The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-07/22/2015BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice -President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECFJIVED IF; %ed AUG 2 0/2015 0- 0= I . /1 7" uthold Town Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM WORK SESSIONS: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 17, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the regular monthly meeting for the Trustees for July. For those of you who have not found one yet, agendas are available on the dais. And also I would like to let you know there is one item that has been postponed tonight. So that you are not waiting to hear this particular item, it's in a state of postponement. It's on page seven, number twelve, Charles Southard on behalf of CHRISTOPHER ARIENS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, decks and detached garage; construct new two-story 3,035 sq.ft. dwelling with attached garage, including a 48'x24' irregularly shaped decking attached to dwelling; and a proposed stone driveway. Located: 455 MacDonald Crossing, Laurel, has been postponed. I'll make a motion have our next field inspection Wednesday, August 12th, 2015, at 8:00 AM. John M. Bredemeyer III, President ®� ®� Town Hall Annex Michael J. Domino, Vice -President ® ,,..rrte�,, 4-4 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 James F. King, Trustee C Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen, Trustee O a� ® � Telephone (631) 765-1892 Charles J. Sanders, Trustee �c®�9� Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, July 22, 2015 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice -President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECFJIVED IF; %ed AUG 2 0/2015 0- 0= I . /1 7" uthold Town Clerk NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM WORK SESSIONS: Monday, August 17, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of June 17, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the regular monthly meeting for the Trustees for July. For those of you who have not found one yet, agendas are available on the dais. And also I would like to let you know there is one item that has been postponed tonight. So that you are not waiting to hear this particular item, it's in a state of postponement. It's on page seven, number twelve, Charles Southard on behalf of CHRISTOPHER ARIENS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, decks and detached garage; construct new two-story 3,035 sq.ft. dwelling with attached garage, including a 48'x24' irregularly shaped decking attached to dwelling; and a proposed stone driveway. Located: 455 MacDonald Crossing, Laurel, has been postponed. I'll make a motion have our next field inspection Wednesday, August 12th, 2015, at 8:00 AM. Board of Trustees 2 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And motion to have our next Trustee meeting Wednesday August 19th, at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And also a motion to hold work sessions on Monday, August 17th, 5:30 PM at the Downs Farms Center, and on Wednesday, August 19th, at 5:00 PM here in the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, also for field inspections, do you want to list the Fishers Island field inspection? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we should. A motion for the Board of Trustees to perform field inspections on Fishers Island for August 5th. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Dave. I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of June 17th, 2015. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for June 2015. A check for $4,479.06 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 VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, July 22, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: George O. Thogersen, Jr. Trust SCTM# 35-4-26 Maureen Massa & Alan Schweitzer SCTM# 52-2-23 Rocco Resciniti SCTM# 111-14-18 Charles D. Snyder SCTM# 35-4-28.24 John & Barbara Severini SCTM# 35-4-28.27 Martha Brooks SCTM# 53-5-12.6 Board of Trustees 3 July 22, 2015 Kenneth Heidt SCTM# 126-11-22 Windsong Farm LLC SCTM# 97-6-7 Kevin & Paula Flaherty 115-11-12 850 President LLC SCTM# 117-5-31 Christopher Ariens SCTM# 145-4-17 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my motion that those be adopted. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For matters that are administrative in nature and minor, the Board does both field inspections and in -office historic reviews of projects, and these particular applications for Administrative Permits are not subject to additional review at a public hearing. And we will group them together at times to expedite the meeting so we don't have an extensive waste of time just going motion by motion. Accordingly, under Resolutions for Administrative Permits, I would move number one and number two under Item IV for Resolutions, I would move to approve these as a group. They are listed as follows: IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: JOSEPH LaVELLE requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 20'3"x30'6" wooden barn; patch the roof at the back end; replace rotted studs and sistered new studs to existing; replace rotted rafters and wood siding; and floated cement on existing slab footprint to make level. Located: 3500 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. BLUE HORIZON BLUFFS LLC, c/o RICHARD PRINCIPI, JR. requests an Administrative Permit to demolish existing seasonal cottage; re -seed the disturbed area of the footprint; and to clear vegetation in order to do trenching to bury the utility and power lines. Located: 4690 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. RESOLUTIONS - MOORING PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item V, Resolutions for Mooring Permits, I would move to approve item number one for a mooring, WILLIAM GOLDS requests a Mooring Permit in East Creek for a 22ft. Sailboat, replacing Mooring #883. Access: Public in East Creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 4 July 22, 2015 VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And under Item VI, the Board having reviewed items one through eight as previously mentioned during the course of field inspections, office review and at the Downs Farms work session. I would move items one through eight as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, Pari Drouzas on behalf of DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP. requests the Last One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7891, as issued on August 22, 2012. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold. Number two, En -Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE, INC. requests the Last One -Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7912, as issued on September 19, 2012. Located: 2402 Camp Mineola Road Ext., Mattituck. Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of REGINA MELLY requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #6332A, as issued on April 19, 2006. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold. Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of REGINA MELLY requests a Transfer of Administrative Permit #7319A, as issued on June 16, 2010. Located: 490 Northfield Lane, Southold. Number five, JOHN & ROBIN IOVINO request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8172 for the as -built 37' high by 140'4" long handrail along the top of the bulkhead pilings; and to install a 3'x16' aluminum ramp instead of a 3'x14' ramp. Located: 180 Bayview Drive, East Marion. Number six, Rich Petrowski on behalf of CHERI ANTONIELLO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8497 to change the location of the proposed 4' high pool fencing. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of PARADISE POINT ASSOCIATION requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8320 for a proposed Ten (10) Year Maintenance Dredge Permit. Located: Basin Road, Southold. Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of TOM & MAE MAURI request.an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8556 to install a 36" diameter gas fire -pit on the patio; and install a 9'x8' hot tub on a concrete pad in the lawn area. Located: 1135 Calves Neck Road, Southold. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Item number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GREG & CAROL KARAS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8334 to construct an 8'x13' platform at grade 3' landward of the landing. Located: 135 Soundview Road, Orient. It should read "attached to the landing." We need to amend the approval for this. Previously we had discussion with the applicant. A simple error in creating the job description was made, and so I would move this application as submitted noting the change that the 8x13 platform is attached to the landing. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 5 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next file, number nine, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JOHN FISCHETTI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8569 to increase the diameter of all dock pilings to 8"; and adding two (2) 8" diameter middle pilings between the last two (2) sets of seaward catwalk pilings. Located: 2615 Wells Road, Peconic. The Board extensively reviewed this request for an amendment, and going over the history of storms and storm events and after much discussion and consideration at the work session, I believe the Board feels that the increase in piling size will destroy too much marsh. And accordingly, I think we are prepared to move this to require that this application maintain the six-inch diameter pilings as previously applied for, but is prepared to approve the three -pile bents for the two seaward -most sets of piles. So in keeping with that I would move to deny the applicant's request to increase piling size from six inches to eight inches, but approve the applicant's request to have three -pile bents for the two seaward -most sets of piles. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, CHARLES & MARILYN SOUTHARD request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8427 to construct an 8'x8' deck extension with an 8'x8' hot tub onto the seaward side of existing deck. Located: 435 Bay Home Road, Southold. On July 14th I did a field inspection and noted the deck had already been built and the hot tub is on the ground ready for installation. I make a motion to approve this application for amendment to Wetland Permit #8427. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #8213 to remove the significant amount of organic debris and accumulated garbage between the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area line and the bottom of the bluff line. Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient. The Board performed the inspection here, and based on the field inspection the Board feels strongly that there should be no fill brought in here, and that was removed from the application. But also in doing the inspection the Board felt there should be restrictions put on the property so that there is no clearing of vegetation landward of the mean high water, and that the removal of the significant amount of organic material, dead vegetation and driftwood, has to be performed with hand removal only. No equipment on the beach. Essentially, no power tools. It should be hand based, rake and wheelbarrow. And reiteration, no fill whatsoever. So there is no confusion about putting any fill in. And that the applicant, just to note, that the applicant could at some point in the future Board of Trustees 6 July 22, 2015 request to put a small catwalk or bridge or have a four -foot wide path leading over the area in question where there is a depression where this organic matter had built up. So I would move to approve this application with the following stipulation: No clearing of vegetation landward -- no clearing whatsoever of any vegetation landward of mean high water; the removal of dead vegetation and driftwood by hand only; and that there is to be no fill whatsoever put on the property. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's take a resolution to go off the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Item VII, Public Hearings. I'll make a motion to resolve to go off the agenda and on to the Public Hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Amendments, number one, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of CHARLES D. SNYDER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #91 from Frederick Raymes to Charles D. Snyder; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit #91 to construct 14 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead at top of bank; and to remove and replace six (6) timber piles along face of existing bulkhead. Located: 704 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC did a field inspection on July 15th and resolved to support the application, with no conditions. The Trustees did a field inspection on July 15th and noted that the 89 feet of bulkhead was followed by a slight bend in the shoreline, and the 24 feet thereafter for a total of 113 feet. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Seeing this was pretty straightforward, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I make a motion to approve this application in its present form. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it was deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes, I mentioned that before. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second for that? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 7 WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next public hearing, for Wetland Permit, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KUHL FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing 206 linear feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in-place; installation of an 8 linear foot return and an 18 linear foot return; reconstruct in-place existing 4'x10' timber platform with stairs to beach; existing 3'x7' platform leading to ramp to be re -decked using untreated timber in-place; and install and subsequently maintain a 10' wide non -turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; existing ramp and floating dock to remain undisturbed during construction. Located: 1790 North Bayview Road, Southold. This application was revisited by the applicant at the request of the Board as a result of last month's meeting. And it has been deemed to be inconsistent because of the lack of Trustee permits for the structures so that it can be brought into consistency with the permitting. And the inconsistency also requested a non -turf buffer, which the applicant has included in the application. And the requested modifications to minimize coverage over the creek were placed in the revised permit that we have which was received and dated July 16th, 2015. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (Negative response). Seeing no one here to speak on behalf of this application, does anyone from the Board have any questions or concerns? I think they addressed pretty much what we had requested. Anybody? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a plan there for the new proposed dock? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: (Perusing). The question we had last month, the dock in its current form actually extended out into the navigational channel. And what the applicant has done is reconfigured the dock so it's now an "L" shaped dock, pulling it in so that it will not be in the natural channel. They addressed that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for bringing that up. That was an important request that we made. That and providing permitting for the structures will bring it into consistency. So hearing no additional comment I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application according to the revised plan submitted July 16th, 2015, noting that it brings it into compliance and issuing a permit will address the inconsistency. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. July 22, 2015 Board of Trustees 8 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN & BARBARA SEVERINI request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace existing 145 linear feet of deteriorated timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead in same location as existing and raised 2' higher; installation of a 10 linear foot bulkhead return; remove existing and construct new 4'x6' timber platform; remove and replace existing 3'x16' aluminum ramp; relocate existing 6'x80' floating dock 20' south of existing location; fill in existing area of boat launching ramp with 35 cubic yards of clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead; remove and replace 442 sq.ft. deck in same location as existing; and to install and subsequently maintain a 10' wide non -turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. This was found inconsistent by the LWRP, I believe because there were no permits. (Perusing). Yes, there were no permits on it. The CAC resolved to support the application and recommends a drywell, a catch basin at the top of the boat ramp to control runoff. The CAC questions the two -foot rising of the bulkhead because it will diverge stormwater runoff onto adjacent continuous neighbors having lower bulkheads. Those are the comments from the CAC. I think we had a question on the deck, whether or not that was actually on -grade or was raised. I don't think we have an answer yet, have we? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. TRUSTEE KING: Jeffrey is not here yet. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Is there a question? TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to see if we can pull the deck out of this application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be up to the owner, at this point. MS. HULSE: Sir, would you stand up and address the Board please, and provide your name for the record. MR. SEVERINI: John Severini, 565 Gull Pond Lane, Greenport. I'm the homeowner. TRUSTEE KING: We had a question on the deck because we were not sure if it's on, considered if it's on -grade or above grade. I would like to move forward with this if we can and maybe we can approve this with the removal of the deck and then after the fact do something with the deck. (Mr. Patanjo enters the hearing room). MR. SEVERINI: I'll wait for Jeff, but if I understand properly, the determination of "grade" is if you can get a lawnmower over it while it's running. Is that a correct statement? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would not say that's a legal definition, but it may be more practical. MR. SEVERINI: Okay. I'll defer to Jeffrey. MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. So where did we leave off? July 22, 2015 Board of Trustees 9 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You just missed a sentence or two. Jim will bring you up to speed. TRUSTEE KING: We had a question on the deck, whether that is considered on -grade or above grade. It might need something from the Zoning if it's considered above grade. MR. PATANJO: No, it will be on grade. We'll have, actually, right now with this application package that we submitted, this deck will be on -grade. It will be flush with the top of the top wale, then the top cap will extend along it. It's actually built into the berm, if you think about it. You were out there, you saw the ground does slope down. So we are raising the bulkhead height two feet. That's the proposal. And this will be flush with the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And native soils will come up on both sides. Because right now you step down on both sides. MR. PATANJO: It steps down. That won't exist on this proposal here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jeff, I notice in the description that you are bringing in fill for where the existing boat launching ramp is. MR. PATANJO: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you are raising the bulkhead two feet, aren't you expecting to bring some fill in to also raise the elevation up slightly, or are you looking to leave the bulkhead, the final bulkhead, two -feet above grade? MR. PATANJO: No, we were going to bring in fill to bring the elevation up six inches lower than the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll need some estimation of that fill, or at least some description to include in here of the fill. TRUSTEE KING: How much will that require to bring the grade up? For the whole length, correct? MR. PATANJO: Correct. There will be some reshaping, because there is some excess there. You know, where it is bermed it does come up a little bit. So we do have a little excess. But if I can do a rough number for you right now, it's about another, say 75 yards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you want to add another approximately 75 yards, so your total is approximately 110 cubic yards of fill coming in for the project? MR. PATANJO: Yes. I had 35 on my plan, but we can say 110 would be fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would just point out ordinarily that would be a fairly major addition to a project, but since this is provided in a pre-existing bulkhead and it's going behind a bulkhead structure, that amount of fill ordinarily, so it's not mistaken, someone might mistakenly think that this is going in a wetland area. We are not allowing fill in the wetland. Someone here is going from 35 to 110 they may be wondering what we are talking about here. TRUSTEE KING: It's a highly developed property behind the bulkhead. Board of Trustees 10 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: One question. Often when you raise the bulkhead, you raise it so it matches the neighbors. In this case, can we have some sort of reference from the existing bulkhead to where the new one is going so when we do the final inspection we have the means to verify you went two foot and not higher? MR. PATANJO: Yes, what we can do is we can measure off the height of the neighboring deck. There is a deck that ties into the adjacent to the north. We can just measure off, the height off of that deck. Prior to, maybe take a photograph prior to and then when you come there we can measure it afterwards. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jeff, we noted that there is extensive landscaping that has been done landward of the current bulkhead rocks and plantings and everything, and that in the plans it calls for removal of all that, or digging all that up for a backing system. Was there any thought of using helix screws instead so that that could all be retained, and so there is not as much disturbance, plus that area, you would not have to rip up that whole landscaped area. Or maybe it would be very minimal what you would have to do. (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's not a requirement. It's just a suggestion. I'm thinking to- save you aggravation and money. MR. SEVERINI: Basically we are replacing as is, but by bringing up the fill or bringing the bulkhead up, we have to do some re -landscaping anyway. But yes, I would like to avoid ripping it out. But I also understand the cost of the helix screws are -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just an option for you to think about. That's all. MR. PATANJO: Like John said, as far as raising the grade, we are coming up another foot -and -a -half or so. You'll probably bury a lot of the stuff that is on the bank there. But at the time of construction, we may change the plan and say do helicals. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Understand you would then have to come in for an amendment MR. PATANJO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else, pro or con on this? (Negative response). Nobody has any concerns. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted, with the addition of an additional 75 -cubic yards of fill. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And by having the permit, it's found consistent. Board of Trustees 11 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., c/o FISHERS ISLAND CLUB requests a Wetland Permit to enlarge an existing water storage pond used for irrigation by excavating approximately 6,670 cubic yards of material to a depth of approximately -5'. The resultant material shall be trucked to an upland site for disposal. The disturbed area shall then be restored by utilizing native plantings. Located: 25185 East End Road, Fishers Island. The matter was tabled last month, to give an opportunity for a neighbor and JMO Consulting and Fishers Island Club to discuss concerns concerning the neighbors irrigation well. And is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just of JMO Environmental Consulting, if there are any questions from the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not particularly. To your knowledge, did you or did the attorney or their representative talk directly with anyone at the Fishers Island Club over the last month? MR. JUST: I don't know. I asked Donny Beck, the superintendent, he didn't see anyone. But supposedly on the Friday after the last hearing they were supposed to go with the irrigation specialist and landscapers to look at the project site. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Did you get a DEC permit yet? MR. JUST: I got an E-mail today saying it's approved. The soil tests came back perfect. You could use it as clean fill. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is the DEC permit going to deal with any water resource issues concerns about the water drafting, in other words any limitation or any of that? MR. JUST: That would only come into play, Jay, if there was an application by the club to put in a new well within the form of a Long Island Well Permit. It would not fall under a wetlands issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: They have to be using existing wells to fill the pond, is that it? MR. JUST: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. RASMUSSEN: Good evening. Barbara Rasmussen. I represent a neighbor to the property, Mark Andrews. I faxed a letter over to the Board and faxed it to Wayne Bugden of CME Associates. I spoke to Wayne as well as Glen, and my understanding is they have not received a response to my client as to my letter. Did the Board see the letter that I faxed over? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is a new letter. MS. RASMUSSEN: On July 17th. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If you want, I'll read that letter, unless you wish to. MS. RASMUSSEN: I will, if you want me to. It's up to you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Why don't you read it then. MS. RASMUSSEN: Dear Southold Town Trustees, dear Board members, Board of Trustees 12 July 22, 2015 as you know, I represent Mark Andrews who owns a parcel of approximately ten acres located on Castle Road and abutting and/or surrounded by the Fishers Island Club. A property known as Sea Wynde. In furtherance of my earlier correspondence to this Board and my appearance at the Trustees meeting of June 17th, my client would like a formal written assurance from the Fishers Island Club that, quote, there will be no significant increase in the amount of water used for irrigation and that if in the future there is a plan for a significantly increased use of water, such increase will not occur until Mr. Andrews and/or all surrounding residents receive confirmation from a hydrologist that it will have no negative impact on their water supply. End quote. We are therefore requesting that the above be made a condition to any approval and/or resolution that the Town Trustees grant on this application. Thank you for your time and consideration, very truly yours, Barbara Rasmussen. And as I said, I did speak to Mr. Bugden and Mr. Just, and my understanding is as of yesterday or possibly, I think Glen actually called my office today, as of today they have not yet received a response from their client, the applicant, as to whether or not they would consent to that condition. But that is a condition they are asking for. Mr. Andrews hired his own hydrologist who visited the site and who reviewed the CME letter as well as the conditions at his property and the country club and feels that it would be acceptable as long as there is no additional draw or additional irrigation usage on the property. That's why we are asking for that condition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So, correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm hearing is there is still some discussions that may be going forward concerning getting assurances that there would not be a problem with the water supply of your client. MS. RASMUSSEN: If the Board needs the consent of the applicant for the condition. If not, as long as, if you are willing to impose that condition, that if there is a future expansion of the water usage that may negatively affect the aquifer and my client's water supply, if you can add that as a condition, that would be acceptable to my client. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's a little beyond what we do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may be a little bit beyond what we normally do. It's not -- it's an irrigation supply which everyone is sort of in the same soup, if you will. If you draw too much water, it is likely that both parties will have an increase in chlorides. I have a little experience -- I'm not a hydrologist, but I worked for a long time in the County Health Department. My question is instead of assurances and permit restrictions, wouldn't it be more prudent to come to an agreement to test for chlorides, which is salt water intrusion? Did your hydrologist or hydrogeologist make any suggestions? It would be in everybody's best interest to do an annual test for chlorides during the height of the pumping season and then track it, and then you would know. If the pond itself was being filled with Board of Trustees 13 July 22, 2015 water from a high velocity, high volume pump and you start pulling chlorides, the pond would show it immediately, as well as the neighbors' irrigation. You know, maybe once a year monitoring of it would provide information. I'm just throwing that up as a possibility instead of extensive permit restrictions that are not tied to any factual basis. We don't even know what the baseline is. We don't even know what is there now. MS. RASMUSSEN: I think something like that would be acceptable to my client. He just wants to ensure that in the future if the use was expanded it would not negatively impact his water supply. I understand in Fishers Island there is significant water issues. They had private wells, then they went to public water, now they have partial private and partial public. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would it be, I'm wondering for the sake of some productive discussion, the irrigation season is almost over, would it be worthy of tabling this for a month to allow the parties one last chance to try to work something out. MR. JUST: I have not seen any communication by the hydrologist hired by Ms. Rasmussen's client. I have not heard any reports. I have not heard anything. And I'm sure if they did a FOIA with DEC, the water quality tests are required as part of line well permits, they can do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the pre-existing water wells that got well driller certificates and permits for the existing wells. MR. JUST: Yes. And this letter, again, they said they were hiring a hydrologist and now they want us to hire one. No. MS. RASMUSSEN: Well, going forward. But testing the water supply annually would be acceptable as well. It would be the same. It would actually be more than my client is asking for. All he's asking for is if the use is expanded any time in the future, just a confirmation it would not negatively impact his water supply. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not comfortable with putting that as a condition for a permit. I think if that's an agreement the parties want to enter into individually, on their own, fine. But not as far as a permit condition here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree with you. I'm also reluctant to push this through without additional discussion, since water protection is specifically outlined in our Wetlands code, and understanding that the ground conditions and hydrology on the island is unique. I would be more comfortable with a last chance opportunity for the two parties to have a meeting of the minds, whether it be Ms. Rasmussen on behalf of her client go get the current well data or come to some kind of an accord. If it makes things happen, one last month to make this go. MS. RASMUSSEN: I would appreciate that. MR. JUST: I'm sorry, can you repeat that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically one month to have an opportunity for them to hire a hydrologist or hydrogeologist or to work something out with the club so they check -- Board of Trustees 14 July 22, 2015 MS. RASMUSSEN: As I said, they did have a hydrologist take a look at this. He just didn't issue anything in writing. He reviewed the CME letter that was previously submitted to the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before we would even entertain a discussion concerning additional permit restrictions, we have to see a report from the hydrologist or hydrogeologist. This can't go on forever. MS. RASMUSSEN: Absolutely. I can have the hydrologist render something in writing. MR. JUST: Addressing the Board again, it will just be a letter that says, hey, in the future can you, if you increase your pumping supply we want a study done, or will it be specific? MS. HULSE: The Board can't answer that question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because we don't know what kind of letter is coming in. MS. HULSE: You can't answer it any way. MR. JUST: I don't feel comfortable with this whatsoever. It can be handled -- Mr. Andrews is a club member. It can be handled in the club, you know, between the attorneys with the club. It can be handled that way. I don't think it should be an issue for the Trustees. It's a Wetlands application. MS. RASMUSSEN: Right. I believe what the Board is suggesting is we try to work it out between ourselves; is that correct? MS. HULSE: The Board needs to act, if they have enough information, at this juncture. If they feel they don't have enough information at this juncture and want either an opinion from an expert or additional testimony, they can table the matter for that purpose. There is no reason to table for negotiation purposes. There is only reason to table it if you are going to be giving additional information that will be useful to rendering a decision. MS. RASMUSSEN: And I'll get something in writing from the hydrologist that was hired by my client. Or hopefully come to some type of understanding so that this Board can render a decision at the next meeting. TRUSTEE KING: This has been approved by DEC? MR. JUST: It has. DEC was out there last meeting, Rob Marsh head of natural resources, and Dan Lewis, Freshwater Wetlands biologist. Their only concern was the chemical analysis, which we have a Bureau of Solid Waste. There were two sets of soil samples taken, done by New York State certified lab, and all the parameters, all the levels came in well under the parameters that would be allowed. The spoil can be used for backfill or clean fill. That's how clean it is. MS. RASMUSSEN: I'm just a little bit confused because when I spoke to Wayne Bugden from CME, who is the expert hired by the club, and when I last spoke to Glen Just, my understanding was they were not, they didn't have that many issues with what we were asking for but they couldn't get confirmation yet from their clients, so. Board of Trustees 15 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we should probably, we are starting to repeat ourselves here in the discussion. I think it's a question of, I think an opportunity to table to get a more specific report that was promised from a hydrologist, and if you want to go work something out at the club level, that's fine. I would make a motion to table this one last month to get that information. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. MR. JUST: May I intervene for a second? Can I ask if next month can be the final. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can't make that determination. The motion has been made and seconded. Trustee Bergen, do you want to have a discussion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I have to admit I'm a little uncomfortable with this. Because I thought last month we made it pretty clear as to what we wanted by this month to get done. That has not happened. And so I'm willing to vote in favor of tabling this, but I know, for myself, I don't want to go another month on this. I don't think it's fair to the applicant. And so I would just say, for myself, I really hope this is resolved. Because if not, my feeling is we move forward next month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Brought up for point of discussion, point well taken. And I have to agree with Trustee Bergen. This has to get matured quickly, because the Board is not entirely appreciating the depth of this water quality issue. So it has to mature or be handled between the parties. MS. RASMUSSEN: I would like to point out at the last meeting -- MS. HULSE: There is a motion on the table. Sorry. This is only discussion between the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional discussion? TRUSTEE KING: I agree with Dave. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. So here we are. So we have a motion to table made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Michael A. Kimack on behalf of KEVIN & PAULA FLAHERTY request a Wetland Permit for the demolition of an east side extension and majority of its foundation; construct a one-story 298sq.ft. addition with the installation of a drywell to contain roof runoff for new addition; as -built 90' long fieldstone retaining wall of varying height with steps located approximately 10' landward of easterly side of existing bulkhead; and as -built 769sq.ft. above grade stone patio with attached +/-20' long retaining wall. Located: 1250 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The consistency however arises with the condition that the, from the LWRP coordinator, that the location of the sanitary system, which is not shown on the plans, be in fact Board of Trustees 16 July 22, 2015 demonstrated by new plans to be a sanitary system that is functioning and in conformance with Chapter 275. And two, to verify that the ten -foot non -turf buffer as required in permit 8224 is in fact installed. The as -built section of the stone patio and retaining wall is what drives the inconsistency portion of his report. The CAC on July 15th resolved to support the application. The Trustees did a field inspection on July 15th, and noted that the groin which is conditioned in the previous permit had not been removed. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack for the applicant. Sorry, Mike, what had not been removed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a timber groin in front of the property. It was a prior permit condition of a prior permit. MR. KIMACK: Oh, is that that wood jetty? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. That was supposed to be removed. That was part of the bulkhead permit that was issued. Part of that, one of the conditions of that permit was for that groin to be removed. Because it was in the wetlands and serves no purposes MR. KIMACK: If that's what it says, that's what it says. Okay. And then the other one, the other concern was the non -turf buffer, ten foot? Is that in front of the bulkhead? TRUSTEE DOMINO: That concern is, um, I'm reiterating what the LWRP coordinator found. And then verified that the buffer is there. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is that the sanitary system is not shown on the plans. MR. KIMACK: All right. What I'll have to do is resubmit a revised survey showing the location of the sanitary system. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That would go a long way to addressing that inconsistency. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No one else to speak. Board comment. It would expedite the application process if the groin were removed and confirm that, that jetty or groin, that was removed, and we get information to confirm that, it would probably expedite this as we move forward. MR. KIMACK: Okay, I'll get someone out there. It's a condition of a prior permit. Who knew. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Who knew. Right. An expression of good faith_ is always appreciated by the Board. MR. KIMACK: I'll contact the owners and have them contact someone to get the groin out of there. I'll contact the surveyor and get the location of the septic system. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as written, with the condition that we receive a set of revised Board of Trustees 17 July 22, 2015 plans to address the LWRP coordinator's concerns, and that we not release the permit until the groin has been removed. Strike that. TRUSTEE KING: His concern is the septic, the location of the septic. We don't even know where it is until we get it on the survey. MR. KIMACK: And I can't give you a definitive right now. TRUSTEE KING: What if the septic is real close. If that's his concern, I don't know. MR. KIMACK: If I get down in the basement, if it's going out toward the garage, I would be very happy. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be appropriate to wait for the location of the sanitary if it will affect where they put that addition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion was made. Do you want to possibly withdraw it in favor of tabling until we get that on the plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There was no second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, there is no second. So the motion is lost. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So I'll make a motion to table this application until submission of new plans showing the location of the sanitary system. MR. KIMACK: Taking off of the groin. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number five, Garrett A. Strang on behalf of KENNETH HEIDT requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing one-story dwelling, guest cottage and detached garage; construct new two-story 3,016sq.ft. dwelling with attached garage, a 516sq.ft. enclosed porch, and a 328sq.ft. open porch with 88sq.ft. steps to grade; install a new sanitary system; the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff; and remove five (5) trees on the west property line and one (1) tree on the southeast corner of the existing porch. Located: 8530 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This application was a permit that expired when the construction had started, and it was a re-application for an identical project such that the Board didn't have a problem with it, but administratively we have to go through the hearing process for the issuance of a permit for the activities to be completed. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? (Negative response). Any questions or concerns from the Board on the height? (Negative response). Hearing no one here to speak on behalf of the application, no concerns of the Board, I'll move to close the hearing in this Board of Trustees 18 July 22, 2015 matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as submitted. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Amy Martin on behalf of MARTHA BROOKS requests a Wetland Permit to raise the existing cottage to an 8' floor elevation; raise the cottage roof for an additional 1' of headroom; and construct a new 4'x4' landing with steps to grade, and a new 4'x8'1" landing with steps to grade. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage #4, Greenport. I believe it was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support the application, with a condition of ten -foot non -turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MARTIN: Amy Martin, Fairweather & Brown, here for Brooks. think it's pretty straightforward. It is just raising the cottage. There is actually no additions other than the landings at the doorways, and they're adding a foot of height to the ceiling height. So raising the roof. All of Breezy has sort of a non -turf buffer that is just whatever grows there, grows. It's not gardened or fertilized. TRUSTEE KING: WIII you have gutters and leaders to drywells for roof runoff? MS. MARTIN: Yes, I believe that's on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: You are saying they are on here? MS. MARTIN: I believe so. TRUSTEE KING: (Perusing). Yes, we have them. Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of or against this application? (Negative response). Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only concern that we had going out and looking at this, that we just want to have on the record, if during the construction of this project this becomes a demolition, and that's something between yourself and the Building Department, they'll define what is a demolition, please come back to us and don't proceed forward. MS. MARTIN: We have been through that before Won't be doing it again. TRUSTEE KING: It's one of our concerns here, the raising falls apart like a two -dollar suitcase. MS. MARTIN: It's capable of happening on those cottages. We are very aware of the process and will be back to YOL. We have been assured by the movers so that this work, so we afe hoping they Board of Trustees 19 July 22, 2015 are right. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: No other comments, I'll make hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve submitted. Evidently there is already a non -turf the bulkhead, it's just being left in its natural sta TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All (ALL AYES). motion to close the e application as iffier along favor? MS. MARTIN: If I could just say thank you. I'm in the process of semi -retiring and I would like to thank you for the years I have been before you. It's been a very pleasurable experience. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, good luc . TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: I'll be right behind you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, MAUREEP I MASSA & ALAN SCHWEITZER requests a Wetland Permi to replace window in existing garage with a sliding glass door; construct a 4'x38' set of stairs from top of slope to edge of etlands with a 10'x10' platform at top of stairs; to install a 4' hi h fence along eastern property line; with the conditions to subs quently maintain the existing 5' wide non -turf buffer along the land and edge of the top of bluff; and to plant two trees in accordance In ith professional landscapers advice as to best location. Located: 460 Ruch Lane, Southold. The Board did go out and looked at this. This Nas reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. Anc it was reviewed by the CAC. They resolved to support t e application. In the Board's review of this, we noticed there haJ been a previous permit, permit number 8143, and that prmit ran out and now they have come in with a new application, bcause the first one ran out. So the majority of the work, the proposed work, as described in this application, matches what had already been approved by the Board previously and in the pno� application. The Board, as I said, reviewed this. We didn't have any questions. It looked pretty straightforward because again most of our questions had been answered during the first review process and first permit process. So with that, an I comments? MS. MASSA: I'm not saying anything. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody in the audience who wants to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Then I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 20 1 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to appr Maureen Massa and Alan Schweitzer as descri found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in fav( (ALL AYES). the application of and deem it was TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, John Sbagli'a on behalf of ROCCO RESCINITI requests a Wetland Permit to constr ct a 30'x22' three -car garage with a 6' wide concrete apron; nd for the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells on the garage to contain roof runoff. Located: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. The Board did go out and reviewed this. The WRP review deemed this inconsistent because a six-foot wid buffer DEC approved planting is required, in previous wetlan J permit #7926 has not been done. The CAC resolved to suppo the application except, however, they are requesting the architect specify in the plans a total overall stored drainage calculations and driveway specifications pertaining to the square lootage of the structure. Is there anybody here to speak regarding this application? MR. SBAGLIA: John Sbaglia, 1050 West Shore Road, Mill Neck, New York. Architect. We are here because we have IE ss than 100 foot to the wetlands. But what were you saying about the bulkhead plantings? Because my client did put in some plantings recently. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What the LWRP coordinator determined as inconsistency is there was a requirement of cert in dimension that a buffer be put in, related to another permit. can tell you that we are not going to address that here to ight because it would not be appropriate to address that here t night. I would just advise you go back to your client and a sure that he or she looks at whatever that condition was th t was with the original permit. But that won't effect this applicati n before us here tonight. MR. RESCINITI: Rocco Resciniti, the owner. John came out to the property telling me the plantings had to be put in. Which I did. He told me the plants to put in, I got the things. I i idn't know anything about the width, you said? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. And, again, we are not going to address it here tonight. It's not going to become c, part of the decision of this application we have here tonight MR. RESCINITI: All right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question I do have as was alluded to in the CAC's comments was how you are going to hanc le the roof runoff from this proposed garage structure. MR. SBAGLIA: Drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unless I'm missing itJ dont see that here. MR. SBAGLIA: We didn't address it. It's not on the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So understand as a condition tonight there will be a new set of plans to include drywells to handl) the roof runoff requirement. MR. SBAGLIA: Okay, sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aside from that, we didn't have any questions on Board of Trustees 1 21 July 22, 2015 what we saw out in the field. Is there anybody else who would like to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Not seeing anybody, any Board comments? (Negative response). Okay, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application pending receipt of new plans that will show drywells to address the roof runoff, and as such it will be deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SBAGLIA: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, GEORGE O. THOGERSEN, JR. TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 86' of timber bulkhead. Located: 70 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found it to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the bulkhead was constructed without benefit of Trustees review or permit. The coordinator also recommends that a vegetated non -turf buffer be required landward of the bulkhead. The CAC resolved on July 15th to support this application with the condition that the height of the bulkhead is no higher than adjacent bulkheads. The Trustees did a field inspection on the 15th and noted that, recommended the conditions of a ten -foot non -turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ISRAEL: Isaac Israel, here for the applicant. MS. THOGERSEN: Judith Thogersen. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Board understands you are okay with the ten -foot non -turf buffer? MR. ISRAEL: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? Questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). It's a straightforward application. Hearing no other questions or comments, I would make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the condition that a ten -foot non -turf buffer be installed. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ISRAEL: Thank you. Board of Trustees 22 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Lehnert Construction on behalf of WINDSONG FARM LLC requests a Wetland Permit to repair or replace existing 3'x97' catwalk that includes a 4'x13' fixed "T" in-kind as necessary; install a proposed 3'x10' metal ramp; and a proposed 6'x20' floating dock with 4"x4" float supporters with flat -plate bottom to support floating dock a minimum of 18" above bottom. Located: 32852 Main Road, Cutchogue. This project is deemed inconsistent under the LWRP for no permits for the existing structure, and for issues concerning a dock stretching out over vegetated wetlands into public trust lands, and that Cutchogue Harbor is a significant wetlands, significant coastal fish habitat. It does note that the depths at the end of the dock are very low, 1.1 below mean low water, and indicating that the applicant currently enjoys access to public water via the existing private dock structure. The CAC voted to approve this application. The Trustees in performing their field inspection were concerned that the existing "T" covers more bottom than would typically be covered, and that its a question at this time that, with the repairs and replacement of deck materials that that should be removed and do away with that "T" at this point. Those are the feelings out on our field inspection. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of the applicant? MR. LEHNERT: Rob Lehnert, Lehnert Construction. Basically, you read it. We are replacing what's there, fixing, repairing. Hopefully adding a float. Legalizing it, again, that's why we are here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll be able to address the inconsistency with granting an approval, if that's the wishes of the Board. I had questioned, just going over the plan again, I didn't notice the size of the pilings, and typically we would want them to be limited to no greater than six-inch diameter piles in the creek. MR. LEHNERT: That's not a problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And since the decking was in a situation we all had to do a little hop -scotching over it, in order to address the inconsistency for significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat, typically we would request flow-through decking that would be in the area that would be occupied by Spartina and Baccharus, so that probably until you get to the new low water point for this structure, it looks like it will be at least the first three eight -foot dock sections, or 24 feet. MR. LEHNERT: Again, not a problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That addresses the questions I have reviewing the plans. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Were we going to take that little "T" off? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was going to be part of the question. There is no problem taking the "T" off, is there? Board of Trustees 23 July 22, 2015 MR. LEHNERT: No. It's there. So I had to put it there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That helps address the inconsistency. Because we are minimizing the coverage and getting additional light through to the productive wetland. TRUSTEE KING: How much further does that extend out? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The existing? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The distance of the ramp and the float, 6x20. MR. LEHNERT: It's consistent with the neighbor's float. You can see on the bottom of the plan, I have an aerial photo on Google Earth. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no additional 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: I would make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that all pilings are to be six -inches or less, and that a minimum of 24 feet of through -flow decking will be installed for vegetated wetland area going from the beginning of the dock to 24 feet out; and the removing of the existing 4x13' fixed "T." Accordingly, this will reduce the amount of structure over public waters. It will also provide more light for marine productivity under the dock and will address the inconsistency thereby. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. Yes, discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the piles for the floating dock, anchor piles for floating dock, should be maybe upgrade them to eight inch given the fact this is all the way in the back of the creek, and there will be a lot of ice, potential for a lot of ice there? Is that something the applicant would go for? MR. LEHNERT: They don't have a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would help secure it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll amend my motion to include eight -inch diameter to hold the float. So moved. Motion has been made and seconded. And amended. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number eleven, McCarthy Management, Inc. on behalf of 850 PRESIDENT LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, single-family residence consisting of a 45x25' dwelling with a 16'x21' attached garage; a 32.5'x20.5' first Board of Trustees 24 July 22, 2015 floor deck; and an 8'x13.5' second floor deck; install a sanitary system and concrete retaining walls with top of wall to be at elevation 9.0; add +/-300 cubic yards of clean fill to be trucked in from an approved upland site; and install a driveway using pervious materials. Located: 7165 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. This was found consistent with the LWRP, with some conditions. Recommending a non -disturbance buffer be required landward from the wetland line to the four -foot contour shown on the plans. I think that's exactly what we talked about. And the CAC resolved to support the application with no conditions. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy Management, 46520 Rt. 48, Southold. As you know, you folks have been there a couple of times. We staked it a couple of different times based on different plans of the house and different conditions on site. And the most recent one that was submitted to you that was flagged from the New York State DEC, we picked up the flags and put the notations on the survey that was submitted to you. I would like to propose that the non -disturbance buffer that goes to the four -foot contour line, that we can discuss the southerly edge of the non -disturbance buffer so that we have the ability to get down and use some of the lower area and actually get to the dock. Because the four -foot contour transverses the property, and that would exclude us from the easterly side of the property. So I would like to propose that if we went to the four -foot contour, that we have something that is perhaps, maybe 25 feet away from the southerly tip of the marked wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about giving you a four -foot path down to the dock through the non -disturbance area. MR. MCCARTHY: Right. We would like to be able to see if the Board is open to creating some sort of a perimeter buffer around that wetland for a certain distance so that it would open up some of the rest of the land to be used by the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are looking at the four -foot contour line, just so everybody hears us, and it comes out, well, it's as depicted on the plans. It's just a little bit farther or almost to the extension of the second -floor deck. You understand, that's the second -floor deck proposed, not first floor. It will be about at that outer edge of that deck. MR. MCCARTHY: Would the Board be willing to entertain a non -disturbance buffer from the specified distance from the edge of the tidal wetlands that are marked on the plan, so we still have some use of this other rear yard area? Because if we are going just to the four -foot contour, it really doesn't give this property any space behind the house that is usable, if it's non -disturbance. (Board members perusing plans). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. McCarthy, you are asking for a specified Board of Trustees 25 July 22, 2015 distance from the DEC flagged wetlands? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The DEC wetlands is irregularly shaped. Are you suggesting that some sort of a line that would be parallel to the property front that would be, that would go across the property closer to the DEC wetland? MR. MCCARTHY: I'm proposing that we go closer to the DEC wetlands, which would open up some of the rear yard to be able to be moved, and if we were to say, let's say 25 feet westerly of the north/south line, if you can see the proposed construction is 30 feet or 30.3 feet off. We are obviously going to need some room for construction activities and then to be able to get around that structure. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at it now, I scaled it off, on the four foot contour to the edge of that deck is five feet. MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a lot of room to work. MR. MCCARTHY: No, its not. Would you amenable to perhaps 20 foot setback off of the wetlands at that point and perhaps 25 as we go around the other areas where we have some more room to work with, and give you a little greater buffer in some areas or lesser buffers in some others? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we would have to see that probably drawn out on a set of plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In other words that's 20 from there to there? MR. MCCARTHY: May I approach? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You may approach, yes. MS. HULSE: This has to be on the record. You have to speak loud enough for this to be on the record. MR. MCCARTHY: What I had in mind if we can't, instead of the, perhaps delineating the line at maybe at the 3.6 contour, in this area, by the adjacent neighbor's shed, and coming through here, maybe 20 feet off of the southerly tip and then rimming back around to maybe 25 to, you know, something in this area so they can get -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What the applicant is proposing essentially is to follow the limit of three foot contour. So based on -- this is my individual observation -- the DEC wetland line was minimally protective of what was a fairly defuse wetlands throughout the property. It's one of those properties that is difficult to actually perform that enumeration. So I think that's why both the LWRP coordinator and the Board naturally defaulted more to the four foot contour. We are concerned when you get into this area is a large mixture of wetland species. What about an extension of the three-foot contour going across the back providing more backyard, because that does protect the DEC flagged wetland, and then a four -foot wide path to the water. Its more easy to create a boundary there for future users of the property. MS. HULSE: Can I just ask you to please speak into the microphone. I think there are interested parties here that can't Board of Trustees 26 July 22, 2015 hear what is going on. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. And this would have to go on, any change in the buffer, would have to go on a set of plans so it can be reviewed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know myself looking at this, I'm not comfortable following the three foot, because that is within, that looks like it's within about five or ten feet of the wetlands there. MR. MCCARTHY: Can we come back to propose something maybe around the 3.6 contour, something between the three and four foot contour that gives protection to that wetland? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sure. With a four -foot path. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And map out the path you want to run. MR. MCCARTHY: And I think that may in fact assist us. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right. Any change to the set of plans would have to be met with additional review and go through the process so we can't be developing any detailed change to this project plan from the dais at the meeting. So we can continue the hearing and discuss other issues concerning this and allow for additional comment and concerns on the record, then this can be part of a discussion for an amended set of plans. MR. MCCARTHY: I would be happy to come back with a proposal for an amended non -disturbance buffer to bring back to the Board. know that we have adjacent neighbors here that may want to speak, so I would be happy to step aside and allow them to chat. TRUSTEE KING: What if we put a line of hay bales at ten feet seaward of the four -foot contour? That gives him ten feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We'll discuss that. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Michele Saccamano-Chaussabel. I'm the adjacent neighbor to the north here. I have a few issues. First of all, relating to what Mr. McCarthy said. And is it my understanding that you have agreed that this house can be built 30 feet from the wetlands? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have not agreed to anything at this point. This is a public hearing -- MS. CHAUSSABEL: Oh, that's nothing -- it's not a given. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Nothing is a given. This is a public hearing. This is the time to address the Board with your concerns. MS. CHAUSSABEL: That just seems like a really short space, and when this was proposed two years ago, there was another blueprint, and on that blueprint the house was approximately 50 feet from the wetlands. So there has been a change and it's even closer now. Also, the size of the house has increased considerably. It's a much larger house that is being proposed than what was originally proposed two years ago. But my main concern is with the wall, the retaining wall. I'm having trouble reading the blueprint. It says the wall is to be nine feet high. Is that the height from the ground up? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. Board of Trustees 27 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: That's the elevation height at the top of the wall. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Nine feet from the ground? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. That's just a mathematical -- the existing land there is some six feet and it will go to nine feet. So in other words we are talking about a two -and -a -half, two -and -three-quarter, three foot retaining wall, above existing grade. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Now, it also says 300 cubic yards of clean fill will be moved in. Now, where will that clean fill go exactly? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The proposal indicates fill goes in to fill in the spaces around the sanitary system and up to the retaining wall. MS. CHAUSSABEL: And how about back toward the house? MS. HULSE: Ma'am, the Trustees can't interpret the application for you. They are just taking comments that will help them make a decision on this application. So if you have any comments to make pertaining to the application, you should make them to them now. They won't interpret the application. The application is what you see before you. MS. CHAUSSABEL: I'm just having trouble reading the blueprint. MS. HULSE: The Trustees can't interpret that for you, ma'am. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Then I'll make an assumption. I see some little circles between the house and my property. One says eight, one says seven and one says six. Now I'm guessing, I don't know, that the land is going to be graded down, that those are eight feet, seven feet and six feet, going down the property? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That appears what is on the plan. And those sort of gradations -- the Trustees' authority goes to the Town Wetland Code and to protecting the vegetated wetlands in those issues. The grading and the wall and the handling of runoff, and those issues, is part and parcel of the separate drainage review under Chapter 236 that the Town's Engineering Department does after we grant or deny; in this case, if we grant an approval, it would go over to the Engineering Department, and then any alterations or changes to the drainage or the slopes on the property, if there was any change in the plans, it would have to come back to the Board. The Engineering Department will look at the project and review it in light of the Town's drainage code and generally accepted engineering practice as far as slopes and soils to handle the runoff. MS. CHAUSSABEL: I see. And will there be a public hearing once all that gets done? Another one? Or is this it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The process is fluid because if the Engineering Department determines that the wall height has to be changed or slopes on the property have to be altered or additional drainage has to be put on the property, if those changes are occurring within the jurisdiction of the Trustees, the applicant would have to come back to the Trustees. And at this point we are still in the hearing stage, so if it was a case that we had moved out of the hearing stage and performed an Board of Trustees 28 July 22, 2015 approval, they would have to come back to amend the permit, and the amendment process may or may not include a public hearing, depending on the severity of the change, whether it was large or small. MS. CHAUSSABEL: All right. Then my only other issue would be wetland related because the wetland as marked out here by the DEC is constantly changing. I know this from my own experience with this property. And in times of storm or hurricanes, it can easily come up well beyond the house and my house. And my concern is, of course, that the runoff from this elevation that they are using the fill for, plus the wetlands moving in, the tidal forces and all that moving in, it will eventually end up on my property. So that's just my concern here. I would like you to be aware of that possibility. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a reasonable concern, and the Board can consider that in the approval process if we wanted to cue the Engineering Department concerning your concerns, and so that that would be, we can always transmit that as a signed letter to the Engineering Department for the drainage review. MS. CHAUSSABEL: So I could write a letter to you that would be handed over to the drainage department? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a reasonable request. Because the way the process works is we approve first before it goes to Engineering. I'm sure we can communicate with the Engineering Department the concerns that particularly during storm events and/or rain, the combined effects of both overwash from the creek and/or runoff might go down slopes would be ordinarily addressed. The Engineering Department is very thorough. They would be watching all those things. MS. CHAUSSABEL: That's wonderful. So you would do that, then you would address my concerns. Very good. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. MR. WALSH: Hi, my name is Steve Walsh, I'm the adjacent property owner, 7065 New Suffolk Road. Just one question in relation to the open lands north of the proposed foundation, north of the proposed new home, and west of the marked tidal wetlands around the driveway. There is numerous trees and just half of them are laying down, and the property is in disrepair. Will there be any restrictions, will the new property owner be able to clear that up? Will any of the fill be going in that area or will it stay natural or maybe possibly be any requirements that they do clean up that area? It's a long question. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't show any fill coming in that area. It's just proposed driveway. MR. WALSH: Will there be any restrictions with tree removal in that area? Especially downed trees, obviously, can be removed. But there is a lot of locust in that area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a rule, the Board will provide buffering or non -disturbance areas or non -turf buffered areas adjacent to the wetland for which we might regulate activities. But typically you are talking in the area in the region of the driveway. Board of Trustees 29 July 22, 2015 MR. WALSH: Farther, possibly, from the buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If we had individual specimen trees of a large size that were aged, large trees that should receive some protection and they are within the jurisdiction of the Trustees, we will consider trying to save large, mature trees. But as far as the general clean up, I don't believe the Board has ever got involved with dictates -- you know, most construction activities involve getting rid of scrubby, undesirable vegetation. Do you have a specific concern wanting to have the scrubby material removed or -- MR. WALSH: Like anybody, I would want it to look like a neater piece of property. Not that a property owner should clear every large tree, large oak tree or maple tree. But there is a lot of things laying down, like you said, scrubby looking trees. There is not too many restrictions people can clean that up, they won't be held to have ten trees over here, is there a process for that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not in the approval stage. Speaking for myself, maybe the other Board members have thoughts, I didn't view this as a site that, other than protecting the immediate flagged wetland and providing a buffer there, I don't know how the other Board members feel, but I think the front of the property needs to be cleaned up to the degree of unsightly vegetation, downed trees, invasive vegetation that is not native vegetation. MR. WALSH: Yes. And the two outhouses can be taken out, no problem? 100 -year old outhouses? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's out of our jurisdiction. Old and dilapidated structures, if it's in our jurisdiction, old and dilapidated structures can be removed as a condition of the permit MR. WALSH: Thank you. MS. FRIEDMANN: Hi, my name is Joni Friedmann. I'm the property owner across the street from the property. I have several questions for the Board. There were not available elevations for this home that is proposed on the property. I'm concerned about what this structure is and the size and what they are proposing, and I believe they should have been with these plans. The site plans. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like they are showing the first floor elevation at 11.5 feet. MS. FRIEDMANN: But there is a second floor and there are no elevations of the proposed house. TRUSTEE KING: That's a Building Department issue. I know we have maximum height restrictions that makes it 35 feet from actual grade. That's more of a Building Department issue than us, on the second story. MS. FRIEDMANN: Okay, my next question is as of the deck that is being shown here and the garage building, they are shown as extending approximately 30 feet from the wetlands, and I'm asking the Trustees is there a required setback of 100 feet from wetlands? Board of Trustees 30 July 22, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The code jurisdiction is 100 feet. It is not a required setback. It's under the jurisdiction of the Board to consider each application on a case-by-case basis MS. FRIEDMANN: And what are the guidelines for that type of decision? I'm just, you know, I have a concern because the size of the house is very large, and we have a very big problem with runoff into the creek, and there is a lot of pollution, and we have a lot of issues with old septic systems, new septic systems that be are being put in, and the load on the properties into the creek, and the close proximity -- I know the property, so I know there are phragmites coming well up into the middle of the property. So I just would like to consider the size of this building. The adjacent properties are, from this proposed house, which is almost three times the size of the dwelling to the left of the property and it's almost twice the size of the property to the right, and the structure to the left is on a very sensitive property as well. So they were restricted to a very small portion of the property due to the wetlands. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Trustees' domain and the authority under the Wetland Code does deal with setbacks to the wetland, and deals with elevations as it might relate to discharge of things over the land. And more importantly now we have Chapter 236 of the Town Code which the Engineering Department does look at for that. But as far as the amount of lot coverage and the height and size of buildings, it's not within on our authority to regulate those, regardless of our individual feelings about structures and the spaces that they are in. We have no say in that. We have a say in whether they have gutters, leaders and drywells to an appropriately sized subsurface drainage system so they are not directing water out and over on to neighboring properties. We do have control over having the a sanitary system that ideally is out of jurisdiction from the Board and has received Suffolk County Health approval. We have the jurisdiction over the setback and buffering of wetlands so that we are trying to provide a maximal amount much protection to the wetlands through as modern a sanitary system that the Health Department will approve; that we don't allow for overland discharge to neighbors or into the creek to create runoff issues, and of course the physical protection of the wetlands by not allowing construction in the wetlands other than an individual dock associated with a property that goes in the creek. So those are essentially, in a nutshell, the things that we can control. MS. FRIEDMANN: Okay. So I guess I'm confused about whether or not there is a restriction or there is not in how close to the wetlands you are allowed to build. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board, in its authority of the Wetlands Code, can waive the strict provisions for setback. Ideally we like to have everything out of our jurisdiction over 100 feet. In a perfect world we would not allow houses any closer than 100 feet and no appurtenances closer than 100 feet. But we deal Board of Trustees 31 July 22, 2015 with lots and proposals on a case-by-case basis, based on current science, current thinking and what comes in an application. MS. FRIEDMANN: Okay, so is 30 feet a proper allowance for wetlands? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We individually can't say that as a Board determination as to whether or not they would accept or deny or alter the setback of a dwelling. It's part of the process. MS. FRIEDMANN: Okay. I was under the impression this was regarding environmental concerns; that that was the letter that I received, that it was an environmental hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's correct. MS. FRIEDMANN: So those are my concerns and I just want to know that they are addressed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you MS. FRIEDMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? TRUSTEE KING: It seems like a lot of questions. I noticed in the LWRP, said the zoning district setback limits the ability to locate the structure further from the wetlands. So evidently they are shown a 40 -foot setoff. My understanding is that that's as close as you can come to the road is 40 feet? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, that's correct. And that also takes into consideration what we need to do to locate the septic tank and the leaching galleys as far away from the wetlands as possible. So we have Health Department Code as far as how far the leaching galleys can be away from the retaining wall, where the retaining wall is relative to the property line, and then the distance from the septic tank to the structure itself. So we are in a very tight box with all of the regulations here. If we can go closer to the street, we would, but we have been back and forth between the DEC, the Suffolk County Health Department, and this is probably the third or fourth iteration to the plan trying to address everyone's concerns to minimize the impacts to the greatest extent possible. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have a question concerning the retaining wall. If it's found during the course of construction that the elevation -- the depth to groundwater is deeper than initially found on Engineering review, is it possible to minimize the height of the retaining wall? MR. MCCARTHY: We'd be happy to have no retaining wall, but it's been a requirement for us. We prefer not to go through the expense. We'd prefer to not to have to screen it and have it in that location whatsoever. Some of the difficulties we've had with them was looking at the highest expected groundwater, and we have gone around, we had test holes done twice, having the Health Department look at what they anticipated the highest groundwater elevation was, and one thing they did not consider was the change in datum as the flood zone lines changed. They had previous application for Mr. Walsh's property, which is directly adjacent to the north, and that had an anticipated Board of Trustees 32 July 22, 2015 groundwater level, but that was to 1928 datum. And in 2009 the datum changed to 1988. So there was a bit of a conflict there between where they were measuring groundwater from. So we went around with them, and they dug their heels in. If we are successful in removing it or minimizing it, we would like to do it to the least extent possible. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So at this point you don't, the datum point and the height of the wall has not been ultimately determined, there might be an opportunity to make it less high, possibly, based on when you start construction that can possibly be amended with the County Health Department? MR. MCCARTHY: Absolutely. My understanding is, in this area, the difference between the two datum points was eleven inches, between the 1927 and 1988 datum or 1989 datum, I believe it was -- (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Higher or lower? MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, you have to address the Board. MR. MCCARTHY: We believe it would have, if the Health Department listens to our argument with the present datum, it would result in a reduction of the height of the proposed wall to the street and to the neighbors. And we would certainly like to do that and we'll continue to press with the Health Department in order to get that done. It would reduce fill requirements, it would reduce a lot of issues on site. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And you have no problem with removing all the derelict structures, outhouses, some of the benches and materials that have previously been there for the defunct aquiculture application? MR. MCCARTHY: We might be able to even sell the outhouse. We would be happy to remove -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a commodity. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You might be able to, yes. The Health Department does not allow that, I just want you to know that. It's one of the first things I learned in the last century. MR. MCCARTHY: Yes, we would be happy to remove those derelict structures and clean up the property. And I know how Mr. Walsh keeps his property and we would like to be able to strive to get to the same level that he maintains on his property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We may have to table this. TRUSTEE KING: I would be uncomfortable with voting on this tonight. I would like to see that edge of the driveway staked so we have idea exactly where that driveway is going. MR. MCCARTHY: Which edge would that be? TRUSTEE KING: It on the east edge. Seaward edge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The seaward edge of the driveway. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like it follows almost the six foot contour. If we could just see that stake. It would give us a good idea of what is going to be removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And if you could also stake what you are proposing as a boundary for the non -disturbance buffer. Again, we want to be specific with that. This is going to be a non -disturbance buffer where we would allow a four -foot path Board of Trustees 33 July 22, 2015 through to gain access to the dock. MR. MCCARTHY: Okay, I would be happy to do that. TRUSTEE KING: Anyone else? Additional comments? MS. FRIEDMANN: I thought that if you reduce the size, the height of the retaining wall, and you have to expand the field for drainage and the sewage, the runoff field. I thought that the height is for the purpose of containing -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can actually talk to the Suffolk County Health Department. I don't want to give you assurances. I worked there for 35 years, I did engineering reviews. The reduction, they have to meet minimum height above the groundwater for those structures, those infiltrators, but if it's found that the elevation, the amount of soil available are sufficient that they can get that distance before the groundwater for proper treatment of the waste water so the bacteria and virus are filtered out, that they can in fact have less fill and less retaining wall over the structure. It's determined by the distance above. I think with what the application has here is a fixed plan that is based on the available surface area, and the available surface area dictates the number of structures. They have to have enough room to also have expansion. But specific questions about the engineering aspects of the Health Department approval you can ask the Waste Water Division of the Health Department specifically about that. But what I believe the questions were earlier, we were trying to develop whether they could make that retaining wall lower and still meet health approval. And even the Health Department apparently has had some discussion, it might be able to be a little lower, because that helps address the concerns of the runoff onto neighboring properties. Also retaining walls are unsightly, they create landscaping issues, they have a whole host of issues with them. MS. FRIEDMANN: So they need to be able to expand the building size? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm talking about the sewage disposal system, it's required and on this set of plans that by law they have to be able to leave a sufficient unused space so that if one of the elements in the sanitary needs to be replaced or it gets damaged, it allows for the system to continue to function so they can do ordinary maintenance on it and add an additional cesspool, in this case they are called infiltrators, that allows for ordinary maintenance without having sewage on the surface of the ground, and allows for these structures, as they come to the end of their useful life, that you may have to add an additional drainage structure. MS. FRIEDMANN: Okay, is I guess in talking about test holes that were done for this plan, it shows the last one being available on December 26th, 2013? So that's the most recent test hole for the ground water level? TRUSTEE KING: There are two test holes. I'm trying to find the Board of Trustees 34 July 22, 2015 other one. There is one here. MS. FRIEDMAN: One is July 18th, 2013, the other is December 26th, 2013. TRUSTEE KING: We had asked for a second test hole. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not uncommon to have several years go by between the initial application phase and test hole datum being provided. MS. HULSE: Do you have any specific issues you would like this Board to consider, ma'am? Any other specific issues beside your questions? MS. FRIEDMANN: Yes, just the concern about the groundwater and sewage and any runoff that is going to be directly on that property, and what is proposed for that property. Because our home is directly across the street, so that's a concern as well. How it's used. Okay, thank you. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Very quickly, I would just like to say something about the groundwater. I think I'm working against myself here but the groundwater underneath my house, which is adjacent, has risen steadily in the 35 years that I have lived there. I now have three pumps in my cellar. They are not all running at the same time, but in the event of a major storm it fills up very quickly with water. It's that underground stream that runs from the school house to the creek. And it's definitely, the situation is getting worse. That's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. We actually recall that testimony from the last time you were here. MS. CHAUSSABEL: Yes, sorry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's all right. TRUSTEE KING: Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). RECEIVED AUG 2 0 2015 r Respectfully submitted by, John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees