If you'd like to come up and take a look at this.. I proposed this line. He's asking for something more in line with the wetland boundary. And I know next door it's approximately, because there is the shed, it's approximately here (indicating). Now, of course that's a different piece of property with a different house and different conditions, but I'm saying that's approximately where we -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: This or 20 feet from that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here is your wetland line. That's 50 foot to there, and what you are asking for, what the applicant is asking for 25 feet. And I'm not really comfortable with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you recall there was a split rail here. What if it met up with the split rail and kept a sweep, in other words -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we would need to be pretty exact with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We would. MR. MCCARTHY: Could we use the existing line between the wetland line that is flagged and pull a setback line off the flagged wetland line? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm noticing you have a 50 -foot setback designated there from one part of the wetland line. MR. MCCARTHY: Right. And that was a setback line just showing we were outside of that with the proposed footprint of the house, which we are quite a Board of Trustees 14 February 18, 2015 bit further than that with the new footprint. So could we agree to do a setback of 25 feet off the flagged line? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not, myself, I'm not comfortable with that. think that's too close to the wetlands, given how fragile this whole area is back here at the end of Schoolhouse Creek. MR. MCCARTHY: How about 25 -and -a -half feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What about a flagging, because it's an irregular wetland line, what if we were to meet in the field and come up with a line and flag it from a field inspection perspective and revisit it. MR. MCCARTHY: I would be happy with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because then we might be able to see where it would tie in with the neighbor and would agree with what it looks like. MR. MCCARTHY: Does the plan in front of you show the shed on the neighboring property? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it does. The Christiansen property to the north. MR. MCCARTHY: That was a supplemental application after the house was built, the homeowner came in for an application to your Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And I know that's approximately where their non -disturbance buffer started or ended. MR. MCCARTHY: I would be happy to set an appointment in the field. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we do that. Our next field inspection is March 11th. If it's okay with you, why don't we table this to our next field inspection so we could go out there, we can meet you in the field and we can come up with an area we are comfortable with for a non -disturbance buffer. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay, and we are able to issue some documentation so we can move forward with the Health Department? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's the problem with tabling it, we can't issue a wetland permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can issue a letter, you are okay for them to go on first. That's the only thing we can do. MR. MCCARTHY: I don't think the location of the sanitary system is at issue here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You resolved the issue with the Trustees with the sanitary system. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's non jurisdictional for us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what we could do is provide a letter to the Health Department stating that, if that would help you with the Health Department. MR. MCCARTHY: That would be helpful, and by the time we get to the March meeting maybe we'll know a bit more. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (No response). Not seeing any, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCCARTHY: Thank you, very much. Board of Trustees 15 February 18, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Bennett Enterprises LLC, on behalf of ELIZABETH SADIK requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 800 square foot inground pool; a 1,682 square foot pool patio; a 96.5 square foot shed; and to remove and replace existing 300 square foot deck and 165 square foot balcony. Located: 2300 Sound Drive, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, noting that the bluff face is well vegetated and the soils appear stable. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a 15 -foot non -turf buffer. The Trustees did a field inspection on February 11th, and noted, number one, that there was no clear posting of the property. There is no visible hearing card. And we made a note that we needed to see this property when the snow had melted because it appeared there had been some stone work on the bluff that is not blessed with a permit. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. GIGLIO: Yes. Good evening, my name is Jodi Giglio of Bennett Enterprises, here on behalf of the applicant. I physically posted the sign on the property last Wednesday. We had the storms over the weekend. It was secured by tie straps to the bushes in the front of the house because there are no trees on the premises. There was five feet of snow on the roadway but I can tell you that I physically put the sign on the property and I have submitted the required affidavits of posting and mailing as well as the certified receipts with the delivery information, so. TRUSTEE KING: Did you say you posted it last Wednesday? MS. GIGLIO: On the 11th. TRUSTEE KING: We might have been there before you posted it. We were there first thing in the morning. MS. GIGLIO: Okay. I even had it laminated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were there at 9:30. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So that explains that. MS. GIGLIO: So the applicant, we did appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 2nd, and the Zoning Board did grant the setback release provided that we move the shed into a conforming side yard location, which the applicant had no objections to. The pool is landward of the coastal erosion hazard line and the elevation drops as it gets landward closer to the roadway or Sound Drive. It's a higher elevation at the bluff. The applicant agreed to put in the drywells for the dewatering of the pool and anything that this Board would like to see. So if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. As far as the stone work, I know there is a giant boulder that is on the property that has existed, which is why the pool is in the location it's in, to not disturb that boulder and not have any ground disturbance near the coastal erosion hazard line or the bluff. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We walked to the edge of the bluff and the snow had been blown away by the strong winds, and there seemed be to Board of Trustees 16 February 18, 2015 quite a bit more, where that's parallel to the bluff face, and it's difficult for us to see the extent of that because of the remaining amount of snow. MS. GIGLIO: I think I know what you are talking about. It's like a slight retaining wall at the bottom of the hill as the elevation starts to flatten out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We didn't see enough that we felt comfortable with moving ahead with this. There is actually probably eight to 12 inch diameter stones that were actually at the point of inflection of the bluff, and there was some evidence of some cut and scrape activity there, but it was mixed in with the stone. Obviously we are not saying that definitively there is a problem, but that activity appeared to have taken place seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. MS. GIGLIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just watching the pictures here and I can see a line of, looks like a line of boulders up approximately where we were talking about there. You can see them right at the top of the stairway there. So these were obviously, I don't know when this Google Earth picture was taken, but it was obviously a while ago. And those stones were there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is also the vegetation, which was not there. In any case -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: In any case, is it the sense of the Board we should table this until such time as we have the opportunity to view it in better weather conditions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know we were comfortable, and I don't want to speak for the Board here, it appeared we were comfortable with the pool itself, with the application for the pool. The concern that we had in the field was what appeared to be activity that had taken place up a few feet landward of the top of the bluff. Meaning all those rocks. It appeared that was done very recently. This picture here from Google obviously shows those rocks had been there for a while. There might be some other work under that snow that was also done. I'm not sure. But I'm not sure for myself, that I'm comfortable holding up the application for the pool that we didn't have any problem with because of a possibility there is an issue out on the bluff. The agent obviously knows we have a concern about that and we can go back and look at it when the weather breaks, or excuse me, the snow is gone, and if it's eligible for consideration to be referred to the bay constable, we can do that. But for myself, I'm comfortable moving forward with the pool application. MS. GIGLIO: And I have no objection if you want to put a condition of no certificate of occupancy shall issue until the Trustees actually get out there to look at this, whatever it is you are concerned with. And if it requires a subsequent application, that will be filed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm personally more comfortable with tabling it. I don't know the extent of the work that was done there. Board of Trustees 17 February 18, 2015 Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KING: We can move on it and hold the permit until we get an opportunity to look at it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's another possibility. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds like an approach. TRUSTEE KING: Hold the permit until we look -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not release the permit until we have a chance to look at it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that could be as early as ice out, which hopefully might be as early as a few weeks. TRUSTEE KING: And if there was a problem, the permit won't be issued until the violation is cleared up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with that. It's a different way of handling it, as I alluded to. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm comfortable with that if you put it into the form of a motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are still in the hearing phase. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. King, do you want to make the motion? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as has been submitted for the pool, with the stipulation the permit will not be released until the Board reviews where we think there might have been some activities conducted. And that is if there is no problem, the permit will be released immediately. If there is a problem, the permit will be held until after the violation is cleared up. If there is a violation. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. GIGLIO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of VINCENT & EILEEN FLAHERTY requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Dredge Permit to dredge mouth of Fairhaven Inlet to - 4.0' below MLW; removing approximately +/-100 cubic yards of sandy materials using a barge/clam-shell bucket; and spoils to be used onsite as beach re -nourishment on Peconic Bay beach area. Located: 177 Inlet Way, Southold. This application is determined to be consistent with the Town LWRP. And it's supported by the CAC. It has a history of three prior permits from this office. As I recall, I was on the Board when I think the first one came in. The Board reviewed the proposal as submitted. I don't think we had any problems with it. It's straightforward as a regularly occurring feature. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this Board of Trustees 18 February 18, 2015 application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello. I am the agent for the Flaherty's on this application. There was a ten-year permit that was originally issued to the Dowd's on that property, then transferred to the Flaherty's. And we have been doing this maintenance of this narrow inlet probably over the last eight years, taking a minimum amount of debris out. But it's all clean sand. It is channel that clearly shuts down, then there will be no use of it and no circulation in this narrow channel way. The county usually dredges the inlet and the disturbance the inlet coming in and the reflection off the bulkhead, the existing bulkhead, piles sand up on this 25 foot inlet, and we just tried to take off just enough to allow passage of a couple of boats in the narrow channel way. And we have been doing it over the last eight, ten years. And we would like to try to keep it open. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions? (No response). Does anyone else have any questions with respect to this application? Any comments? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with a ten-year maintenance permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of PATRICIA & THOMAS NADHERNY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock off seaward end of existing fixed dock; provide a chocking system to maintain a 1.0' clearance above bottom at low tide; and to relocate existing light pole to offshore end of existing dock. Located: 1025 Pine Neck Road, Southold. This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP by their coordinator. The proposed permanent private dock will further extend into public waters resulting in a net decrease to public access. The applicant currently enjoys access to public waters via an existing dock structure. The CAC resolved to support the application as it was submitted. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, with Costello Marine Contracting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Costello, would you be more comfortable sitting rather than standing? Board of Trustees 19 February 18, 2015 MR. COSTELLO: No, thank you, I'm fine. We are making this application because at the end of the dock, the existing end of the dock, there is very little water and accessing it down off a ladder is not the safest. And they would like to be able to board the boat. And we had the same difficulty on the adjoining neighbor's dock. This is not going out any further, perpendicular, it would not go any further than, you can see the adjoining dock to the west, which is the Maroni dock, and if the permits from the DEC to allow for that and there is just slightly more than about two foot of water. Maroni's boat is in about two -and -a -half foot of water where the boat is. Not the dock. The DEC made us pull the dock off the bottom so it does not interfere with the bottom. We learned a little bit more than we did at that time, and what we would do, instead of putting cable, we put cable on the Maroni dock, and we would put probably chains so the cable doesn't become a hazard, and we would chain the dock up so that it did not hit the bottom. We would hold the dock off the bottom by one foot. And the obstruction, it's still going across the creek, the total distance across the creek is 216 feet, which would allow for low water to low water, 72 feet. We are going out 60 feet. The channel way, what little channel way is in that creek, is way to the west -- I mean to the north, on the west side. And this does not encroach anywhere near the channel or the main traffic that goes up and down this channel way. Also, the size of the boat that would be moored at this, there is a bridge, and the boat is quite minor in size. And they would be lucky to get anything bigger than a 20 foot Boston Whaler underneath the bridge. So it's just to accommodate a safer approach to getting on and off the boat. Their existing dock is up in the air a little bit so it doesn't get inundated in a storm. So the ramp down to the float would make it more convenient for the whole family. That's why it was designed that way. TRUSTEE KING: John, did you consider doing that in an "L" configuration? MR. COSTELLO: I considered it going out to an "L". TRUSTEE KING: If the "L" went to the right -- MR. COSTELLO: Well, there is a property line. There is two pieces of property. It would have to go to the left so the entire structure was on one single lot and not across two lots. So it would be -- and if this Board decides that is the only way they would permit it, even though it doesn't encroach by going straight out, it does not encroach upon -- it gives you about four to five inches more water depth. That's all. If it was an "L", the boat would almost be close to that same area. TRUSTEE KING: I would prefer that myself. It keeps it in a little bit. And I don't think it, its not long enough to interfere with the property line extension. If you look at it. It breaks when it hits here and goes this way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there a pier line issue with this application? Board of Trustees 20 February 18, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: That was in the notes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That also addresses the concerns on the pier line a little bit. It tucks it in. TRUSTEE KING: And you still have the good depth of water there. It's 2.2. It would shorten the structure up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would certainly be more comfortable with an "L" rather than a ramp and float. TRUSTEE KING: It would be a ramp and float but an "L" shape float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I didn't understand that. I thought you were just talking about a hard "L." TRUSTEE KING: No, like this. And I see what you are saying. Put the "L" up here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm concerned about the prop wash from the boat on the bottom when we are in one foot of water or so. Or now we are out to about two foot, which is a little better. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think I concur with Trustee King. I think the configuration is going to "Us." The neighbor has an "L". I think it meets, keeping it tucked in. MR. COSTELLO: By going to the "L" you'll reduce the overall length by probably, except for how much the ramp is on the float, you'll be reducing it by the balance of the float. So you'll be reducing it probably 12 to 13 feet of width, protruding straight out into the channel. By putting it on the "L" I would only recommend to the owner that he L's it to the west side so his boat and everything is on one lot, should he at some point in the future have to sell one of the lots, at least the structure is on this one lot. Right now they own both. TRUSTEE KING: I see what you are saying. MR. COSTELLO: I believe I could persuade the owner to go with that. I'll provided the drawings necessary to get the approval. But I could persuade him to that because this is, if nothing else, I told the gentleman that owns the property that Mr. King would probably want to be the most consistent in where he did exactly the same thing for the Maroni dock, there was probably some degree of likelihood that Mr. King would remember his -- TRUSTEE KING: I'm lucky if I could remember what I did yesterday. MR. COSTELLO: I was hoping you'd forget. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (Negative response). Anybody else, comments from anybody on this application? (Negative response). No Board comments? (Negative response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the change of the float being in an "L" configuration to the west, and thereby that shortens the dock considerably, and would Board of Trustees 21 February 18, 2015 bring it into consistency with the LWRP. And we'll get new plans indicating that. MR. COSTELLO: I'll have the plans done for you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Next is number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of 430 WSD LLC, c/o PETER COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, sanitary system, driveway, and shed; construct new 47'x48' two-story dwelling; construct new 20'x32.5' garage; install new driveway; install new sanitary system landward of proposed dwelling; and the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells onto dwelling and garage. Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold. This was reviewed by the LWRP coordinator and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a ten -foot non -turf buffer. The Board did go out and looked at this. I do note that on the plans as submitted to us there is a ten -foot non -turf buffer there. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the LLC. You should be pretty familiar with this property. We got permits for renovations and so on not too long ago and we removed a deck that was at the top of the bank at the time. So I'm glad to hear that we got a consistency of the LWRP, because I'm like if he gives me an inconsistent, I'm going to shoot him. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's on the record. MS. MOORE: That's on the record. TRUSTEE- BERGEN: Where is our workplace violence sign? MS. MOORE: That's right. So if you have no questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As a matter of fact, we did note also that this proposed house is being moved landward of the existing house, which is something that also we look for with new construction when there is a tear down. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak pertaining to this application? Any other comments from the Board? (No response). And I do note on the application you have taken care of Chapter 236 with gutters and leaders going to drywells. And again, the ten -foot non -turf buffer. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hearing no other comments, 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? Board of Trustees 22 February 18, 2015 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, En -Consultants on behalf of SHATSWELL PROPERTIES, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'+/-134' elevated timber bluff stairway with railings, consisting of 4'x4' entry steps to a 5.5'x8' entry platform with bench at top of bluff; 4'x+/-10' steps; 4'x8' landing, 4'x18' steps; 4'x8' landing with bench; 4'x+/18' steps; 4'x8' landing 4'x+/-14' steps; 4'x6' landing; 4'x+/-5' steps; 4'x6' landing with bench; and 2.5'x +/-2.5' steps to grade to access lifting mechanism for retractable stairway to beach; construct seaward of bulkhead a 3'x3.5' aluminum platform and +/-3'x7' retractable aluminum stairway to beach, both with railings; and restore/re-vegetate areas landward of bulkhead disturbed during construction with native vegetation. Located: 450 Castle Hill Road, Cutchogue. There is no LWRP coordinator determination at this time. The CAC supports the application with the condition the structure is properly designed for the coastal erosion area. The area was highlighted in April, 2014, by CAC as requiring a unified coastal management plan. The bluff is currently undisturbed and heavily vegetated. The Trustees did a field inspection on February 11th and noted that we needed more information regarding the location of the stairs, particularly between lots one and two, and that the covenants and restrictions should be checked. In the file we have a declaration of covenants and restrictions recorded July 15th, 1981, which states, without reading the entire document, states that access to the beach from lots one and two shall be restricted to a single access structure located on or near the common property line between lots one and two. We also have another document, an amended declaration of covenants and restrictions which was dated -- sorry, I can't find the date: It was an amendment. MR. HERRMANN: 1982. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. The amendment states that access from any lot to the beach shall be by means that is a suitable stairway or structure designed or constructed in a manner that will result in the least disturbance of the stability of the bluff. It appears that we have a little question here as to which of these was recorded and is in fact in force. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. I was made aware of the covenant and restrictions that were filed in connection with the original minor subdivision of the Astor properties in 1981. We were then provided with an amended declaration of covenants that was filed the following year that extinguished the restriction requiring common access. Which I was really happy about, for more than just reasons you would expect. Because when Jeff Board of Trustees 23 February 18, 2015 Butler and I met out at this property, ironically, the representative for the owner had actually talked about putting the stairway very close to the westerly property line. Not because she had any knowledge of the 1981 restriction, but just because she wanted it way out of the way. When Jeff and I looked at the bluff, based on the bluff face topography, the slope of the bluff, the vegetative cover associated with the upland part, we felt that a location on the westerly property line was probably one of the worst places on the property for a stairway. So we had picked a location farther to the east, a little bit east of center, where you had kind of the gentlest slope down there at a location, Jeff felt from a design perspective was really the best spot. So we were then made aware of this restriction in 1981 that originally had required under provision eight, access to the beach from lots one and two shall be restricted to a single access structure located on or near a common property line between lots one and two. The following year, in 1982, there was an amended declaration and covenants filed with the specific purpose of superseding and overturning that covenant. And I'll read into the record the language of the C&R's, the amended C&R's, that were filed in 1982. It says: Now therefore the declaration of June 22, 1981, recorded on July 15, 1981, in liber 9035, page 09, is amended and modified to terminate provisions eight and nine thereof and the following amended and modified covenants and restrictions are hereby imposed upon the land in place of and instead of the declaration dated June 22, 1981, and shall run with the land ascribed in Schedule A annexed hereto. End quote. The two provisions that were terminated, eight and nine, one is the one that is referred to in the memorandum from Mark Terry to the Board that describes access to the beach from lots one and two being restricted to one common access stairway. Provision nine went on to say access to the beach in lots three and four shall be restricted to a single access structure. So basically the next year, it was decided that those provisions should be removed, and in their stead the only restriction they created in force with respect to the bluff, to the bluff stairway, was provision seven of that second document in 1982 which I'll read into the record, which states: Access from any lot to the beach shall be by means of a suitable stairway or structure designed and constructed in a manner that will result in the least disturbance of the stability of the bluff. So as it turns out, the application that we have submitted and the design that we proposed, we believe is precisely consistent with that provision in the amended declaration and covenant. There is, it is unambiguous that the 1982 covenants and restrictions were intended to replace the 1981 covenants and restrictions as written in the document. And there is a liber and page for that document which is liber 9272 and pages, looks like 537 and 538 have the language that I just read into the record. So with that clarification, I would propose to the Board Board of Trustees 24 February 18, 2015 that this is a fairly typical bluff stairway application, and the Board should not have, really have anything impeding them from acting on the application. And the stairway was staked in the field. So hopefully you were able to see that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We saw it. Rob, I think a question had arose during the point after Amanda from the office called you, and discussing this with Mark Terry, I guess the question is the subsequent filing of the amended C&R, whether that has the authority of the Planning Board in creating the minor subdivision, and it was a question, because Lori Hulse is out of town and we have not had the opportunity to have this answered for us ahead of this meeting. In other words I know from C&R's and my own experiences as head of a homeowner association, besides the headache it gives me, I know sometimes you can't amend or change C&R's without going back to the Planning Board, and even that case I have been informed that some matters actually can't be changed without going to the New York State Legislature. So the question is an open one that has not been answered to this: Was the Planning Board involved in reconsidering individual stairways or did individuals simply go and create a restrictive covenant and file it, upending the planning process. That was sort of my question. MR. HERRMANN: I think I can answer that. In the original document, which I think in its memorandum, Mark only gives you the part that was relevant to the information he was providing you. And I can submit a copy of the entire document for the record. But if you read through the entire declaration of covenants and restrictions that were originally filed in 1981, provision 17, which is the last paragraph, states: The party of the first part, its successors and assigns, reserves the right to alter, modify, extend, terminate or annul any of these covenants in whole or in part by agreement with the owners of the premises. Which is what they did in 1982. So this was not as is more common today where you would need a majority vote plus one, or something like that, from the Planning Board. These were covenants and restrictions that were related to the development of the Baxter land at that time and they reserved the right to the original C&R's to annul any of those restrictions as they did in 1982. 1 mean, I understand I'm not an attorney, but there is certain common sense in reading the language. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we are not attorneys either. MR. HERRMANN: But you don't need to be to understand what is written. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, I notice there is no LWRP determination at this time. Do you have in the file the application for the LWRP determination? In other words, the application to the LWRP coordinator? I'm just looking at the date of that. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's recent. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Memorandum from the Board, yes, February 10th, Board of Trustees 25 February 18, 2015 2015. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So its less than 30 days. MR. HERRMANN: That's not the date we filed the application. That's the date of his memorandum. I don't think that's the question Dave was asking. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question was when did the application go to the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERRMANN: That's not February 10th. That would have been on or about January 9th. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that on our check off? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, do you have a copy of that? MR. HERRMANN: Sure. I don't know the date it was received. Liz would have to tell you when the date of receipt was. MS. CANTRELL: I submitted it to Mark on Thursday, January 29th. He doesn't need it as early as when you submit your application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's noted here, January 30. MS. CANTRELL: But I submitted it a day earlier because I took that day off. TRUSTEE DOMINO: As Trustee Bergen points out, and I read it, what I said before, we don't have an LWRP coordinator determination. And it's incumbent upon us to make sure applications are consistent with the LWRP. And I fully agree with the statements of Trustee Bredemeyer. We don't know if it's possible if this application should go back to the Planning Department. And we need legal counsel for that, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question, Mike, is there anything in the notes that indicates we had any concerns with the construction, the proposed construction of the project itself. In other words, just so we can provide the applicant with feedback from us regarding the construction of it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The notes here, we just questioned the location of the stairs, future use for lots number one and two, and covenants and restrictions to be checked. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Rob stated they picked that location because of less disturbance, but our concern is if the covenant has to be near the property line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, shared use. TRUSTEE KING: And I believe part of that Planning Board stuff said the stairway should be in the place where it's least disturbance, if it was built. I would be comfortable with getting legal advice on whether everything was extinguished and good to go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That way we also have time to get the LWRP. Because as Mike alluded to, we can't move forward on an application unless we have an LWRP review, unless of course it's more than 30 days outstanding with LWRP. MR. HERRMANN: Dave, if I would just, it's not going to affect your decision, but I would like to say something on the record: That we did submit this application -- I don't have any control Board of Trustees 26 February 18, 2015 over when Mark is given the application -- but we did submit this application well over a month ago, and Mark apparently did review the application on February 10th, which is more than a week ago. He opted not to make a determination because he opted to provide you with what is essentially incomplete information on C&R's. He gave you C&R's that showed you a provision that was subsequently terminated. And we provided you with that information. So I just wanted to make that point that it was his decision not to give you a determination on this because of the information he opted to provide you with. And I provided you with the information that answers the question that was raised by that information and it seems abundantly clear to me what it says. But I understand the Board has its concerns and I can't stop you from exploring that. But I just wanted to make that comment clear. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to point out according to this the form was submitted on January 30th, which is not well over a month ago. Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to table this application until such time as we have information from our counsel, and our LWRP coordinator determination. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to the next application, I know we have had this discussion before, but I know we are down one Town Attorney. We only have two town attorneys now instead of the usual three. But I really think it's important we have a Town attorney here at every Board meeting so these issues can be addressed here during the hearing and not delayed. And I would really like to see a request come from this Board to the Town Board that, if Lori is on vacation, that it's incumbent upon the Town Board to have another one of the town attorneys here for our meeting so we have legal counsel and applications are not delayed simply because the Town Attorney is on vacation. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: While we are off the agenda, I have no problem, I'll send a memo to the Town Attorney's office. If everyone is in agreement with that, I'll send something up. (Board members respond in the affirmative). The next item, number seven, En -Consultants on behalf of BARBARA B. DAI & JOSEPH DAI LIVING TRUSTS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 101 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead approximately 1 to 2 feet landward of existing timber bulkhead to be removed (to align new bulkhead with adjoining bulkheads), and place as backfill landward of new bulkhead up to ten cubic yards of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source and approximately 35 cubic yards of Board of Trustees 27 February 18, 2015 existing soil material to be excavated from behind existing bulkhead to be removed; restore and maintain existing 10' wide non -turf buffer landward of new bulkhead; and construct new fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity, consisting of a 4'x50' fixed timber catwalk with a set of 4'x12' steps to beach on landward end; a seasonal 3'x20' ramp; and seasonal 6'x20' float (both to be installed seasonally between April 1 and October 1 each year), secured by two 2 -pile dolphins using 10" diameter piles. Located: 1465 Shore Drive, Greenport. This application has been determined to be consistent with respect to the LWRP for the bulkhead construction. It has been determined to be inconsistent with respect to the proposed dock construction, for which I'll elaborate momentarily on the different items on the inconsistency for the dock. And the project has been supported by the CAC, with a suggestion that the design does not interfere with the public right-of-way. With respect to the LWRP coordinator report, I'll highlight items that are most prominent in that report. The inconsistency is, under 9.1, promote appropriate and adequate physical public access; in coastal and recreational resources, access to the water body is available at the end of Silvermere Road to the northeast end of the property. 9.3, preserve the public interest in use of waters held in public trust by the State and Town of Southold. And to limit, under environmental impact, the action will result in impacts to benthic organisms, the construction of the dock piles and shading of the substrate; dock structures impede or interfere with public access uses of waterways. The applicant enjoys access to public waters currently, and access is available to public water from the parcel at the end of the Silvermere Road. Opportunities to seasonally moor vessels are available. The parcel is improved with a residential structure and is not water dependent. To limit physical extension of any conveyance to the amount of land necessary. Seasonal open water moorings are available. Dock structure is proposed on public underwater lands. There is a note here, conglomerate dock structures can result in public exclusion areas due to placement orientation and length of the shoreline; and assure public access to public trust lands in navigable waters. The LWRP doesn't support the construction of private dock structures over in the public trust lands or waters of Peconic Bay, Pipes Cove. Structures located within these areas suffer repetitive damage and loss during storm events. Further, the dock structures result in a loss of public use of public waters and public underwater lands. The LWRP supports the use of seasonal moorings and the mooring of vessels in nearby marinas. There is a letter of concern by a neighbor of the property, a neighbor by the name of Eicher. There are several points. One, there are concerns about the bulkhead repair should have been done already and further delay will likely cause damage to our bulkhead. So I believe they are in favor of the bulkhead repair. Board of Trustees 28 February 18, 2015 And then with respect to the dock, the neighbor is concerned, in general, since Hurricane Sandy, high and low tides are more extreme in Pipes Cove. At low tides, we often have less than three feet of water at the end of our floating dock, which makes keeping a boat at the dock more hazardous. The low water levels at low tides is also making more of the rocks and other submerged hazards a significant boating obstacle. The erosion situation in Pipes Cove is becoming more serious; sand and other sediments seem to be moving east across the cove and exposing the western properties. I would ask for some type of analysis to be performed to show that an additional dock not exacerbate this trend and in particular cause any type of a saw -tooth effect on my property. We have already seen damage to our bulkhead ties as a result of the erosion and have had to make considerable repairs, all apparently permitted through your office. The eastern properties have also become even more shallow with these additional deposits, making the effective dock length even longer and more obtrusive. I know you will likely be inspecting the site personally to inspect the application. You are welcome to enter my property and use my dock. My float is out of the water until Memorial Day for those purposes. This was sent by Mr. Eicher. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann, En -Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. Let me just quickly state for the record that with respect to the long list of comments that Jay read from the LWRP coordinator, virtually every one of those points can be offered in contradiction to virtually every dock application made in the town; that you could find access somewhere else, that the dock could infringe upon public access, et cetera. I would also like the record to show the writer of the letter that is in opposition to the dock, has the benefit of a dock on her property that was originally permitted in 1986 and then extended, the length of that extended by permit in 1996. Generally, the dock proposed here is along the stretch of shoreline that has been historically characterized by docks, on the four properties located immediately to the southwest, since at least the early 1970s. And even on the subject property, which harbored a dock for at least ten years, through documentation we found between 1976 and 1986, through the benefit of a DEC permit that was issued in 1975 and prior to the time that the Trustees would have had jurisdiction over structure here. Obviously that structure for many years has not been maintained but I just offer it as a bit of background that this is a property that does have some history of a dock on it. The three neighboring docks to the southwest and the dock on the subject property in the late 70's and 1980s had all existed originally as fixed docks. And I submitted an aerial with the application that shows the presence of a dock on the Dai property in 1981 and I have a blowup of that photo here. And the photograph that I'm handing you shows the original design of Board of Trustees 29 February 18, 2015 those three docks that are shown on your board there when they were fixed -only docks. Since that time, each of those docks through the benefit of permits issued by this Board, has reconstructed and/or extended and added ramps and floats to each of those docks. And we took that permit history into consideration when Barbara Dai and her husband came to me and asked me to propose a dock to the Board. Knowing that there is sometimes resistance, although its not prohibited in your code, to bay docks, I'll typically accept an application like this from a client where it seems to be consistent with the character of the shoreline and character of your history, both in fact and by permit. To just quickly review for the record those approvals, the parcel that is all the way on the left hand end of you're screen is there 1875 Shore Drive, and that dock was rebuilt and extended and modified with a ramp and float by Trustees permit in 2001. And I have an aerial that is similar to the one you have on your screen where I have a summary of the permit information that shows the history of those docks. The 1875 Shore Drive, again, was rebuilt and had a ramp and float added to it by permit in 2001. 1665 and 1755, are the next two properties over, and as you can see in that aerial that you have, there is a dock that basically straddles that property line. That was a dock that was also reconstructed and had a ramp and float added to it by permits granted both in 2008 and 2011, to two properties. Again, 1665 and 1755. The one that is closest to the applicant's property is the Eicher property, and that was the writer of the letter. That dock, like the others, was originally a fixed dock in the '70's. A ramp and float was added to it in 1986 and then that permit was amended in 1996 to double the length of the ramp, thus extending the overall length of the float. I believe it extended the ramp, replaced a ten foot ramp with a 20 foot ramp. So all four of these adjoining southwesterly properties that are adjacent in a row to the applicant are all serviced by a Trustee permitted floating dock. For the purpose of our application we proposed the dock for Mr. and Mrs. Dai to be exactly consistent with the lengths of those docks in terms of its overall seaward extension of 85 feet from the bulkhead, and also with the permit conditions that are contained in the permit issued to 1665 and 1755 Shore Drive in 2008 and again in 2011. Including one that the float would not extend beyond the floats of the other docks that you see in your photo; number two, that the ramp and float would be installed and removed seasonally between April 1 and December 1 of every year; and that there would be beach access stairs constructed on the landward end of the dock that maintains public pass and repass. We have proposed steps, which actually, I should note, Mrs. Dai contacted me today to mention that she would actually also like to head in the other direction because she has relatives to the right-hand side of your screen. But the dock is also high enough off the bulkhead that once you are on the beach you could Board of Trustees 30 February 18, 2015 walk under it. So we were sure to maintain public pass and repass with the design. So in summary, we are proposing a dock that is consistent in scope of the other docks that have been modified, and extended and permitted by the Board. Again, as recently as a few years ago. And we believe it to be a reasonable application. If have you any questions, I'm happy to answer them. would also say the fact that these other docks have been maintained since the early 70's would belie the claim in the LWRP memorandum that this is not a suitable location for a dock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That goes to the heart of the issue. I think the question of a wave fetch is answered by the fact, because I live and have property on Orient Harbor so I know what wave fetch will do to a floating dock, the consistent performance and maintenance of floating docks here describes an area which of course is on the southern shore of the north, in other words it's on the leeward side of north, northwest, and it's apparently not suffering from probably the southeast or easterly, which would probably be the biggest fetch heading out toward Orient Harbor. And so they have maintained the docks and they would, most cases if the structures were not capable of being maintained with a fetch we would have seen requests to amend and go back to fixed docks. So it sort of seems to limit the questions concerning the fetch by virtue of performance. I can't help but note the fact that there is a natural, physical limitation of the development of this shoreline, which is essentially three out of the six properties now that are single-family dwellings, have dock structures. But then on both the east and west side is a natural physical limitation with open wetlands that don't appear to be immediately impacted by the addition of a dock. So it seems in keeping with the historic use that has not posed a problem, that I'm aware of. And the Board has provided prior permit activity on these other docks rather consistently. I'm personally familiar with the beach. It was one I was involved in sanitary surveys in my former employment, and also had a friend, not living in any of these houses but one further to the east. So I don't ever recall anything that would be real serious fetch. But the times I have been there, and I was there in all seasons and in pretty much all conditions. So I'm basing it pretty much on my own observations. I don't have too much a problem with this. I think some places on the bay are not suitable. This reminds me a bit of the north side of the Orient Yacht Club in the Wharf area and also Horseshoe Cove which have particular natural features which I think lend itself to the dock. I read the LWRP myself and I think the LWRP is impinging too greatly on the prerogatives of the Trustees in determining which proper policy for underwater lands. I know as an elected official I have a particular bent on that. I know Jim King has a slightly different philosophy. I recognize that. But some of Board of Trustees 31 February 18, 2015 us came through this office through a very open position with respect to believing that individual access through docks is tantamount to also increasing net public access to and from the town, and access from a dock where it's safety and orderliness is a lot different than access from a road end. Docks also enrich property values and the enjoyment and also they provide potential for young people to learn about the water. They may not always have the opportunities, but sometimes neighbors and relatives can teach young people water safety from docks. Anyhow, that's my pitch. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Herrmann, can you approach the dais and clarify something for me. MR. HERRMANN: Sure. TRUSTEE DOMINO: This house is this one. So this is this. This is this (indicating). MR. HERRMANN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And this is -- MR. HERRMANN: This is here. This one. (Indicating). TRUSTEE DOMINO: See the configuration looks like this one. MR. HERRMANN: This is the second house. There is that dock. The third house is here. The fourth house is here. And the fifth house is ours. And that is the dock which was located very close to the property line. In fact I have a survey and photo. The photo may be more telling than the other. But this is actually a photo taken in 1980 that shows the dock, and you can see that's the house. You can see how close it was to the property line. And I also have a survey I can show you, Mike, that clarifies that location. It's deceiving because the dock was so close to the westerly property line that is almost looks like it didn't go with that house. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You answered my question. MR. HERRMANN: I just wanted you to see, because I thought of that when I looked at the photo also. It almost looks like it goes with a different house. TRUSTEE KING: Are all these floats seasonal floats, Rob? MR. HERRMANN: I don't know what they are in practice, Jim. I can tell you that the permit that the Board issued in 2011 stipulated the float had to be seasonal. We could be consistent with that condition, specifically we are proposing this to be seasonal under the same time schedule, April 1 to December 1. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not a big fan of docks on the bay. That's no secret. I think it's a place for moorings. The property, believe next door to the east of this property, in 2006, applied for an identical dock as what you are applying for now. I think the name was Axelrod, at that time. And it was for a 50 -foot dock with ramp and float. And that was denied by the Board at that time by unanimous vote. MR. HERRMANN: The adjacent parcel? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. HERRMANN: That, I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: So that's my history. It was September, 2006. Board of Trustees 32 February 18, 2015 MR. HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or questions? (Negative response). Any additional comments from anyone else present? (Negative response). Hearing no none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application with the standard stipulation of the float to be removed between April 1 st and October of each year, thereby providing access to that portion of public trust lands, particularly where shellfish and other activities will take place. Noting also that this dock structure, because its elevation does allow for natural repass and passage underneath the docks, I have actually walked under the neighbor's dock, similarly situated. I believe that by affording the seasonal float configuration and the fact it's in keeping with other structures in the area, that it does meet the concerns of being inconsistent. That is my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Point of clarification. April 1st to October -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: April 1st to October 1st of each year. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we take a roll call vote. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Roll call vote. Trustee Domino? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Myself, aye. Trustee King? TRUSTEE KING: I didn't support a previous dock application right in this vicinity with a past Board. Like I said, I think this is time to say no because this could be a domino effect, the next property owner now will want a dock and so forth and so on. So I can't support this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion carries three to one. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. (Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee King, nay). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight. En -Consultants on behalf of NH SAG, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing two-story dwelling and construct new one and two-story, single-family dwelling with a +/-7,871 square foot footprint including three porches; construct +/- 6' wide steps off each porch; construct 1,439 square foot patio and 512 square foot swimming pool with spa; construct 4' high retaining wall and pool enclosure on east side of dwelling; install pool equipment and dedicated drywell for pool backwash; install drainage system Board of Trustees 33 February 18, 2015 of leaders, gutters and drywells; install pervious stone driveway extension; and establish a ten -foot wide non -turf buffer adjacent to top of bank. Located: 2100 Paradise Point Road, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application, however questions where the runoff from the patio will be directed to. That was a question from them. Runoff from the patio. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En -Consultants, on behalf of the applicant. This is a project that was proposed on land that was originally developed prior, I know at least prior to the 1950's. don't know how far back. And then the subject property as it exists today was created by a minor subdivision for Petrocelli that was approved by the New York State DEC Health Department and Town Planning Board between the years 1991 and 1993. And all structures that exist on the property today appear to be about as they were shown on the approved subdivision map from that time. Interestingly, there are two wetland areas that we show on the property; one which is obviously that, associated with certain tidal services waters on Southold Bay, and the other being a freshwater wetland area. Its interesting, in 1990, at the time the subject, was actually a letter written to Jay, who was president of the Board at that time, from Bruce Anderson. I don't know if Bruce is in the room. But I think he must have been acting as a consultant to the town at the time, who had found that area not to be a freshwater wetland area, but I found indicator species in there and seems to appear from a New York State DEC freshwater wetlands map, but we have no activities proposed within 100 feet of that depressional area except closer to the road. The existing dwelling that is on the property is located 111 feet from mean high water and we are moving the house back roughly 26 feet landward from that setback to achieve a 100 foot setback actually from the seawall. That puts us at 137 feet from the bay. But if there was erosion over time that brought the tidal wetlands boundary up to the seawall of the house, it would remain at that 100 foot setback. So there is a notable landward relocation of the house. The house is quite a bit bigger than what is there. But we are relocating that landward. I believe there was some question about the fact that there were trees that were marked out on the property, whether those were marked out for removal. They are not. Those trees, every tree you saw ribboned was a tree that was either surveyed or was to be surveyed to put on the map. There is actually covenants and restrictions that run with the subdivision that say, in very loose language, that the property's clearing has to be limited to that associated with future construction. So the trees that were on the top of the bank or closer to the bank could not be removed. And there is a project limiting fence that is shown on the site plan that would indicate as part of the Board of Trustees 34 February 18, 2015 proposed, as part of the proposed construction, that those trees would be located well outside of that work zone. There is no problem if the Trustees wanted to stipulate something about the clearing. We don't have any issue with that, as it was not our intention. There is a proposed ten -foot wide non -turf buffer adjacent to the top of the bank, which given the length or the width of the property is over three -thousand square foot of area that would be planted, which together with the embankment creates about a 50 -foot non -turf area behind the existing seawall that constitutes over 14,000 square feet, or almost a third of an acre. I'm trying to think if there is anything else notable to point out. I don't think so. The proposal is expansive but it's fairly straightforward. I should note the sanitary system is located on the, proposed sanitary system associated with the dwelling, is located on the north side of the house, the northwest corner. That is actually more than 100 feet even from the top of the bank. So the septic system that is proposed is located well outside the Trustees jurisdiction by any measure so it not actually included in the language of the work that is proposed as part of your permit. There is a drainage system that is designed pursuant to Chapter 236 for roof runoff. I think you mentioned a comment about roof runoff, I'm sorry, runoff associated with the patio. There are not drywells proposed in association with the patio. I don't know if James Richter would actually require that. If he did, obviously they would have to provide that within the same construction area. TRUSTEE KING: That was a question from the CAC. MR. HERRMANN: That's right. Okay. The plan notes that there are, the interior renovation associated with the accessory apartment that is a legal accessory apartment is included on the C of O. To my knowledge there would be nothing in that area that would be within the Trustees' jurisdiction, but we did make that notation on their knowing this would be presumably viewed by the Building Department before it went on to your agenda. And there is a septic system upgrade proposed for that building, but again also outside of your jurisdiction, so it's not included in the permit proposal. That's all I have. Whatever questions you have, I'm happy to try to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: The biggest question we have is all the trees that were marked. So you clarified that issue. Other than that, didn't have any questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a need for a hay bale line between the freshwater wetland, since that goes down into a gully there? MR. HERRMANN: Dave, we have it. If you look up in that area, we actually, there is a specific hay bale line that is designed to be under an acre, and that line runs up around and just on the east side of that 100 foot wetlands setback. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see a concrete pier. MR. HERRMANN: This right here. This amoeba -like line. This whole Board of Trustees 35 February 18, 2015 line is a project limiting fence. Obviously it opens up at the driveway for access. TRUSTEE KING: That takes care of that question. MR. HERRMANN: Oh, there is one other issue which I assume the Board would welcome. Since we submitted the application, we were asked by the Health Department if there was septic associated with the existing, the outbuilding that is shown down near the top of the bank. So we would just stipulate if there is any septic facility associated with that building, that we would remove it. Because that was a question that was asked by the Health Department, whether that was a dry building. So we would stipulate that any septic that does exist in association with that building would be removed. Because we have to report that back to the Health Department, and I discussed it with the owner and they don't have any interest in maintaining or pursuing septic associated with that building, which I told them you would like to hear. Other than that, that's all I have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a way we could possibly, if the trees marked up for survey are being looked at by either a tree surgeon or tree professional, is there any way we could possibly get them on the survey with the ones that are going to stay within the ten -foot non -turf buffer? I think there is concerns that somebody doesn't accidentally cut all the ones with the blue markers, mistaking them for ones to be cut down. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, good to go. MR. HERRMANN: The only thing I can say, is perhaps, hopefully you are inclined to issue the approval, that any trees located outside of the project limiting fence would have to be subject to further review and approval by the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Those within a hundred feet of the bluff? TRUSTEE KING: I think he's saying anything outside of this (indicating). MR. HERRMANN: Anything outside the project limiting fence. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: That sounds good. Anybody else? Any other comments? Yes, sir? MR. MILLER: I would like to comment. I'm the neighbor James Miller. I'm immediately next door. We have no objections to the project. We think it's a nice home and I think they are nice people and I think it will go well. So I don't have any particular objection there. I question your non -disturbance turf zone. That is uncommon in that particular region, and I would just as soon not see the precedent. I see no benefit for it. There for is a cement wall at the toe of the cliff and the bluff itself is well vegetated and I think this is an unnecessary intrusion in personal property. TRUSTEE KING: That's something we have been doing for quite a while now to stop some of the lawn fertilizers and everything else from getting down into that area. MR. MILLER: But there is no need for it. And we are well above any possibilities, and it's well vegetated. So you are just Board of Trustees 36 February 18, 2015 causing trouble where there is no need for it. It's an intrusion on property. TRUSTEE KING: I respectively disagree with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's been Board policy to provide those Buffers, and in this case it has some of those 70, 80 -year old trees that we would like to have certain protection for. Thank you, for your concern. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response). Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application with the stipulation that any sanitary system in that frame bathhouse is to be removed. And any tree removal seaward of the project limiting fence would have to come back and be reviewed and applied for. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NORTH FORK KIWI, LLC, c/o KAREN HAUSER requests a Wetland Permit for the removal of existing timber bulkhead and replacement of 73 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing with raised height of one foot above existing top cap elevation; removal of timber bulkhead return and installation of 64 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead return; removal of existing timber retaining wall and replacement with 104 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall; removal and replacement of existing timber stairs to beach; replenish area with 20 cubic yards clean sand fill landward of bulkhead; and revegetation of eroded bluff and area between bulkhead and retaining wall. Located: 5700 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. This application was subject to a public hearing last month and I'll stipulate all the comments from last month's hearing will be entered into the record for this one. Just to review, it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And the CAC does not support the application because the shoreline is out of alignment; the project would negatively impact the adjacent property; the project is also inconsistent with the overall plan for stability; and the CAC recommends a cohesive management for this area. Last month at the public hearing there was a question brought up by the adjoining neighbor, the Braatz property, relating to the fact there was no cross -view of the retaining wall that is on their property line. And we brought up the fact Board of Trustees 37 February 18, 2015 the existing deer fence. I have a letter dated February 6, 2015, from Jeff Patanjo, stating: one, the existing deer fence will be removed. And two, the cross -view of the retaining wall has been added to the plan, which I see is here. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And the deer fence is to be removed and the cross -view is shown. The, this line shown as the existing grade along the eroded bluff area on the cross view is on the northerly side of the bluff area. On the southerly side, we are going to be maybe about a foot above the existing grade. And that is as we discussed last time, is to protect any future erosion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe we mentioned this last month. You may have. 1 want to enter it into the record, that the work on this return between the Braatz property and subject property, all that work will be done from the subject property. MR. PATANJO: Yes, from the subject property, and there will be no jetting. It will all be done by vibration efforts. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the applicant addressed the concerns that were bought up last month. Is there anybody else here tonight that wanted to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make the motion to approve the application with the condition that the existing deer fence which is shown is to be removed. And that is my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GARY MANGUS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing bulkhead with 57 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead directly landward of existing; remove and replace directly landward of existing a 39 linear foot return on south side, and a 15 linear foot return on north side using vinyl sheathing; replenish area with 20 cubic yards of clean sand fill behind bulkhead; restore 30 square feet of area to natural vegetated state upon reconstruction; and to install and maintain a ten -foot wide non -turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1295 Island View Lane, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent. The CAC on February 11th resolved to support the application, with the condition of a ten -foot non -turf buffer along the landward side of the bulkhead, and a 30 -foot vegetated area maintained with native species. The Trustees did a field inspection on February 11th at 9:50 AM. And there are no notes or conditions noted. It Board of Trustees 38 February 18, 2015 seemed very straightforward at the time. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them. One nice thing about this project is we are creating, not that it's a lot, but it's 30 square feet of additional vegetated wetland area by way of removing a section of bulkhead and creating that angle area over to the north. It will create some additional wetlands area for marine life. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to approving this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number eleven, Michael Kimack on behalf of NICHOLAS & BARBARA PALLANTE request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #8380 for the as -built demolition of existing dwelling down to the first floor deck which is to remain; demolition of existing deck and patio; existing 1,529 square foot foundation to remain; construct new two-story dwelling including additional foundation for an attached garage for a 2,659.3 square foot foundation footprint; construct a 393.3 square foot north porch; construct a 1,242 square foot south/west porch; construct 178.8 square foot second -floor south porch; and construct a 32 square foot outdoor shower. Located: 4302 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. This project has been determined to be consistent with the LWRP, with a recommended 20 -foot non -turf buffer. The project has been determined to be a demolition by the Building Department and was also supported by the CAC. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. Jay, I think you pretty much summed it up. This is an amended because of the as -built demolition, the original application called for the expected preservation of the first floor exterior walls. It was not to be. When they opened it up, they found extensive termite damage and they took it down and obviously when the Building Department showed up it didn't conform to the existing permit. So we did the amendment in order to conform. The primary reason is to call for demolition of the first floor exterior walls of the existing house. The deck itself remains Board of Trustees 39 February 18, 2015 and the foundation remains. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, and just to provide a reiteration, we are seeing a new sanitary system and drainage. MR. KIMACK: Yes. The sanitary system has been approved by both the DEC and Health Department. The drainage system has been approved under 236. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The recommended 20 foot non -turf buffer, is there a problem with getting a 20 foot non -turf buffer? MR. KIMACK: I'll defer. The owners are here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This would be along the waterward limit of the project. It would be an area that would be left undisturbed. It would not have finished or manicured fertilized lawn area. It would be left naturalized. Or you could put in non -turf material. MR. PALLANTE: If you could show me on the map where you are pointing out. I'm not sure where you are saying. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically it would be, I don't know exactly, but basically this whole area seaward where we would not want to have any further disturbance (indicating). MR. PALLANTE: There is none there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I know, but usually the Board requests a stipulation during the point of major construction of a new house so it's understood in the future there would be no disturbance in that perimeter area within 20 feet of the water. MR. PALLANTE: There is nothing there now. It's all natural vegetation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you don't have a problem. MR. PALLANTE: No. MR. KIMACK: It's pretty much low elevation property to begin within that particular area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just thought I would ask. MR. PALLANTE: No, that's fine. I thought you were saying by the dock, which is already finished. That was confusing. That's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions? (No response). The Board has been here several times and it appears straightforward. MR. KIMACK: And good thing you didn't try the last time. Because you would still be there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That was the driver's call. MR. KIMACK: Good call. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with respect to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the natural border Board of Trustees 40 February 18, 2015 bordering Wunneweta Pond have a 20 -foot non -turf buffer around it. That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. KIMACK: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Michael Kimack on behalf of TREASURE ISLAND COVE, LLC, requests a Wetland Permit for the construction of a two-story (768 square feet first floor and 1,536 square foot second floor) dwelling; with a 768 square foot first floor exterior covered area; and a first floor 240 square foot exterior covered breezeway; construct a 756 square foot garage; install a 396 square foot sitting area; construct a +/-528 square foot covered terrace; construct a 7,564 square foot tennis court; a 480 square foot tennis viewing area; install 1,510 square foot of walkways; construct a +/-3,320 square foot auto court; and install a septic system and storm water management system. Located: 14911 Main Road, East Marion. The LWRP and the CAC findings are already on the record from previous meetings, so I don't think we need to go over them again. We have a new survey here, new drawing for the proposed driveway, and I think it addresses the concerns that we had. Quite frankly, I'm very happy to see this. We've had a lot of concerns about that new driveway in that location. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It also addresses the Planning Board concerns because they are not -- well, we are not adding driveways. TRUSTEE KING: I think this addresses our concerns. Finally. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only thing we want to stipulate is a non -disturbance from the wetland line on their property toward the, I guess over here (indicating). In other words this area here. TRUSTEE KING: Right. I don't think we had any issues on the rest of the project, if I remember right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I know in the first hearing, that the adjacent property owner, Campbell, had some issues, and 1 believe they were addressed in a subsequent plan. I just want to make sure those issues are addressed in this final plan that we've had submitted to us tonight, that's all. TRUSTEE DOMINO: His concern was the saltwater contamination. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He was concerned with the saltwater contamination of his well, but that was also -- TRUSTEE KING: That was because of what was going to happen down here if the road dams up. Now there has been no change whatsoever, so I think that kind of extinguishes that concern. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And there was drainage provided on the new proposed driveway. He was also concerned about that. And that's there and it's addressed. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of or against the application? Board of Trustees 41 February 18, 2015 MR. JANNUZZI: Yes. Good evening. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board I'm David Jannuzzi, attorney for Treasure Island Cove, LLC, Dome Luca LLC, and I also have a power of attorney for Pablo Soloway, who is the managing member of those entities. It took the services of a private investigator and an emergency dinner in Briton Beach this week, but we were able to secure an agreement with Mr. Barhoff. He's certainly on board with our continued use of a shared driveway. I believe the concerns with Mr. Campbell had to do with if another driveway was put to the north of that it would trap the water. So I think that has been addressed. And for this reason we would like to modify our application to reflect the access to the property as outlined on the survey that was given to the Board earlier today and avoiding any additional disturbances to that area. From the tener of the discussion, I think the questions or concerns have been answered by the Board. If not I'm here to address any remaining issues. TRUSTEE KING: Is the existing driveway, will that be improved in any way? I mean will it maintain the current width, is it going to be changed in size? MR. JANNUZZI: The dimensions will not be changed, it will just be improved to reflect the new construction going in. TRUSTEE KING: It says stone driveway. It will a remain stone driveway? MR. JANNUZZI: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The proposed driveway going up to the proposed house, is that going to be pervious? MR. MURRAY: Nick Murray, representative of the applicant. The new driveway would be up to the house, would be an impervious driveway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm worried about drainage and water running down. TRUSTEE KING: We have drainage, it's built right in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity to make the first, I don't know how many feet that is, pervious? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Within the wetland zone, maybe request it for the lower portion. TRUSTEE KING: Three ten -foot diameter by two foot drywells. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 1 guess I don't think I have a problem with it where it's engineered to trap all the water on pervious, is really what we condition permits on, having a pervious driveway, is usually as an alternative to having an engineered driveway. I don't have a problem with the plan as it is submitted because it has undergone our in-house department engineering review. Usually we are talking about a short driveway runs where we don't want to have asphalt, and there is no opportunity putting in a drywell. This is fully engineered. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sony, I disagree. I think at least, I don't see where there is a problem with making the first let's say, approximating this -- let me have a ruler for a second. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem with the paved driveway as Board of Trustees 42 February 18, 2015 long as we have the appropriate drainage for it. MR. JANNUZZI: If I may, I don't believe there are any changes to the previous. This new survey doesn't change the northern part of the driveway that goes up to the house, so that was already, guess, reviewed by the engineering department. And the drywells are in place. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself 1 would be more comfortable up to the 4.9 contour line, if that was pervious. But that's just me know you have done a good job engineering drywells in there. But again, I'm just concerned for the fragile wetlands that are down there. So all I'm asking for is a short section of it to be pervious. MR. KIMACK: Just as a point, whether it's stone or paved, as far as storm water management is concerned, it doesn't make any difference. Because they treat that three or four inch RCA level, which is always good for the road, as being an impervious barrier to begin with. So you will find whether or not you designate a stone driveway or a paved driveway, that you are required to design it as if it is impervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how Trustee Domino feels. I don't think we are going to carry the weight of this. And there has been solid cooperation in addressing all these concerns unless Trustee Domino feels we should send this back to the town engineer for additional constraints, I think we should probably move on this. TRUSTEE KING: My understanding is he has reviewed this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, he has. TRUSTEE KING: So I'm not going to question it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm comfortable with the engineer's report. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The only other thing, the Trustees do have a flagged wetland line and I believe we would want to establish a non -disturbance zone for the area that would be seaward. In other words, toward Dam Pond, in that area that is to the waterward of the line that has been flagged where we found a predominance of wetland vegetation. MR. JANNUZZI: That would be appropriate and fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would also eliminate the need to plant in that area if it was just left to naturalize. It's already naturalizing with Baccharus, which is high tide bush, and cedars. I think the position of the Board, as a non -disturbance zone, just to clarify it, the Board would want it to go totally natural, it will very properly vegetate. It gets frequently inundated with salt water enough that it will naturally grow the plants that would occupy that place. There should be no question of the previous plan by for that portion of the project we would not want to see that disturbed at all. MR. JANNUZZI: That's acceptable, yes. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments. 1'11 make a motion to close the Board of Trustees 43 February 18, 2015 hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion based on the new plans received February 18th, 2015, 1 would make a motion to approve this, where it is using the road that has been utilized, in the area north of the driveway where it's wetland bounded flagged by the Trustees, that area seaward of that flagged line is to remain in its natural state and undisturbed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. MR. JANNUZZI: Thank you, gentleman. Appreciate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of KARMEN DADOURIAN requests a Wetland Permit to install a 20'x50' swimming pool; pool drywell; pool equipment area; and pool enclosure fencing; area surrounding the proposed swimming pool is to be re -graded utilizing resultant +/-185 cubic yards of fill from pool excavation. Located: 2670 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. The Trustees went out and looked at this on field inspections. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent. The inconsistency is based upon his notation that the depth to ground water is shown to be 5.1 feet where this proposed pool is going. So obviously with the excavation of the pool, the concern is are you going to be excavating down below groundwater. And he noted that the test well was actually landward of the proposed pool. In other words between the proposed pool and the house. That was used to determine that depth to groundwater. The CAC resolved to support the application. When we were out in the field, the question we had was we were not quite sure, because of the snowy conditions, exactly where the pool fence was. And I do see it noted on this survey. So is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. As I understand, we met with you out in the field, Matt Ivans from my office did, and the concern was on the fence, is how we understood it. Just quickly, so you know, it was done by a landscaper. We checked back with the client who said that the landscaper and the fence company installed the fence confirmed with the Town if we stayed 50 feet away from the wetland we didn't need a permit. Which of course is incorrect, because the jurisdiction is 100 feet. So I think maybe they confuse the setback with the jurisdiction. So I would like the fence to be added as part of this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, I see on this survey, just landward Board of Trustees 44 February 18, 2015 of the project limiting line of hay bales there is a metal fence. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. We are looking at the same thing. And as for the pool, the pool will be built up to a grade of about nine -and -a -half feet. Groundwater shows at 3.1 feet. There may be a minor amount of water depending on what the season is when we are doing it. And if we have to, we would just simply retain any kind of dewatering onsite, which is typically done and easily done for this property, because this is all very coarse grain sand, as you can tell from your aerial. These are coarse grain, they look to me like the property was probably filled with dredge material. That's what it appears to be. So don't think that is a limitation as far as the pool is concerned. Note, it is adjacent to an up-to-date septic system. We had no problems with the septic systems as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do note on the plans that the pool is shown at nine foot elevation. And, again, first up, how deep is this proposed pool. MR. ANDERSON: Probably eight feet at maximum. I'm assuming. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the LWRP coordinator has noted that groundwater is 5.1 feet. So, you know -- MR. ANDERSON: I don't think the entire pool is eight feet. It's just a smaller portion of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. MR. ANDERSON: But we do this routinely. This has never been an environmental problem. Obviously you can't discharge the water directly into the surface water, although what you are talking about doing is pumping freshwater from a freshwater aquifer and putting it back to the freshwater. So from an impact standpoint, there is none. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One of the questions we had in the field, was this going to be a saltwater pool or freshwater pool, and you are saying it's going to be freshwater pool. MR. ANDERSON: No, I'm assuming it would be a saltwater pool, but there is not an issue here doing with the water. The same water coming out of the ground is the same water going back in. It has nothing to do with dewatering. Whether the pool is filled with salt or not has nothing to with dewatering. TRUSTEE BERGEN: First, is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak on behalf of the application? (No response). Any other feelings from the Board with regard to the inconsistency? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If the area is served with public water -- MR. ANDERSON: It is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if you are going to recharge with a dewatering operation in close proximity to your work, you are not going to be having the issue with the wetlands code versus protecting against saltwater intrusion of the water supplies; in balance, it should not affect what is net going into the creek if you are going to de -water onsite. MR. ANDERSON: That's my point. It's the same water coming out, Board of Trustees 45 February 18, 2015 goes back down. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we are addressing the inconsistency by being in compliance with our wetland ordinance. In other words if you are discharging that in the well, then you would have a different situation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). If not 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 this application with the stipulation that the metal fence as shown on the survey dated January 12th, 2015, is included in the application. And due to the fact that there is public water serving this location and there is a proposed drywell here for the pool runoff and the dewatering would be handled appropriately, that we would find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. MS. CANTRELL: Bruce, do you know how high that fence is you want to add? MR. ANDERSON: Four feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It says here on the plans, four foot. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of DAVID SCHAB requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x50' elevated catwalk; a 3'x15' hinged ramp; and a 6x20' floating dock. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The proposed permanent private dock structure will extend into public waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to public underwater lands and near -shore area. In the event that the action is approved, it is recommended a vegetated non -turf buffer be established landward of the wetland line. The CAC voted on February 11 th to support the application. The Trustees did a field inspection on February 11th, and noted that on the conditions the pull back the float to deeper water would make it more in-line with the pier to the north. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant. First I want to extend my appreciation for going out to the site. It was probably enjoyed, that walk through the deep unplowed snow, with no place to park on a freezing cold day, to look at a stake that was put out into the water, measured carefully and installed by our team of elves. And I greatly appreciate that. We did take your comments to heart and we prepared a revised plan which we think addresses Board of Trustees 46 February 18, 2015 your concerns. And what we did was we reduced the catwalk area is reduced to 47 feet. We feature a 3x15' ramp on to a 6x20' float which is now turned to run parallel with the shoreline. We did this to reduce the overall length of the dock and also to provide more distance from it to the adjacent inlet, that you probably saw. This is West Lake, and West Lake, nearly all the properties at this point have docks. So there is nothing about what we are doing here that seems to me that could be inconsistent with really any policy. You can see from the aerial there are numerous docks. That looks like an old one because there is the Schein dock directly across the water that is not shown on your aerial. In addition, the Schab's reached out to their people in the West Neck area and through the community and I have letters from Henry Kaminer, Ricki Fier, Ann Sowinski, Edward and Linda Brennan, Alice and Shlomo Weinberg, and Alvin and Lisa Schein, which I'll put into the record, that are all supportive of the application as originally laid out. I'm sure there would be no issues with the layout of the dock as amended. I'm here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Note for the record I'll enter the letters into the file. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, is there an opportunity with that float to go from four piles, looks like anchor piles for the float, down to two? I'm attempting to address the inconsistency in the LWRP somehow. MR. ANDERSON: We could do it. I suppose we can come back, I have no objection to that. Some of the docks we have done down there have featured three piles. It only has to secure the float. We'd like to put one on the corner near the ramp so the ramp doesn't slide off the float. I always think that's a good idea. So three is preferable. Two I'm sure we could get by with. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the catwalk, is that, I don't see in the description flow-through. MR. ANDERSON: It would be flow-through, throughout. TRUSTEE KING: Those are two pile bents? MR. ANDERSON: We could do that. TRUSTEE KING: Not three. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Sometimes we look at this and say two pile bents and the contractor makes it three. MR. ANDERSON: I don't understand. Two pile bent, you mean -- TRUSTEE KING: On the catwalk, two piles, not three. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, yes. You mean like the icebreaker in the middle? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: No, we are not proposing an icebreaker. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to thank you for taking our comments into consideration, and I think in pulling it back like that, it goes a long way towards addressing the inconsistency. I want to ask one more thing. Are you comfortable with two piles on the float? MR. ANDERSON: My preference is for three. If two proves to be Board of Trustees 47 February 18, 2015 unworkable, we would simply come back, for good reason. But I'm more comfortable with three. And that would be the only reason I want the extra pile is my concern is that, because you now go with this "L" shape, the seaward terminus of the ramp slides down the dock into the water. But that's why. But I don't need to anchor both corners of the other end of the floating dock. That I'm pretty confident about. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just for point of clarification, two would be on the southern -- MR. ANDERSON: Call it the southern projection of the float. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Any other questions? (No response). Hearing no further discussion from the Board, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application noting that the new plans submitted and accepted here February 18th, address the concerns of the Board, that there will be three piles on the float and flow-through decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to clarify the resolution, flow-through grating used on the catwalk. You just said flow-through decking. Flow-through grating is to be used on the entire length of the catwalk. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second and then open for discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. Discussion? TRUSTEE KING: If we can lower it a little bit. It looks like it's four feet above grade. Most of these flow-through grated catwalks we get them down to like two feet. And I know DEC is letting you go down as low as 18 inches, so it should not be a problem with DEC. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would support lowering it. MR. ANDERSON: You mean four to three? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Four to two. TRUSTEE KING: Two foot above grade. MR. ANDERSON: Can you really do that? TRUSTEE KING: We've gotten them as low as 18. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think we have any objection to that. TRUSTEE KING: It's still well above high tide. MR. ANDERSON: You know what, the beauty of the flow-through, if you have an abnormal tide -- TRUSTEE KING: It lets more sunlight through. MR. ANDERSON: I'm fine with that. TRUSTEE KING: So just add it has to be two foot above grade. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm willing to amend my motion to specify that it will be two feet above grade. The catwalk will be two feet above grade, and accept Dave's clarification for the Board of Trustees 48 February 18, 2015 through -flow on the catwalk. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made, seconded and amended. Vote of the Board? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 15, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM F. GRELLA & GARY D. OSBORNE, request a Wetland Permit to remove the walls, doors and windows within the existing first floor (+/-1,343 square feet); shore -up the existing girders above the first floor; construct new +/-1,343 square foot foundation (i.e., piling system) below; reconstruct the first floor +/-1,343 square foot) over new foundation and to set the existing (+/-1,343 square feet) second floor with existing +/-41 square foot deck atop the reconstructed first floor; construct a proposed +/-110 linear foot long retaining wall with +/-9 square foot steps to be located around the proposed sanitary system off the south side of dwelling; existing +/-138 square foot planter, Belgium block curbing off the northwestern corner of dwelling, and existing +/-71 square foot jacuzzi are to be removed and not replaced; the existing +/-970 square foot decking to be removed and replaced with an at -grade +/-970 square foot patio. Located: 1200 First Street, New Suffolk. The project has been determined to be both exempt for the building replacement and consistent with the LWRP; with respect to the retaining wall and the sanitary system is consistent. The CAC has voted to support this project requesting the strictest enforcement of the FEMA regulations, which is automatically enforced through the building permit approval process. The Board conducted field inspections on the 11th. There is a concern that it might turn into a teardown and that the Board wants to discuss a non -turf buffer, as I think we may have mentioned in the field to Matt when he visited with us that day. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant Grella and Osborne. The owners are here with me tonight. This is about a house that was severely damaged from the existing first floor from Hurricane Sandy. Initially an application was filed with you folks, I'll say about a year ago, by the architect. If you remember at that time, the Town was changing its rules procedurally preventing the Trustees from acting on that application and instead causing the applicant to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Which we did. That resulted in an approval of that application. This is, obviously, a highly constrained lot. It's obviously pre-existing nonconforming. It is as much an engineering challenge as it is a regulatory challenge, and for that reason I asked Joe Fischetti to attend and contribute to tonight's meeting, who will walk you through Board of Trustees 49 February 18, 2015 how the house will be rehabilitated. But I want to point out a couple things that run to the project's favor that are strictly from an environmental standpoint. And the first thing I want to point out is that we have a house, that over time we have had decks, we have had planters that encroach into streets and so forth. And if you take a look at your survey, what this application does, if approved, is it reduces coverage from existing at 66.9% down though 38.2%, which is, I think, significant, given the size of this lot, which is some 4,500 square feet. Or about 4,000 square feet. It's buildable land is actually 3,500 square feet. The next thing we do, and we accomplished this by removing some of these accessory structures. The next thing we did in this application is to provide for proper drainage where we have none today. So you'll see on your survey contains a location of drywells. It also contains the appropriate engineering of the drywells are appropriately sized for the house. The third thing of import is that right now the existing dwelling has been served with two cesspools which would be removed. Those cesspools, by our estimation, are likely installed into groundwater and are likely not to function to protect environment. So that system is replaced by a raised system that would be elevated a minimum of two feet above groundwater, surrounded by a retaining wall, served by a septic tank, for which there is none now. Applications have been made to the Health Department. The Health Department is approving these applications subject to a covenant that states what the nature of the septic system is, which means that with your blessing we would be prepared to actually rehabilitate this damaged house. So those are really the key environmental features. Of course the raising of the house is also something that is required as a result of applicable FEMA regulations. You'll note that the survey shows a flood plain line that cuts the house in half, bisects the house, and it says that the, it's in a velocity zone with an elevation of eight, making the first floor effectively at a minimum of ten feet. Here it's at 14, so that to avoid overburdening the public streets with parking and so forth, so you can park underneath the structure. I'm going to turn it over to Joe right now so he can sort of walk you through how construction will actually take place, which I think is probably the bulk of your concerns on this. MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening, I'm Joe Fischetti. The architect who designed the structure could not be here tonight. I have designed similar structures underneath and I discussed it with him. When this house was built, the first floor of this house was built on a slab, so we have a problem when we try to lift this house to bring it up to compliance and set it on top of piers. Because that requires now a new floor system and a floor structure. The second problem with building or lifting houses that are Board of Trustees 50 February 18, 2015 on slabs is that the walls are attached to the concrete floor and you really can't lift the concrete. You have to lift the walls, and it's very difficult to do that. So what is happening now is to actually get a house that is lifted and that the first floor is on wood frame structure supported on concrete piers. The only way that can be done is lift the second floor up probably about 18 feet, and remove the first floor walls, which is only the walls. Remove the concrete slabs that are there and anything that is under there. Design screw piles to support a grade beam, concrete pier grade beam structure on top of those screw piles. Once that is done, then the second floor of the house, the first floor would be built on top of those piles and then the second floor of the house, and the roof, would be laid down on the first floor. That's really the only way to do it. It's a small site, and this becomes, we were kind of talking about this outside, and Bruce and I always said this. It would have been easier to just demolish the house and rebuild it. But because of the way the town codes read, we have to go through these machinations. The second floor and the roof are less than the 50% required for the demolition because we are only taking apart of the first floor walls. So we comply with all the codes and we are able to do it, construction wise. Very expensive to do, but it can be done. I would be glad to answer any questions, if you have them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would it be, I'm sure you have gone through this, but I'm just thinking out loud. Wouldn't it be easier to pick the house up, and I understand the challenge with the walls connected to the concrete slab, and move it over to the adjoining property temporarily while all the work is done? MR. FISCHETTI: What adjoining property? We don't own any adjoining property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I was getting to that, Joe. The adjoining property to see if you could lease that from the property owner. I don't know if you looked at that yet, and lease it from the property owner for a period of time for you to do the work. Because I'm also concerned for, I'll call it the lay down area, the construction vehicles, all the other activity that is needed to do this project. Given the very limited scope of the property. You know, where the trucks can go, where the material will go, where everything else well go. So, I'm just thinking that would certainly, I'm thinking out loud here, would make things easier if you could lease the piece property next door. MR. FISCHETTI: I think the one thing is you now have to lease the property to put the house and just, you still have to work within that area where the house is. So it's still a very difficult site to work with. Now, the applicant has spoken to, who is that, Phil, and there is an area on the south side -- on the north side -- no, the south side, where the boat area was, to use as a staging area. So they have done that. And that will help. But moving the house, I would not recommend it. It's just not, I would keep it where it is. Board of Trustees 51 February 18, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not an engineer, so I don't know. I was just thinking out loud. MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. Well, staging is a problem. And we did discuss that. There are ways to stage where you limit the amount of materials that come in there if you didn't have it. We would use the area where the sanitary system is on the south side. But we don't -- having a staging area out where materials can be stored definitely helps. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question concerning construction, since this is very much a seasonal area, summer area and those roads are kind of narrow and its a high use area. Any thoughts of doing construction in the off season to not only make it easier for your work crews but also for the adjoining neighbors? MR. FISCHETTI: If we can get an approval tonight, the client and the architect have, it's very hard to find house -lifting crews, because they are busy doing wherever they are doing in the other part, I have them scheduled for March right now. If we can get an approval from this Board, we can get a building permit probably within a few weeks, start in March, April, May, most of the heavy work would be done during the off season. The interior work would be maybe June, July, the interior work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The clerk informed me there was a neighbor who stopped in the Trustee office who is also very concerned about a rental property they have next door. I just want to bring that to the floor. And it's in tandem with Trustee Bergen's concern about the physical staging. And we don't want to have somebody from Legends coming down there and wreaking havoc by accident. Anyhow, I mention the fact -- MR. FISCHETTI: Again, we have March, April, May, and I would hope by those three months most of the house, most of the foundation would be done. The house would be back on the house and most of it would be interior work then. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Another question, could we request a consideration of the condition that the entirety of the at -grade patio be constructed so it would be a pervious construction with materials below that would promote drainage through the soils as opposed to having runoff over the bulkhead? MR. ANDERSON: Our thinking was we would do pavers set in sand and so that you could not have known this when you went out there, but the top of the bulkhead is actually about, I would say six or eight inches higher than the grade anyway. So any stormwater there will be impounded. But our thought was to make it into a patio because, well, we had coverage problems, quite honestly. And we need places to recharge our water. So that was our thought. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So pavers in sand, the Board doesn't have a problem with that. That's typically what we look at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, on the plans is there a silt fence and hay bale line? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't see any. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we should include them since this is so Board of Trustees 52 February 18, 2015 close to the water edge. MR. ANDERSON: I would suggest that, it would not be an imposition, what is gaining favor these days is wire backed silt fences, don't take up any room. It's just a sturdier fence is recessed into it. I don't think it would be difficult to run it along the front bulkhead and backup to the house. I don't think that would cause an impediment to what we are trying do here and it would solve that problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Engineering Department has informed us straight silt fencing properly employed now meets state standards in the town under 236. MR. ANDERSON: It's the new way to go. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would also like to see the fence not only go along the waterfront but along the northern property line go all the way along up to the road there. Because again, in proximity to the water I'm just concerned about any material going down through the neighbor's property and out into the water. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think it's a problem. They don't take up any -- there is no width to this, you can put it right on the line. MR. GRELLA: William Grella. We actually have a bulkhead that runs along that line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns? MR. ANDERSON: My only concern is if you are inclined to approve it, which I hope you are, our hope is to get into for a building permit immediately. And then accommodation to the neighborhood, quite honestly, so I may ask the building inspector to verbally check with you folks that it's approved because I understand it could take two to four weeks to physically get the permit. There is typically an inspection fee, I believe is $50, if you are inclined to do that you don't even need to send me a notice, I'll have that to you tomorrow morning. MS. CANTRELL: If the silt fence is added in this resolution, it would be another $50. MR. ANDERSON: Fine. Our interest is really getting into the ground as quickly as possible so all exterior stuff, not all of it, but at least the exterior stuff relating to the house can be completed before the summer. That's our goal. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only other thing I would ask is given what was said tonight, please, if by chance when you get into the middle of the project and you find that the second floor needs further demolition, please come back to us and to the town for that, and don't just move forward with it. MR. ANDERSON: Understood. The owners are here, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? Board of Trustees 53 February 18, 2015 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the at -grade patio will be constructed of pavers with a sand base, so it will be pervious in nature, and that a project limiting silt fence will be employed on the waterward and northern boundaries; and that the Trustee office will endeavor to honor the wishes of the neighborhood to expedite the permit process from our standpoint so the project can start as expeditiously as possible to help the New Suffolk community. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. GRELLA: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number 16, 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. I think this was tabled before, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So it's on the record it was found inconsistent. The CAC did support the application. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant John Fischetti. You'll recall that this was a dock that existed that was torn up by the storm. Mr. Fischetti bought the property with the intention of putting the dock back in its original location. So our initial application did that. And we examined some of the impacts relating to that. There is still dilapidated dock still visible in the field. Some of the floats are still there. There is some piling structure there. When we, at the conclusion of our first hearing, it was the Board's suggestion that the overall structure be shifted 25, 30 feet to the south. And the reasoning was because in that location you would be crossing a smaller expanse of vegetated wetlands. So on the second meeting out in the field, we re -staked it to confirm that the location where you wanted, which we got a nod and we held off because we were a little concerned about water depths there, and we noted though, however, and our investigations is that the depth really 20 or 25 feet away were the same as originally proposed. So it didn't provide an impediment for us to work with this Board to shift this dock down. It's important for us to reach two -and -a -half feet of water, which we are able to do. 1 have revised plans that depict the relocated dock structure in accordance with our previous conversations. So Board of Trustees 54 February 18, 2015 hope that is sufficient. Plus the other issues which, regarding that we discussed, I think are already kind of vetted in this project, but I'm here to answer any questions you may have regarding this project as now amended. TRUSTEE KING: The original dock was in a "T" configuration, wasn't it, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we make this a "T" configuration to be more consistent with that and you still have good water depth? MR. ANDERSON: Well, his preference is to have it go straight out because he believes that it will be easier to dock on both sides of it because he'll have 20 feet of free float on either side. TRUSTEE KING: We could put it in an "L", configuration that way they could get on either side. MR. ANDERSON: We probably could, but I would have to extend the fixed portion out slightly seaward to capture that land so that the float could extend from that. And I'm not sure that's a great idea because now you are talking more construction in the water. It is our intention to have all of the catwalk would be flow-through. I do not think we had lowered it as was requested in the previous application, Schab, but his concern is, its not the end of the world we would turn the float, but his concern is to try to get enough dockage on either side of the float to support two boats. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, I know we had asked at a previous hearing that we get the dilapidated docks out of, remnants out of the wetland area, not just what is marked mere as dilapidated dock but there was also some remnants of floating docks to the north. We noticed as of last week they have not been removed yet. MR. ANDERSON: They will be removed, for sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The sooner the better. MR. ANDERSON: There is other stuff that needs to be removed, probably several dumpsters of stuff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So during the spring the new growth is able to come up. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I would still like to see either a "T" or an "L". MR. ANDERSON: As I said, I don't have objection to that, Jim, I'll just have to extend the dock further seaward to capture that in an "L". TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand why you have to extend. MR. ANDERSON: If he wants to enjoy 20 feet on either side. That's my point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I still don't follow for an "L" -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He wants to get over his two feet on either side. MR. ANDERSON: Perhaps what could be done is an additional tie off pole. Maybe that will solve it. I don't know exactly what kind of boat he has. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you are saying if it's an "L", the inside part of that dock would be at two feet, not 2.4. Board of Trustees 55 February 18, 2015 MR. ANDERSON: It has to be two -and -a -half. So you have to, you know, we could, what I was saying is in order to get a clear 20 feet on either side of the float, I would have to almost bring the fixed dock out to the point of where the float is now and bring the ramp off of that. If you follow what I'm saying. His goal is to try to get 20 feet on either side. I don't know if I'm being clear on that. And I'm not so sure that's such a good idea. Its a concern of his, he's asked me to raise it. So that's what I'm doing. What I have said, though, if dockage becomes a problem, you know, you may see us for a tie pole, if that's a problem with docking on the inside. Or we could address it now. TRUSTEE KING: Depends on the size of the boat he wants to put in there. MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: You know, you'll lose the width of the ramp as far as if that's his concern. MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be fairly insignificant. I've never been in Richmond Creek. Going in there, is there plenty of water, do you know? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have never gone beyond the launching ramp at the road end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But 1 do know further up -- TRUSTEE KING: 1 doubt you'll get a 35 -footer in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I would doubt it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would doubt it, too. I never went beyond it. The county has a 34 -footer. We didn't get too far. MR. ANDERSON: Who maintains the channel after the bay? Is that the county? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: How wide is that channel? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The channel at the entrance, at the interface, I'm not sure, but it's pretty wide. MR. ANDERSON: From the aerial it looks really narrow. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That channel there you see going out, right there, that's at least 50 feet wide. When it's dredged. And it's dredged just about every other year. The farthest I've ever gone in by boat is to that road end going down Indian Neck Lane with the bay constable, and we were churning it up like mad. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. I guess I have no strong preference either way. I understand what you are saying. I'm wondering if you didn't have to totally, a straight 90 degree, if you dog legged it, would tuck it in a little more, would swing it. MR. ANDERSON: I would say there is really no navigational hazard there. That's pretty clear to me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's not at the point. It's tucked in a little bit. Board of Trustees 56 February 18, 2015 MR. ANDERSON: And there is really nothing, one dock landward, north of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have strong feelings that. TRUSTEE KING: I know when we were out there, the stake looked to me like it was getting out there quite a ways. I'm not bent on demanding this. If everybody else is comfortable with straight in and out, I don't care. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I am. TRUSTEE DOMINO: One of the concerns we had in the past is prop wash. And this configuration is getting almost three -and -a -half feet of water, so that's -- MR. ANDERSON: No, no, it's two -and -a -half feet. TRUSTEE DOMINO: At the very seaward end of the float you have 2.8 and 3.4. MR. ANDERSON: Right, I see that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: My point is that it's beneficial to have it at that depth. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Also in the description, I don't see the use of flow-through grating, at least through the wetland area. MR. ANDERSON: I have to tell you, the more I think about it, I think it's a better material than some of the planking we have done in the past, just so water can go through it in a flood tide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: So you won't get an argument from me, because if I was doing a dock myself, I would use it the entirety of the dock. And I would probably use an aluminum ramp. TRUSTEE KING: I just want to check how far above grade you have that, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: We don't give you any, we have not given you a cross-section on this plan. We just wanted to see if we could decide on that. I would provide you with one. TRUSTEE KING: I have a few sets here. But I had the cross-section. The cross-section, I would assume your cross- section would be the same as it was, am I right? MR. ANDERSON: Yup. TRUSTEE DOMINO: What's the elevation? MR. ANDERSON: The cross-section we have does not provide measurements from the grade, so what I would like to do is if you go with the two feet, which I think is nice, is simply provide that information to you. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Any other comments? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the use of through -flow grating on the catwalk. The catwalk has to be no more than two feet above grade. And one of my big concerns for this project is all those derelict floats and everything sitting in that marsh that has now flowed through the Board of Trustees 57 February 18, 2015 land and doubled the size of the area being killed. I would like to make a condition of this permit that the permit is not released until that material and that whole old dock is removed from the premises. MR. ANDERSON: Say that again. TRUSTEE KING: Part of this permit, the permit will not be released until the old floats and remnants of that old dock are removed from the property. That way we know it will get done that way. I don't like being like this, but sometimes, because we have asked now for that stuff to be removed and nothing is done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Perhaps pricing it out with the contractor so it can be all in one job. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. MR. ANDERSON: That's absolutely fine. No problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: And we'll provide you with a new set of plans to make sure that is all buttoned down. Thank you. Respectfully submitted by, P - John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees