Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-08/19/2015 John M.Bredemeyer III President � A -®UP�® - Town Hall Annex I��® R 4 54375 Main Road • • Michael J.Domino,Vice-President � • P.O.Box 1179 James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen,Trustee ct,' a �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 Charles J. Sanders,Trustee = _ecn®U Y I,'1'� Fax(631) 765-6641 kgs I BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes RECIIVED Wednesday, August 19, 2015 SEP 1 7 2015C.3:19ortA 5:30 PM Sou •o Towalbrklvia 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 NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 5:30 PM WORK SESSIONS: Monday, September,14, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 22, 2015. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Welcome to the August, 2015, regular meeting of the Town Trustees. This evening we seem to have a much bigger attendance for speaking at public hearings than usual, so I would request that you kindly try to keep your comments as succinct as possible and to five minutes or less if you could possibly. Also for your information, some items have been postponed due to lack of information before the Board, or an applicant's request to postpone the matter because they could not attend the hearing. Those postponements appear on page seven going into page eight. They are listed as follows:- Number ten, McCarthy Management, Inc., on behalf of 850 PRESIDENT LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, single-family residence consisting of a 45'x25' dwelling with a 16'x21' attached-garage; a 32.5'x20.5'first 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, SCTM# 117-5-31, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 2 August 19, 2015 Number eleven, Derek N. Bossen on behalf of LISA GILLOOLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing wood deck surrounding the existing ±12' x±32' swimming pool; construct a new 1,550sq.ft. permeable patio with retaining walls around pool using approximately 60 cubic yards of bank run; construct a 260sq.ft. paver walkway; install a 9'x9' hot tub adjacent to an existing deck on seaward side of dwelling; install an 80' long wood picket fence, and a +/-30' long split-rail fence along the King Street property line; re-grade area to provide for drainage landward of pool into a constructed French drain; and re-vegetate area using native species and plants appropriate for the area. Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient, SCTM#27-4-7, has been postponed. And number 12, Charles Southard on behalf of CHRISTOPHER ARIENS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling, decks and detached garage; construct new two-story 3,035sq.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, SCTM# 145-4-17, has been postponed. So for your information, if you are here to speak to any one of those items, they will not be held. For those of you not familiar with the meetings, the agendas are up on the lectern. Help yourself to an agenda. Also in an effort to keep the meeting moving along so as many of you can participate in the public hearings as possible, there are certain actions the Board have already reviewed. They are administrative in nature, they are minor in nature, that we have already conducted in worksession and on field inspections, and we will be acting on those as a group, for those projects that are approvable and that do not need modification. So we'll handle those as a group to expedite the meeting process. So without further ado, we'll get into the agenda. I'll take a motion to hold the next field inspection Wednesday, September 9th, 2015, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Move to hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, September 16th, 2015, at 5:30 PM, in the main meeting room. Motion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to hold work sessions on Monday, September 14th, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farms and Wednesday September 16th, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A Motion to approve the Minutes of July 22nd. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion to approve them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 3 August 19, 2015 I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2015. A check for $3,725.16 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 VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 19, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Peggy Heller&Anne Wyden SCTM#26-2-39.1 Andreas Karacostas, do Theo Ermogenous SCTM# 135-1-2 South Dyer LLC, do Reginald Tuthill SCTM# 17-6-14.2 C&L Realty, Inc. SCTM#56-6-3.4 William & Iva Felix SCTM# 136-1-39 Richard Trownsell, David Trownsell & Karen Feuerman SCTM#77-1-6 David & Stephanie Sack SCTM#83-1-5 The Boatyard at Founders Landing, Inc. SCTM#64-3-10 & 64-3-11 Narrow River Marine, do Maureen & Fred Dacimo SCTM#27-2-4 Ellen F. Emery 1999 Revocable Trust SCTM# 111-13-6 Lisa Gillooly SCTM#27-4-7 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the State Environmental Quality Reviews, to review our actions under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, those items are listed herein. The exception being that we have not made an environmental determination with respect to the project of Southold Sunset LLC since there is insufficient information in the file at this time to make an environmental determination. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): That means we can leave if we are in this list? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, what it means, for those of you not familiar with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, actions based on their scope and the likelihood that they'll have an impact on the environment, have to be reviewed under that state law. It's an umbrella regulation that controls everything we are doing. Actually what it merely states is these actions, which are usually related to the construction or modification of a single-family residence, are considered a lesser type of action because the number of impacts and the associated environmental impacts with this type of construction are easily mitigated or controlled through the permitting process. But the process does not fully end until after the Board of Trustees 4 August 19, 2015 . Board listens to public input at the public hearing and then makes a determination. It merely states that we have done a review of the paperwork involved and according to the state classification the environmental review for the purposes of the state environmental review law has ended at this time. But we'll continue to review this during the public hearing, and the Board has to take into consideration the requirements of the Town Wetland Act or if it's a proposal that involves the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, we also have to include that. So the process doesn't end there, it just continues. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As I indicated, there are a number of items on the agenda for which the Board has already performed field inspections and conducted a thorough review at a public work session, and so accordingly, under Item IV, I would move items one through five under Resolutions for Administrative Permits as a group. I would move they be approved. They are listed as follows: Number one, DAVID KRUPNICK & LOWELL BLUMENTHAL request an Administrative Permit to remove existing concrete stoop on seaward side of dwelling and construct an 8'x22' stoop with two (2) 18"wide steps to ground. Located: 880 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 115-12-13 Number two, HENRY KAMINER requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height by hand, on an as needed basis. Located: 130 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 90-1-8 Number three, Henry Kaminer on behalf of DAVID SCHAB requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in height by hand, on an as needed basis. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM#90-1-9 Number four, ANTHONY IENNA requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height by hand, on an as needed basis. Located: 500 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM# 78-2-23 And number five, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA request an Administrative Permit to install 61/2 ft. High fencing along the . eastern side of property line and to end approximately 20' away from the top of bluff. Located: 695 Pettys Drive, Orient. SCTM# 14-2-23 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number six, Creative Environmental Board of Trustees 5 August 19, 2015 Design on behalf of NICK GIAKOUMIS requests an Administrative Permit to selectively prune for plant health the existing vegetation and trees of at least 6" caliper up to a height of 18'; to remove one dead tree; and for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height by hand, on an as needed basis. Located: 1025 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 139-1-4.1 The Board has conducted several field inspections on the site, as requested by several applicants and interested parties, and after a subsequent field inspection by Trustee King and revisiting the application at worksession, the Board feels that the cutting and pruning of trees of the six-inch caliper is not appropriate at this site since it's an undeveloped site, and a comprehensive maintenance plan and environmental buffers are appropriate to the discussion for the development of this lot, but since the invasive common phragmites has over taken a portion of the immediate waterfront, the Board has discussed this and feels the aspect of the permit to have ten-year maintenance to cut phragmites within 12 inches, provided no high tide bush or other wetland vegetation is damaged, is appropriate for this site. Accordingly I would move that we approve this application for a ten-year maintenance to cut phragmites within 12 inches with the stipulation that no other vegetation on the property is cut, particularly the high tide bush that is interspersed with the phragmites. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO:Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second, all in favor? (ALL AYES). • V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also in keeping with trying to move things along here, we have applications for permit extensions where there have been no changes in the conditions from the initial permit issuance, and for administrative amendments which are minor changes to proposals, all these projects were reviewed and inspected and discussed at a public worksession and were found to be acceptable. Accordingly I would move under Item V, I would move to approve all items one through five under Item V. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Discussion on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: On the last one, number five, didn't we say open-grate decking? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So let's pull out number five. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I stand corrected. At this time I'll withdraw that motion and amend to approve items one through four at this time, having reviewed them, and we'll discuss item number five. They are listed as follow: Board of Trustees 6 August 19, 2015 Number one, PAUL GROBEN requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8277, as issued on August 21, 2013. Located: 3705 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM#86-2-13 Number two, ILSE TROMBONE requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8276, as issued on August 21, 2013. Located: . 9180 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 118-6-5.1 Number three, VIVIAN V. EYRE requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7865A, as issued on August 22, , 2012. Located: 759 Orchard Road, Southold. SCTM#66-2-11 And number four, Fairweather& Brown Associates on behalf of ISLE OF CEDARS LLC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7774 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7774C to install four(4) courses of cement block rather than three courses. Located: 2450 Peter's Neck Road, Orient. SCTM#32-1-8 Is there a second to that motion? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee King, would you like to lead the discussion? TRUSTEE KING: Number five, PHILIP MASCIA requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8430 to increase the width of the proposed dock from 3' to 4'; and to use untreated lumber in lieu of open-grate decking on the catwalk. Located: 850 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM#77-1-5 They wanted to change from a three to a four-foot width. I don't think anybody had an issue with that. And to use untreated lumber instead of the open-grate decking. But what we would like to see, I think it was the first 20 feet or something like that, to have open-grate and then they can go to the untreated lumber. The first ten feet from the bulkhead, seaward of the bulkhead is to remain open-grate, and the rest can be untreated lumber. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll take a motion to go off the approval agenda and into the public hearing agenda. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Amendments, number one, number one, Robert Saetta on behalf of PEGGY HELLER &ANNE WYDEN request an Amendment to Wetland Permit#4489 to remove the existing Board of Trustees 7 August 19, 2015 screened porch and construct a new 27'x24' screened porch attached to dwelling. Located: 1145 Major Pond Road, Orient. SCTM#26-2-39.1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC did not do an inspection, therefore made no recommendation. Trustee Bredemeyer did a field inspection on the 11th of August and noted that all the work proposed was within the existing footprint, that there was sufficient lawn and buffer, that the project if approved would not need a silt fence nor a berm. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Since this is straightforward, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND AND COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Allen Glenn Bernhard, PE on behalf of ANDREAS KARACOSTAS, do THEO ERMOGENOUS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove existing bulkhead and two returns and replace with new 104' long steel sheet pile bulkhead with two (2) 15' returns to be installed 18" higher than existing; realign existing stone armoring as required for construction; backfill disturbed area with 200 cubic yards of sand from an offsite location; and re-vegetate any bare areas with Cape American beach grass to be planted 12" on center. Located:21275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 135-1-2 This application has been deemed consistent under the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. The Trustees during the course of field inspection raised two questions. One, does the applicant wish to include the existing stairs and rebuild as part of the project, which typically would occur with construction of this type. And also we would have questions about how the site will be accessed for the construction. . The CAC supports the application with the condition the bulkhead not be raised 18 inches or the applicant be required to demonstrate the raising of the bulkhead will not affect the adjoining property owners. The Board of Trustees has raised concerns about raising bulkheads previously. This application is an example of how bulkheads have eliminated the beach. So Board of Trustees 8 August 19, 2015 that has been supported with a commentary from the CAC. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ERMOGENOUS: My name is Theodore Ermogenous, I'm the owner of the property. Part owner. There was a question -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you wish to include the replacement of the stairs to the beach as part of the application, since typically they have to be dismantled? MR. ERMOGENOUS: Yes, we will replace the stairs. We didn't realize we needed additional permit for that. So yes, we would replace the stairs. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We can handle that during the permitting process. We would need a set of plans for that. But that we can handle. Did you have any questions? MR. ERMOGENOUS: No. I didn't understand, you said something about the height? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board did review the height, and, 18 inches in the field, and I don't think we had any issue with it. We did consider that request on this job. It was not an issue in this case for the Board. MR. ERMOGENOUS: Okay. Very good. TRUSTEE KING: I think the biggest question is how will you access the site. MR. ERMOGENOUS: Unfortunately, we have to access with a barge. And there is a contractor that our neighbor gave, said conditionally that he will give us access to go through his property. So once we settle on the contractor, we will probably through a barge, but there is possibility to go through the neighbor's property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very good. Thank you, very much. That's important information for the Board to know because if you go through public property you have to secure permission and a bond, and also we don't want to have any damage to properties during the course of construction. Thank you. MR. ERMOGENOUS: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also if you are going to use the neighbor's property, we would need a letter in the file that would indicate that you have their authorization to use that property for the construction so that if there was a question during the course of construction that came to our attention, we would have that in the file. MR. ERMOGENOUS: Okay. Should I give the letter once we decide that's the route we are taking, the neighbor's, right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. ERMOGENOUS: Because most probably we go through the barge. TRUSTEE KING: I think the barge is the best bet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that would be acceptable. I don't think we have a problem with that. Any further questions or discussion? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing in this Board of Trustees 9 August 19, 2015 matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to the submission of a set of plans indicating the stairs that are to be replaced. And that if the _ applicant is to use the access for the construction from the neighboring property, that we have a letter in the file indicating so. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of SOUTH DYER LLC, do REGINALD TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge 3,200 cubic yards of privately owned clean bottomland to maintain tidal flushing; dredge spoil to be deposited on fronting bay beach. Located: 21920 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 17-6-14.2 This was reviewed under the LWRP and they found it to be consistent, noting that Orient Harbor is in a New York State significant coastal fish and wildlife area. As such, dredging operations can impact nesting birds or the ability for finfish to propagate in the area. So what that means is there is a dredge window imposed upon all dredging within New York State coastal fish and wildlife areas. It is also recommended the Board require turbidity controls during the dredging operations. The CAC resolved to support the application. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant South Dyer LLC property. The important part of all this is that the reason for the dredging is to increase tidal flow into and out of the creek, to support an ongoing and successful oyster culture operation. It is a creek that has been previously dredged. The bottom land of the creek extending to the mouth at Orient Harbor is entirely privately owned. The spoil site would be by beach nourishment. We anticipate the work to occur during the winter months when there are no nesting shore birds. The material deposited on the beach will be stabilized by a silt fence and the like. We anticipate the dredging will take place by clamshell bucket, on barge. We are perfectly amenable to doing some sort of silt boom across the mouth of it to control any turbidity. We think the soil conditions are good and the project as proposed simply seeks to restore the symmetry, if you will, of the creek to its previous condition, which will support greater tidal flushing. That is the substance of our application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, where are you with the DEC on this and Board of Trustees 10 August 19, 2015 the Army Corps? MR. ANDERSON: We have filed with the DEC and we filed with the Army Corps. We filed with the New York Department of State. DEC has responded back with a letter. They are seeking a survey, which we will provide them with that. We'll also provide them with a copy of the deed. We have a certified copy of the deed from the County Clerk's office. And they also wanted evidence that the creek had been dredged. And we are able to obtain old photographs, the old Kodachrome prints by Kodak dating to October, 1966, which shows the actual dredging operations occurring where we are proposing to conduct today. So pending, we are simply awaiting receipt of the survey for this. And that should resolve the DEC. Army Corps of Engineers, we asked them to either give us a statement that we are not subject to their review because it's not a waterway of the United States of America being privately owned, or in the alternative, give us a permit. We have not heard back from them. Nor have we heard back from the Department of State. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. One of the reasons I'm asking about DEC is I'm looking at your proposal here and your survey, and it looks like your proposed dredge area goes outside of the entrance, which would be into state waters, which means you are technically dredging state bottoms, and obviously need their permission to do so. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. Right. Well, the survey will shed light on that. We are just not there yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see your dredge spoil area is on your own property there. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other item,just for informational purposes, regarding dredge windows, the Trustees don't dictate dredge windows. That's usually dictated by the state, and significant coastal fish and wildlife areas, you had mentioned the winter months, it ends December 15th, the dredge windows, traditionally with the DEC, with creeks that are located within significant coastal fish and wildlife areas. If it's not within that area, the dredge windows end January 15th. That's not because of birds. That's because of fish. So I just want to prep you for , that. Again, we are not going to dictate dredge windows. That's not part of our purview here. But I just wanted to let you know that is typical with what the DEC does with dredge windows. MR. ANDERSON: I merely mention that in response to LWRP coordinator's issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's why I brought it up also. MR. ANDERSON: Appreciate it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Was there any questions from the Board or any other questions from the Board regarding the application? Board of Trustees 11 August 19, 2015 (Negative response). How did the Board feel about a turbidity screen?The county does not use them when they do dredge interfaces. This is a dredge that is going way beyond the interface. It's going well inside the creek. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, this is where I don't mind speaking some personal history. I used to eel that extensively and I can tell you the grain of sand are rather hard and course, because I had to sharpen a sand spear every time I'd go home. It's mostly course material. Unless the DEC or Army Corps proposed a grain size analysis which indicates its findings, I don't see where it's an issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. If there are 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 would make a motion to approve the application of South Dyer LLC, noting that it has been found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to demolish existing one-story dwelling, decks, enclosed porch, concrete walk, foundation and shed; construct a raised 1,600sq.ft. two-story dwelling on a piling system with the first floor elevation at 16ft., and a 1,104sq.ft. open deck covered porch along two sides with ±18'wide stairs to grade for a total first floor footprint of 2,704sq.ft.; a ±6'x5' side entry platform with 5'wide steps to grade; a 158.6sq.ft. second floor open deck; abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system; install a storm management system; install a buried 500 gallon propane tank; and install buried electric service. Located: 4200 Kenny's Road, Southold. SCTM#54-4-3 Before we open the hearing, I want to disclose with you some aspects of process for this application. Since there are a number of items that we have that have not been completed in the application and the applicant Michael Kimack on behalf of Southold Sunsets LLC was unfortunately unable to meet with the Board during field inspection, and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator was not able to submit his report at this time, to try to tie that all together, this application involves an application for a town wetland permit which chiefly deals with protecting marshes, wetlands, beaches in the coastal wetland area, as well as the town adoption, the town rules where Board of Trustees 12 August 19, 2015 we enforce the New York State Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. And for us to formulate a proper public process leading to or not leading to a permit, as the case might be, we have to receive certain elements in this process. One is a completed application. And there will be some questions from the Board concerning this since we were unable to address them during field inspection with Mr. Kimack. We also need to have a report from the CAC, which I'll check on. We also need to have that report, which we don't have, from the LWRP coordinator. So I just wanted to try to give you an overview. We have multiple elements to complete this application. Additionally, because the environmental review for this project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, that was the thing we did at the beginning of the meeting, well, the environmental review for this project has not been concluded because during the office review of the long environmental assessment form it appears there were at least two, possibly three, environmental impacts that were moderately large for which the Board may wish to discuss further. These impacts, if they were sufficiently large, could lead the Board to have a separate environmental determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, even including possibly declaring it a positive declaration of environmental significance and causing some form of impact statement process. So the environmental review itself cannot go forward until we get some of this additional information in. So I just want to try to explain that. I know it's kind of confusing. So that's where that stands. The CAC supported the application with the condition that the height of the pilings comply with FEMA standards. And with the absence of the report of the LWRP coordinator, I would go to the Trustees field report. We made the observation that the entirety of the project was within the coastal erosion area. It is, by definition, it is located both in the definition of the town wetlands code as well as in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, the project is located on the beach, and it's also on a primary dune. The project is also within the dunal boundary of the adjacent public property, the public beach, and that will fit into the environmental review for the project, since we have public facilities that may be impacted by the proposal. The Board, at least based on our observations in the field and our experience with coastal storms, feels that the project as proposed is probably going to be subject to severe erosional damage if we have another coastal storm with the impacts that we previously associated with Irene and Sandy, something that we've lived through and I think we still have nightmares about. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the Application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. Mark Schwartz, architectfor the project. Mike is away on vacation, I'm kind of filling in. I'm not really sure of what all this background stuff is but I can try Board of Trustees 13 August 19, 2015 to answer any questions you may have. We are looking to build a two-bedroom sixteen-hundred square foot house on this property, with a wraparound porch. I understand the coastal erosion hazard line is, we are in that zone. I don't know exactly what that means, but. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What it means is there is an entire code, Chapter 111 of the Town Code, which the Southold Town is one of the communities that adopted it. It draws from Environmental Conservation Law, and we are subject to its rules and regulations as the permit administrator of this Board, and we have to abide by the requirements of that code. Straight up, that code prohibits construction on a beach and it also prohibits construction in the nearshore area, and it doesn't allow for new construction in the primary dune. And in fact it would only allow modifications and a non-major addition for a structure in a primary dune. Now, this is not only a primary dune but as far as a natural protective feature, this is a seaward facing vegetated primary dune. Unfortunately without Mr. Kimack here, I know it's a bit unfair for you representing him, because it begs the question did anybody read the code. You know, it's really, for the Board, it's a non-starter because we would be prohibited from actually entertaining any kind of approval under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. Under the town wetlands code, the project could receive a review, but definitionally, based on the Town Code, the Board is obligated to protect beaches, and based on the definition of the code, the beach goes to the point that the unconsolidated sandy material, what we typically think of as our open sandy beach, it has a vegetation law, and if you draw 100 feet from the beginnings of the American beach grass that naturally occupies the vegetated dune, that means that more than likely about 95% or close to 100% of the property is definitionally also beach, which the Board has to protect. So that's where we are by definition and by code. The other thing is the Board will probably need additional information, so we don't know if you are the one to request additional information from. But if the Board were to consider a wetland permit, the issue of setbacks from the wetland for adjacent houses we would have to get information as how far they are set back, and since the distances are fairly great we would probably have to have that information compiled by yourself as a licensed architect or an engineer or land surveyor. Because determinations under the Wetland Code also requires us to take into consideration the adjoining property setbacks. I think that covers my shopping list. I don't know if the Board has anything to add. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just like to hear public comment at this point. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Likewise. Do you have any questions? MR. SCHWARTZ: No, I understand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments, if people want to come up to the lectern, please identify yourself for the record before you speak. Board of Trustees 14 August 19, 2015 MR. MAVELLIA: Members, my name is Dominic Mavellia, I reside at 205 North Sea Drive. I'm being represented by counsel, William Goggins. He could not be here. I'm in opposition of this application. That and the fact that the LWRP form has not been complete, I would ask the Board to adjourn this hearing. You know, you look at this application, you scratch your head and say what were they thinking. I mean, when I bought this house, and I live adjacent to the property, I was told that any of the shoreline properties would have to be setback, and by virtue of the fact this property could not be setback, because the neighbor behind him, his property line is very close, it can't be setback. So by virtue of moving in the other direction, you are cutting into the dunes. So to me it's unacceptable. If they raise it up, it's a visual eyesore and impedes on our ocean view. So that being said, we are opposing and I would like the Board members to think strongly about this application. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. Just for the record, we have a letter from your attorney William Goggins, a two-page letter, that we'll incorporate into the record. This letter, by reference to your comments, as well as we do have your letter as well, which we'll enter into the record. Thank you. MR. MAVELLIA: Thank you. MR. CASTIGLIONE: My name is John Castiglione, I live at 3010 Kenny's Road. I don't think I have much to add beyond what has already been said. I'm certainly not as qualified as you all are to speak on the adherence to code. I'll try to be brief. think there are a lot of problems with this application beyond the issues of wetlands and coastal erosions. I'm happy to talk about them if you are interested, but to focus on the issue, I would just raise, above and beyond the dunes, which are not large at all, and that's been discussed, there is a lot of shrubbery around the property which I think also has a role to play in preventing erosion and some of the other environmental issues here. There are protected areas for plovers, not all that many yards up the beach, and so while I'm sure that is subject to various codes and so forth, I think that should be considered as well. Every dune that comes out I think will effect that as well. As far as the buried oil tank is concerned, again, I'm sure that is subject to laws and regulations that I'm not as familiar with as you are, but that seems to be a terrible idea literally sitting on the beach. I know I and probably a lot of people here have propane tanks that are above the ground and I don't see why this application has a buried oil tank on the beach, yards from protected land, not all that far from Great Pond. So to the extent that is up for the Board's review, I would ask you to take a look at that. Again, I'm not as qualified as everyone else here to speak on the code issues and regulations, I think that's all been said, but I'll ask the Board to take a hard look at this. And I think someone else said it's a head scratcher. I think it should be a non-starter, the Board of Trustees 15 August 19, 2015 proposal as written here. I'm happy to speak about other elements I think are a concern, including the size of the property and the enjoyment of others on the beach, the sound emanating from the house impacting enjoyment on beach, things like that. But again, if that's not at issue here, I don't need to get into it now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Again, for your information there are code provisions specifically dealing with buried propane tank that the Board will have to take up during the course of the application process. Thank you. MR. CASTIGLIONE: Fair enough, thank you. MR. KATRAMADOS: My name is John Katramados, 4070 Kenny's Road. I'm next to the proposed building they are going to do. I live in this house over 26 years. 26 years we have two big storms, and the parking lot was removed 25 feet setback to Littons Avenue, because it was destroyed. All the houses in the front was flooded. This particular house, the old house which they are going to demolish, was full of water, and I have a newspaper dated, this is the Suffolk Life Newsday, February 5, 1997, which they describe exactly the condition of the Kenny's Beach and the houses around it. Three houses was removed about more than 100 feet back to the North Sea Drive. So I don't know, you have to think about it before we approve this proposal. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, very much. And also, Mr. Katramados, I have your letter in the file, we'll incorporate that by reference into the file. Thank you. MR. KATRAMADOS: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Okay, hearing no further discussion at this time, because the Board requires additional information and will be communicating additional needs with the applicant, I would make a motion to table this application at this time, pending further information coming before the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Number one, under wetland permits, 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. SCTM# 115-11-12 Board of Trustees 16 August 19, 2015 I believe this was tabled from last month, if I remember right. It was found consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency was because the stone patio and retaining wall were built without a permit. It was tabled last month because we wanted to know where the sanitary system was. The CAC voted to support the application. And I went out and looked at it. It's pretty straightforward. The septic system is on the landward side of the house. I think it's probably out of our jurisdiction. That was the only issue we had. ' Is there anyone here to comment on this application? (Negative response). Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that was the only question we had. TRUSTEE KING: So all our questions were answered. There was the existing groin that was supposed to be removed. It has been removed, so I don't have any issues with it. No other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., do 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. SCTM#`1-1-4 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC did not visit the site and did not make a recommendation. The Trustees visited the site on June 17th, and noted that the project already had a New York State DEC Wetlands approval. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting, if there are any questions from the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to note, before we address any questions, there are two letters received August 12th, one from attorney Barbara Rasmussen. I won't read the entire letter but it characterizes --she suggests that her client request that there be a-condition imposed, that there is no significant increase in the amount of water used for irrigation, and that if in the future there is plan for significantly increased use, such increase shall not occur until Mr. Andrews, her client, and/or all surrounding residents receive confirmation from a hydrologist that it will have no negative impact on their water Board of Trustees 17 August 19, 2015 supply. Also received, August 12th, a letter from JMO Environmental Consulting which references a letter from a hydrologist, a Mr. Wayne H. Bugden. That letter, if I may paraphrase it, received also on the 12th: Given the moderately high permeability rate of the shallow aquifer, the minor anticipated changes in the pond's water level and the fact that the expected rates of plumbing to and from the pond are not expected to differ significantly from current conditions, I anticipate no significant impact to other wells in the vicinity. Mr. Bugden is a hydrologist, as I mentioned before. Any other questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the audience? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second, All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that it's not within the scope of Trustee duties to develop conditions to a permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask for a modification of that. Just that we approve the permit. Approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just approve the application, and the applicant and neighbors can have further discussion off this record. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll amend the motion to reflect Trustee Bergen's concerns. Make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number three, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of C&L REALTY, INC. requests a Wetland Permit for the existing ±117' x ±29' south-side building and to replace a 48'x29' section of the building; to repair or replace existing concrete ramp, walkway and ±5' deck; and for the installation of gutters to leaders to drywells on the building, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code-Stormwater Management. Located: 61600 Route 25, Southold. SCTM#56-6-3.4 This application is a re-filing of a project that was previously permitted by the Board of Town Trustees and determined to be exempt under the LWRP. The CAC supports the application, however the site plan is not accurate and should be brought up to date. I'm not entirely sure what that means, if Peter wants to make a representation on that. The Trustees looked at the paperwork, we've been to the Board of Trustees 18 August 19, 2015 site, it's essentially the same as we have seen before. It's an upgrade with drainage improvements to an existing building in a marine commercial zone. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. SEPENOSKI: Catherine Sepenoski, I represent my parents and the C&L property. I appreciate that you are taking this under review again. You were kind enough to issue this permit, which is still in pristine shape. We got your permission and we have put in, Garrett Strang put in the application to the Building Department so that we can make the repairs. We did everything according to how we are supposed to by application. So my sister-in-law's ex-husband, Michael Verity, the head of the Building Department, has withheld the permit for two years. We still do not know why. It is a pre-existing, nonconforming building, but it is certainly a building that should certainly be able to be maintained and taken care of and part of the vital waterfront area. I'm still trying to find out why we don't have a permit. I would like to know when the code changed, because I was told I might have to go for a variance for this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Unfortunately, I think we are getting far afield of what the Trustees do here. So the questions you are articulating for us, we do not, as a matter of ordinary course, we don't get involved with the independent determinations of the Building Department and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Actually, as a matter of fact, we have taken this out of sequence of typically what we ordinarily process, will go to Building and Zoning, but because of our familiarity with the project, we felt that if your line of inquiry and the questions you are seemingly asking us now are posed to the Building Department and Zoning officials that you can possibly clear up and get clarification on that track, and that way the Board's determination might be closer at hand for you instead of us having you wait to come to this Board. So we are actually trying to expedite this. MS. SEPENOSKI: I appreciate that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: But as far as being able to help you with those other concerns, this is not part of our public hearing. MS. SEPENOSKI: Well, this application went in because there was damage due to Hurricane Sandy. It's followed by two horrific winters with blizzards, and at this point the building is suffering more and more, and if this is the first step, which is why we took it in the first place to get your permission to repair it and maintain it, I'll continue to pursue the other matter. So I appreciate your taking me out of turn and reconsidering. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. And you can check, but I think where there are questions, if you have not gotten a response from the Building Department, you should check with the Zoning officials, you should check with them, because where there are questions of Board of Trustees 19 August 19, 2015 determinations of the Building Department, Zoning Board is the group that ordinarily makes determinations on those anyway. MS. SEPENOSKI: I appreciate your input. Unfortunately there has been no word at all. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes • to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any Board members? Any questions? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). With respect to this application, since we have taken this out of sequence, but to further expedite it, I would move to table the approval of this application until we see that any issues that may lie between the Building or Zoning officials are addressed before we grant final approval. So that's my motion, to table the approval until we receive confirmation of satisfying other departments. Motion made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was a permit that was previously granted by this Board and my understanding is the application is the very same as it was previously. So for myself, I'm comfortable to proceed forward with a motion to grant the permit. That's just myself, personally. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Of course, I made the motion. We don't have second. So essentially until it gets seconded, it's lost. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's why I wanted to hop in there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You hopped in a little early, Dave. How does the rest of the Board feel? Since we are taking it out of sequence a little, I don't know, I'm a little uncomfortable, we are trying to move it a bit so that way that they don't have a two or three-month process before us. TRUSTEE KING: When did we issue the first permit? MS. SEPENOSKI: Two years ago. June 19. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 2013. TRUSTEE KING: That's when it was issued. Did you ever apply for an extension? MS. SEPENOSKI: I came in on the 19th, unfortunately I was told I can't come in on the day of expiration. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it would have otherwise been routinely extended. All right, I'll withdraw my motion. Dave, do you want to put the motion forward? Because it would have just otherwise gotten an extension. So, do you want to move to approve it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. I'll make a motion to approve the application of Garrett Strang on behalf of C&L Realty as described, noting that it's exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 20 August 19, 2015 MS. SEPENOSKI: Gentleman, I appreciate your help. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number four, Nina Jordon on behalf of WILLIAM & IVA FELIX requests a Wetland Permit to construct a +/-25'x25' two-story addition onto the landward side of the existing dwelling. Located: 760 Oak Street, Cutchogue. SCTM# 136-1-39 This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a non-turf buffer and drainage plan to contain the roof runoff. I did go out to take a look at this on behalf of the Board. I noticed in the ZBA determination there was a request for confirmation of the location of the cesspool, and that we also would require that the project conform with Chapter 236, which is the town drainage code, because on the plans here there is nothing to show that. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. FELIX: I'm the owner, Iva Felix. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Were you able to confirm the location of the cesspool as required by ZBA determination, that it is located as shown on the survey? MS. FELIX: Yes. I just got a new survey. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And as I alluded to, we do require gutters leading to downspouts leading to drywells to address the roof runoff under Chapter 236. So you would not have any problem with doing that as part of this project? MS. FELIX: It was not part of the project, but yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a requirement. MS. FELIX: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. I did not have any questions beyond that. Okay, is there anybody else here who would like to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Not seeing any, are there any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Not seeing any, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of William and Iva Felix with the addition of gutters and leaders leading to drywells as required under Chapter 236, with a new set of plans that would include those on the new set of plans. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. FELIX: Thank you. Board of Trustees 21 August 19, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: Number five, Nancy Dwyer Design Consulting on behalf of RICHARD TROWNSELL, DAVID TROWNSELL & KAREN FEUERMAN request a Wetland Permit to remove existing dwelling and construct new one and one-half story, single-family dwelling with a new 1,026sq.ft. foundation; 189sq.ft. deck on seaward side; 365sq.ft. covered front entry deck; and abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system landward of dwelling. Located: 980 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 77-1-6 This was found consistent with the LWRP. The LWRP coordinator-- something we noticed in the field -- he recommends that the Board addresses the future use of troughs, in other words they are draining stormwater from the road into the creek with concrete troughs. I don't know how we are going to address it. And the CAC supports the application with the condition of gutters, leaders and drywells to contain runoff. Is there anyone here to speak behalf of or against this Application? MS. DWYER: I'm Nancy Dwyer on behalf of the Trownsell and Feuerman families. The overall intention of the project was to repair the existing dwelling after the damage that it incurred during Hurricane Sandy. And in doing so we are required to lift it according to FEMA regulations. And once we proposed to lift it, we automatically needed Zoning approvals, and they have suggested that we move the house into a more conforming location. I would like to clarify that it's actually a 336 square foot covered front entry porch, not 365 square feet as it's written. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I don't think we had a lot of questions about it. I'm looking for gutters and leaders to drywells. I don't see it. It's probably here somewhere. That would be a part of this, gutters and leaders drywells. Is there any need for hay bales during the demolition? I don't think so. This is a pretty substantial sand buffer. don't think it would be required. Is there anybody else here to speak on behalf of or against this application? (Negative response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it has been submitted. And with the stipulation there will be gutters and leaders to drywells for roof runoff. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 22 August 19, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID & STEPHANIE SACK requests a Wetland Permit to demolish and remove existing one-story dwelling, deck, hot tub, and all other related structures; construct new 2,060sq.ft. two-story, single-family dwelling with attached garage and roof terrace; a 305sq.ft. swimming pool/spa; a 330sq.ft. on-grade masonry pool patio; 270sq.ft. walkway/steps/deck to pool, all located no closer than 50'from top of bluff; remove existing sanitary system and construct new sanitary system; remove existing driveway and install new grass paver block driveway; install pool enclosure fencing and drainage system of leaders, gutters and drywells; and establish a 1,035sq.ft. non-turf buffer to be planted with native vegetation in place of existing lawn within 10' of bluff crest. Located: 445 Glenn Court, Cutchogue. SCTM#83-1-5 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application, however they noted that given the size of the parcel and the proposed plan is an overreach in terms of development in proximity to the bluff. The Trustees did a field inspection on August 12th and noted that the current bluff is well vegetated and appeared to be so. There is a, the ZBA granted an application on March 7th, 2014, subsequently revised April 15th, for the proposed house, and listed six conditions. Number one, the existing vegetation on the top of the bluff shall remain intact to limit soil disturbance. Two, requested a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the existing vegetation. Three, the existing abandoned cesspool shall be pumped clean and filled with sand. Four, existing stump already cut to grade in the rear yard shall not be removed or disturbed. The purpose is to limit soil disturbance. Five, heavy equipment such as excavators is prohibited from being sited on the bluff side of the demolition and excavation activities. Six, last term, the use of equipment which emits low frequency vibrations, such as blasting or large pile drivers is prohibited. In addition, there is also a letter received August 5th from Barbara Ripple. I won't read the entire letter but the concerns are centered around stability of the bluff and fear of vibrations from demolition will cause damage to neighboring basements. And fear that the underground garage itself will cause continuing vibrations and may eventually destabilize the bluff. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, thank you, Mike. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants Dave and Stephanie Sack, who are both here, as are the project architects, Chris Coy and Chris Caruso. The subject property is located at 445 Glenn Court, and was originally created in 1967 as lot four of the subdivision map of Birch Hills. The property is located to the east of and adjacent to the undeveloped park and playground property at the Birch Hills Property Owners Association and is the most easterly parcel on this side of Glenn Court before the road is broken by Board of Trustees 23 August 19, 2015 Vista Place to its east. The property fronts Long Island Sound and its bluff is well vegetated, as Mike noted, and protected at its toe by a functional retaining wall. The property is presently characterized by a dwelling located 38 feet from the bluff crest; a deck that is attached to the dwelling with a hot tub to the seaward side of the house that is located only 25 feet from the bluff crest; a septic system consisting of a single cesspool located 27 feet from the bluff; and total existing lot coverage of 25.3%. As part of our proposed redevelopment plan, we are proposing a dwelling with 132-square foot smaller footprint that will be located 16 feet farther from the bluff; an attached deck with a small plunge pool type swimming pool about 305 square feet, both of which will be located at least 50 feet from the bluff crest, which actually represents a 25 foot or doubling of the existing bluff setback to structures; a conforming sanitary system or upgraded sanitary system whose active leaching pool is to be located more than 75 feet from the bluff, which is a near tripling of the bluff setback that exists today; and there will actually be a very slight decrease in lot coverage of about 27 square feet. As described in our wetland application, the proposed project design and incorporated mitigation will thus result in an improvement to the environmental conditions of the property and serve to better protect the surrounding ecosystem, including the bluff and tidal waters of Long Island Sound. Specifically, as a result of project design and in summary there will be 132-square foot decrease in the dwelling footprint; an overall decrease in lot coverage of 27-square feet; a 16-foot increase in the bluff setback to the primary dwelling from 38 to 54 feet; a doubling of the bluff setback to structures from 25 to 50 feet; and a near tripling of the bluff setback to the leaching pool component of the septic system from 27 to 75 feet, all resulting in increases in conformance with the setback requirements of Chapter 275 relative to what is existing today. The small plunge-type swimming pool conforms to the 50 foot bluff setback for swimming pools as set forth in 275(3)(d)(1)(b)(4)and as additional environmental mitigation for the pool, the pool is to be equipped with an eco-smart pool filtration system which utilizes a chemical-free ionization process for filtration in place of chlorination and other chemical treatment processes. Because this system eliminates the use of chemicals for pool treatment, it also creates chemical-free pool backwash which will be directed into the proposed drainage system. As additional project mitigation, approximately 1,035 square feet of existing lawn maintained within ten feet of the bluff crest will be removed and replaced with native vegetation, and a drainage system of leaders, gutters drywells will be installed to capture and recharge roof runoff. Together these measures will mitigate both the quality and quantity of surface water runoff reaching the bluff by reducing Board of Trustees 24 August 19, 2015 the area of the property nearest the bluff and wetlands that can be potentially treated with fertilizers, pesticides, insecticides, increasing the setback of those areas from the bluff and surface waters of Long Island Sound, and creating an area of more permeable soil and natural vegetation adjacent to the bluff that can serve both as a sink and filter for storm water runoff and the contaminates potentially contained therein. In addition, the existing non-conforming sanitary system as I've mentioned previously, consisting only of one cesspool located 27 feet from the bluff, will be abandoned in favor of an upgraded system located as far from the bluff as we can get it on this property, and of course a project limiting fence and staked hay bales will be installed to contain site disturbance and potential runoff during construction. In summary, the project design and incorporated mitigation measures will thus result in decreased lot coverage, increased wetlands and bluff setbacks to structures, sanitary system and maintained lawn areas, improved septic treatment, increased native vegetation coverage and increased drainage capacity , thereby resulting in a significant net improvement to the environmental condition of the property, and positive affect on the adjacent bluff and tidal waters. As Mike noted, we also presented this application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in part because it is obviously impossible to meet a 100-foot bluff setback on this property for the house, and also for what was a substantial front yard variance which the Board approved in order to allow us to pull the house as far away from the bluff as we have. However there were several neighbors at the hearing who expressed concerns about the bluff and what the impacts of the project would have on the bluff, I think in part with related concerns about not what happens as a result of long-term, which would seem obvious to us, that pulling everything farther from the bluff is an improvement, but potentially what might happen during construction. So the Board originally left the hearing open waiting for a report to be received from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District. They did issue a report subsequent to that hearing and prior to the ZBA's approval that was dated July 27th, 2015. I don't know if you have a copy of this in your file, but I'll hand up copies to you. I will note the second paragraph in their recommendations, which states that the demolition, again, I'm reading from their report, the demolition of the existing house and the reconstruction of a new residence has the potential to help protect the bluff and the residence by increasing the structural distance from the bluff top edge, as long as the demolition, reconstruction and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure does not catalyze bluff erosion. So again going back to the idea that this is a good project over the long-term, as long as it doesn't cause any short term problems while the changes are being made. To ensure against the project catalyzing, as they Board of Trustees 25 August 19, 2015 say, bluff erosion, their report contains several design recommendations which ended up being incorporated as special conditions at the ZBA approval, which includes the ones that Mike read off when he opened the hearing. Because these represent small but presumably critical changes to the plan, I'll run through them quickly and how they affect the site plan as it currently is in front of you. The first condition was the retention of the existing vegetation at the top of the bluff, which of course is part of the proposal, but also the wire mesh fencing at the top of the bluff, which is shown on your site plan as to be removed. They felt that because that fence had sort of become integrated with the vegetation at the top, and we are proposing additional ten-foot buffer on the landward side of it, that the fence should remain, and so we would have to revise the site plan to change that label from the fence being removed to fence being retained. They also recommended installation of a ten-foot wide buffer which is already included in our site plan as part of the initial application, but with the inclusion of what they described as a one-foot high by three-foot wide quote unquote small diversion sited at the center of the buffer, which I interpreted to mean a small berm. And as you know, the Board has required that kind of thing on other bluff restoration projects we have had, where you have something that will help mitigate against sheet flow runoff going over the bluff during a severe storm event. And so that's not a problem at all for us to add that as part of the buffer design. The third was that the existing septic system, which is that cesspool that is located quite close to the top of the bluff now, be pumped and filled with clean sand and left in place rather than excavated and removed. The Health Department will typically accept either method. Right now our plan shows either/or. We are certainly happy to amend the site plan to be consistent obviously with the ZBA decision,just to show it to be pumped and filled with sand and left in place. So that also was not a problem. There is an existing tree stump that was a tree that had been dead and had been cut. It was cut to grade. And their recommendation was that the tree stump not be further removed so as not to cause any increase in soil disturbance, which is fine. That can also be an acceptable condition of this Board's permit. And then the last two conditions related to the actual construction design, especially during demolition, both of which were topics that Chris Coy, the project architect spoke to the ZBA about at the hearing, and can also speak further tonight if the Board feels it is necessary. The first is the heavy equipment is prohibited from operating on the bluff side of the demolition and excavation activities. And that restriction is already incorporated into Board of Trustees 26 August 19, 2015 our construction methodology, and Chris Coy can testify to that on the record that that would be a condition that, something, a methodology that would be followed before it was even required as a condition. Then the second is that the use of any heavy blasting equipment, large pile drivers, et cetera, that might emit low frequency vibrations that could possibly destabilize the bluff soils in some way would be prohibited. In their report, the Soil and Water staff technician who wrote this report acknowledged that that type of equipment would not be customarily used in a demolition project like this. And it won't be used for this project. And again, Chris Coy testified before the ZBA that that kind of equipment would not be used. There were some other issues of concern that related to hours of operation and parking during construction. I don't know if those are topics necessarily within your purview, but those topics were also raised by some of the adjoining owners and addressed during ZBA hearing. I expect some of those folks will be speaking to you tonight when I'm done. If the Board wishes us to respond or has any additional questions of us or the applicants or the architect, we are all here to answer them. Otherwise I would say in the grand scheme of things and the projects this Board looks at, any project that results in a smaller dwelling, less lot coverage, better bluff setbacks, better septic treatment, better drainage, more native vegetation is exactly the kind of projects we typically try to bring to the Board and the Board looks for in these kind of redevelopment plans. With that I would turn it over to you. If you have any questions of me, or want to open it up, it's up to you. Let me just do one more thing and get these reports up to you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MR. YANNIOS: Thomas Yannios, we live in the immediately adjacent property to the east, 545 Glenn Court. And here we go again. We have been there for 40 years. And as my brother and the presentation after me will show you, the bluff erosion over those 40 years has been rather dramatic and sometimes violent. It's been captured by photography, aerial photography, and the slope inclinations, have been all calculated, and that's all to be submitted to the record. We are having a little bit of trouble E-mailing it into your system. But the overwhelming, the underlying contention of the homeowners is that this demolition/destruction/reconstruction project, which is very violent in nature, is compatible with the - level of stability of the bluff. I have something which I did not present last time, and was not aware of, but took pictures of, and if one picture summarizes this entire issue, it's this. I could not get it on your system, but I have enough copies for every Board member to Board of Trustees 27 August 19, 2015 look at. And I'll describe what you are looking at. Not all the pictures are identical, but they do summarize what is going on. These pictures are the upper-level bulkhead, which is also about 40-years old, of our neighbor directly to the east. And you'll notice that the telephone-size timbers which are supporting the bulkhead are being bent outward by the cliff propelling itself outward. So much so that some are actually splitting. This is -- I didn't know about this until I started investigating because of this issue that we have. And I was really struck by visualizing the forces of nature that we are dealing with. The people from the soil erosion that made this report, who I talked to personally when they were there, did not see this either because at that time I didn't know about it. And I can guarantee you their report would read a little bit differently, and I'm going to be submitting these pictures. The bluff is in this continuous motion to explode. We are, on our property, which is very heavily vegetated, and has been bulkheaded ever since 60 years ago, we have already had some surface sloughs from recent storms. And that's despite all the protection. The property adjacent to the property in question, which is to the west, has, and it's on the report that Suffolk County submitted to you, a recently fallen boulder, automobile-size, that is crashing through their bulkhead. Again, one of the most heavily vegetated pieces of coastal bluff in the whole Oregon Road region. And if you look next to our stairway, which I don't have pictures of, you see, we see, over the last few years, progressively unearthed, similar boulders to the one you have a picture of. In addition, which I submitted a picture of in the Board of Appeals meeting and also which is on our computer presentation, which we can't seem to get into your system, we have a bluff-surface boulder again, automobile size, we think, which shows progression in the last two years. Whereas before it had been stable. Now, now it's very nice that we have this static presentation replete with statistics that the house is smaller-- MS. HULSE: Sir, can you just keep your comments pertaining to what your testimony is as opposed to characterizing what Mr. Herrmann's testimony was. Just give the Board your input and observations. MR. YANNIOS: Okay. Sure. TRUSTEE KING: I have one question. These photos you gave us, this is not on the property you are talking about now. MR. YANNIOS: No, it's next to. TRUSTEE KING: These are not photos of this property. MR. YANNIOS: No, it's photos of the bluff. No, this property does not have an upper bulkhead. This is an upper bulkhead. Not a lower bulkhead. And neither do we. We don't have one either. That's the next property. The forces of excavation and then reconstruction are going to be superimposed upon this kind of bluff movement activity which we are demonstrating, and they are Board of Trustees 28 August 19, 2015 going to be superimposed upon the short term stability of things, for instance, as I said, during the storm damage and this rock that I just showed you happening. And they'll be superimposed upon the long-term damage or long-term geological forces which are going on there as depicted in that picture. This has to be kept in mind. Now, I'm happy to hear that the planning has changed and that the vegetation on the top surface is going to be left in tact. We were very, very worried about that. But it doesn't change the issue of the seismic impact and the water drainage impact and effect on the phenomenon which I'm demonstrating in these pictures and historically which are very well documented and very well understood. The additional problem of the vibrations of cars going in an unheard of underground garage on a cliff by the ocean, is another issue, which I had not thought of before until it was mentioned by another neighbor. And this will be ongoing thing. What kind of vibrations can we expect from automobiles parking down a steep ramp into a garage that is located within the bowels of the cliff. And the parking, the vibrations from parking and accelerating and backing up. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could you kindly wrap it up. I think you covered that already, and the discussion concerning the vibrational affects has been made part of the record already via the ZBA and prior testimony. MR. YANNIOS: Okay, that's what we are concerned about. The final concern is that this, you know, at best this is a controversial project. We are wondering is it even necessary. This spans both your jurisdiction and the Building's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sir, the Board does not make determinations of what is necessary. We make determinations under the Town Code pertaining to Coastal Erosion Hazard Act and the wetland ordinance. Can you please make it briefer. MR. YANNIOS: Then I have stated my case. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. MR. COY: Good evening, I'm Chris Coy, Barnes Coy Architects. I'm a registered architect in New York State. I think at this point we just need to, briefly, bring some professional facts into this discussion. First of all, the demolition of a frame house like this is not a seismic event. No way near it. We don't use hammers, we don't use wrecking balls. We use claws on the end of excavators that take the pieces of the house away and put them in dumpsters. So there is really no vibration associated with it. So the demolition of a frame house like this will be done in probably two to three days anyway. Then we are not driving piles, we are pouring concrete foundation. So there is no vibration associated with that. And no heavy equipment will go on the bluff side, as Rob Herrmann mentioned. We don't have to. We'll park a concrete truck in the driveway and use a pump to go over the top and pump the areas we can't reach with a shoot. In Board of Trustees 29 August 19, 2015 addition to that, the slab of the garage where the cars will be driving on, is only four feet below grade. Most of the garage is raised above. We had to recess the garage a little bit to get some program above that which has an upper floor level from the rest of the house. But the actual slab is only four feet below grade. It's not in the bowels of the cliff. It's actually farther back from the bluff edge than the rest of the house. And I think we are all familiar with driving into a garage. Again, it's not a seismic event. You drive in on rubber tires. And as long as you are not driving a tank in there, there won't be any vibration. I think we have to debunk this whole thing it's a violent event. It's not. It's taking down a frame house and building a new frame house. It happens all the time. It's not a big deal, and I think this project will result in a house and septic system that are significantly farther back from the bluff than this neighbor to the east who just gave testimony. So I think this is going to actually be an example to the rest of the people on the bluff of where things should be and how things should be done. Thank you. MS. RIPPLE: My name is Barbara Ripple and I live directly across. You can see my house there where it says "Google."The Yannios' house is a little bit up and the bulkhead that he was talking is the next house up. You can see the bulkhead there that's being built. I have not seen it. I only go in the front of the house, so. I would like to know if you can clarify for me, in this report, which I got as president of the neighborhood association, what this means. Population bla, bla, bla, are species dependent on high fresh water soil moistures which in this location indicate a potential for clay lenses and freshwater seeps on the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We ordinarily would not pass judgment on the soil conservation water report. MS. RIPPLE: Well, that proposes to me some kind of weaknesses. And I mean, I've lived there 40 years, and the entire neighborhood spends most of its time worrying about the bluff. So whether or not it's a professional judgment that this won't disturb the bluff, it's very hard for the neighborhood to believe that the bluff will remain stable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think it's appropriate for us to try to layer what we think it means. But it seems fairly plain language. I'll say this, the Soil and Water Conservation Service is known for very comprehensive reports and were they to have significant issues with fresh waters or the type of vegetation, they would have probably expanded on it further, but it's really beyond this Board to start passing judgment. MS. RIPPLE: Well, you mentioned hurricanes and you yourself-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We didn't mention anything here. We are just listening at this point, ma'am. When we talk about energy forces, we have to acknowledge the fact that when Long Island Sound gets riled up during a nor'easter or other seasonal storm Board of Trustees 30 August 19, 2015 events, the amount of water repeatedly hitting the bulkhead faces or revetment faces there far exceeds anything that seems to be spoken to here, and that there has been at least a logical presentation to try to mitigate that potential with the house removal. Whether it meets the approval of the Board, and we have further discussion, is another matter. MS. RIPPLE: I've stood at the top of the bluff and watched the water come over the bulkhead and erode -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that by definition that would be low frequency because it tends to travel at a fairly steady rate. And the power of water on these faces can't be underestimated, so I think many of the concerns here that I have heard, I know this is getting into the area, it just seems to me that you are looking at the wrong area. Bluff stabilization for any of the properties, toe stabilization, revegetation of the bluff areas, are actually the best you can offer and -- MS. RIPPLE: Well, it comes from the top, it comes from the bottom. And you have my letter about coastal erosion studies. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to note, we do have your letter and this will be entered into the record. MS. RIPPLE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you please identify yourself and what you are submitting to the Board. This is coming as a surprise. MR. YANNIOS: My name is Nicholas Yannios 545 Glenn Court. My parents had purchased it back in the early 1970s -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Could you please speak up a little bit. MR. YANNIOS: Again my name for the record is Nicholas Yannios, and my method, beat a dead horse, so I won't rehash what has already been mentioned here, but over the 30 or so years that we have been out here, we have observed significant rate of erosion. And both at the lower bluff portion of the bluff and at the upper portion of the bluff. And what we have seen, is that if you look through the presentation, the bluff, the actual bluff line has receded approximately, the upper portion of the bluff, has actually receded about 15 to 20 feet. Almost like three quarters of a foot per year, give or take. And our concern there is, our concern there is that with this rate of erosion, that any kind of construction activity, the vibrations will loosen up the composition or should I say the will affect the stability of how the soil is compacted and actually un-compact it and loosen it up to the point where the erosion will accelerate. Especially at the upper bluff. One photo that we have in here shows also not only the recession of the upper portion of the bluff, but also shifting of the bluff. And over the years, with photos that were taken in 1994 and up to 2014, we've observed a shift, a lateral shift in the bluff of like about three feet. And that is also one of our concerns, obviously. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I think if you are talking about erosion of the Board of Trustees 31 August 19, 2015 bluff, you are making the case to move the house landward as a protection. MR. YANNIOS: But also to do as much as possible to mitigate anything that loosens up the soil and contributes to accelerating that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Historically, construction activities on the Sound had very little scrutiny from the Board until we started to look at these things under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. And this Board has lived in the aftermath of Tropical Storms Irene and Sandy. A question I have, because there is such interest here specifically with respect to vibrational energy and destabilizing, is there a history at all, have there been any bluff failures in this area from home constructions, any documented case where there has been a problem? MR. YANNIOS: Not that I'm aware of. But just from the weather itself, we have seen boulders, you know, a month prior, there at the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm going to be quite honest with you, the picture you paint is one of a very concerned community, but the Soil Conservation Service and their specific requirements which are incorporated by reference in the Zoning Board of Appeals and the proposed project plan seems to address the issue in an area I think the Board looks at and feels we don't see very many areas as stable as this with vegetation and such during the course of inspection. So it seems like the other parties which have superior knowledge to this Board, Soil and Water Conservation, have done their inspection and made their comments, and there has been a genuine attempt to try to incorporate them into this process. MR. YANNIOS: And we appreciate that they made changes in their plan there. But I just wanted to voice my concern that it's followed and that it is enforced, and that no tanks or whatever come in the middle of the night when nobody is, you know, is asleep and cause trouble. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does anyone else wish to speak to this application? MS. RIPPLE: Can I ask a question about the houses on the bluff. All the houses along there in our area are there 40, 50 years, okay, so none of us can really attest to when they were being built if there was a problem. But there are two large houses beyond there that were built, I want to say ten or 12 years ago, and there was considerable erosion and they had work to do on the bottom of the bluff when they were building those. I don't even know the names of the people who live there. But there was an erosion problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Sir, if you are going to speak, you'll have to make it very brief because we've given you about ten minutes before. MR. YANNIOS: Tom Yannios. Your own revised zoning requires that the house be setback 100 feet. There is a reason for that, Board of Trustees 32 August 19, 2015 right? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This Board is not in a position to be debating Town Code provisions or the actions of other Boards. At this point, Trustee Domino is running the hearing process, I'll turn it back to him and we'll have to wrap this up. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to be approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to open up discussion. Since there has been so much concern about the activities present. Would it be possible that you would consider amending your resolution to add an inspection just to affirm the types of equipment that are being used during the demolition? I wonder if the applicants would have a problem with that, if the Board puts that as a requirement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would that not be a Building Department requirement rather than a Trustee requirement regarding Equipment used in construction or deconstruction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under request, can we amend the resolution to request the Building Department put in additional inspection during demolition. And if not them, us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know that I would be comfortable with that in the resolution. I think definitely we can make that request of the Building Department. I would not want to put that in, a request to the Building Department in a resolution for a permit approval. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I feel similarly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, motion made and second. Apparently there is no movement for an amendment. So what's the vote of the Board? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just for the record, based on, for myself, based on the information and the extensive review done under ZBA and the conditions required under ZBA, its determination, to address the concerns, I'm voting aye. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. The next application, THE BOATYARD AT FOUNDERS LANDING, INC. Requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct approximately 880 linear feet of existing bulkhead in-place; replace existing steps leading to floating docks; replace four(4) existing 3'x12' ramps leading to floating docks; repair and/or replace existing floating docks as follows: Two (2) 6'x60' main floats, one (1) 6'x40' main float, one (1) 6'x48' main float, seven (7) Board of Trustees 33 August 19, 2015 4'x18'fingers, and six(6) 4'x16'fingers; replace and/or repair existing fixed finger piers as follows: Two (2) 3'x18' finger piers, two (2) 3'x20'finger piers, one (1) 6'x38' leading to a 6'x54'"L"finger pier, three (3) 3'x24'finger piers, one (1)4'x42' finger pier, one 4'x62' finger pier, one 5'x64' finger pier, and one 5'x60'finger pier; replace approximately 36 existing mooring pilings; replace approximately 100 existing fender pilings; reconstruct existing 20'x60'travel lift slip; repair existing 32' long jetty and existing 16' long jetty; dredge inside basin area to an elevation of-5.0' by removing approximately 2,500 cubic yards of material; dredge outside basin area to an elevation of-7.0' by removing approximately 650 cubic yards of material; use dredge material to backfill all voids landward of repaired bulkheads with excess material to be trucked off to an approved upland site; and add impervious RCA material upon completion of the backfilling and compacting. Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. The application has received a review by the LWRP which finds it both inconsistent and consistent. It's found inconsistent because many of the structures, essentially all of the structures, inside the basin predate active Trustee permitting for the site. And the portion that is deemed to be consistent has to do with the proposed maintenance dredging within a marina area is consistent with the waterfront policies of the town. The Town's CAC voted not to support the application because the application is incomplete and the site plan is not current. The jetties are not shown on the plan which are proposed to be repaired and the drainage plan is not shown. The CAC also questions that the applicant is requesting a ten-year maintenance dredging permit. Just for a point of information, the plans, that must have been oversight, the plans do show both of the proposed jetties to be maintained, and the Board regularly accepts ten-year maintenance dredging permits with respect to areas that have a history of dredging. It's in conformity with the policies of this Board as well as the Department of Environmental Conservation to allow continuing dredging operations within the confines of commercial marinas so their activities can continue. There is also a request from Costello Marine Construction with respect to this application that they would like permission to raise the existing bulkhead height by one foot, and currently during extreme high tides water will overtop the bulkhead, backwashing of the bulkhead. Raising the height will prevent this from occurring and help maintain the stability of the ground behind the bulkhead where the patrons walk. The Board performed field inspection on August 12th. It was our feeling, based on observation that the raising of the bulkhead would be appropriate in this case. With respect to site plan approval and drainage that the Town's CAC noted, ordinarily, a maintenance dredging project for this Board has not been the cause to have a Board of Trustees 34 August 19, 2015 new site plan generated. Drainage might be another issue for the Board to discuss with the applicant because of the large amount of spoil material being put, maybe some drainage improvements might be appropriate for the work plan, but it's unheard of for maintenance dredging and repairs to impose a new site plan approval unless they were changing something that would require them to go before the Building or Planning Departments for site plan approval. With that said, is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John A. Costello. And not only am I making the application, I'm certainly, I'm the owner of the property. And the design, I'll try to explain some of the concerns. There are three small pre-existing jetties. I label them as jetties because they are perpendicular to the shore. There is only one to the south, which is 36 feet in length, which is holding a neighboring beach in place, and not allowing the sand to come into the marina. When you were onsite, you can see that it certainly needs dredging. And in regard to the issue of drainage, the bulkhead will be filled with clean sand. You'll see, there is a major degree of clean sand now that has to be dredged or excavated. If you place the clean sand behind the bulkhead, the percolation of the filters, it filters the water and percolates down quite quickly without putting major strain on the bulkhead face. I built a couple of bulkheads in my life and sand is the best backfill material because of that. So sand filter. They use them on swimming pools. It is one of the better filtering systems. There is no drainage onsite except by the town. Presently. The town has one drainage on the road. Unfortunately it runs into the marina. I have contacted the Highway superintendent and I would like to have him come down and meet with me to try to rectify that and minimize some of the debris of the road runoff pollution that runs into the basin. I believe it would help and I think he would, too, if when I'm rebuilding building the bulkhead he said he would work in part with me to try, help resolve that problem, and possibly put the, there is a little area to the road there, you can probably put some more drainage filtration system in there, and I would certainly work with the Superintendent of Highways rather than to have pollutants come into the basin. So any other questions the Board has. The inconsistency that one of them has, that some of the bulkheads were pre-existing, a lot of these bulkheads were applied for permits, one goes back into the '30s. And there has been several after that. And they did have a marine railway, they converted it, whether they had a permit for it, to a travel lift, I don't know. But they did have a travel lift there sitting onsite and it was disposed of because it was inoperable. So the plan is to replace the travel lift. I would like to have as many of the existing types of boats, small, baymen, there is several baymen around the area. I Board of Trustees 35 August 19, 2015 tell you, I appreciate people that work for a living and I will make any exception to try to keep them in business. But it's difficult as it is. The bulkheads right now are creosoted. They are all creosoted. We will not be using creosote, nor can you buy creosoted materials in New York State. And we'll be using vinyl and CCA piling. And we'll try get the bulkheads all rebuilt. The first stage of this job would be get the bulkheads, because they are dangerous. I have a letter from the insurance company, and let me tell you, I think he did me a favor by letting me insure this place, because I have several other companies with policies with them, and he says you can have a policy, I don't know if the underwriters will renew it without doing some major repairs on the bulkhead, because it's dangerous. As you probably well saw. And that's the procedure. I'm going to try to rebuild it as much as it is right there now. You see in the photograph, you are far enough way, it looks good from that angle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Costello, what is the zoning down there? MR. COSTELLO: Marine use. TRUSTEE BERGEN: M1 or M2? MR. COSTELLO: I believe it's M2. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Costello, the lift area is going to be dredged to minus seven feet? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we'll build the bulkhead to accommodate that so that we can handle every boat that is in that marina, including a few sailboats. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further questions? (Negative response). Anyone else wish to speak to this application? MS. PARRA: I do. I'm Raine Parra. I'm actually very happy to see that that area is going to be renovated. My concern, I had three concerns, but one was the existing bulkhead is in fact going to be made higher, which I think is left to the professionals on that. That's great. Vegetation installation, I don't see that on the brief description. I'm just wondering why that is not included in this plan. It seems to be it would be appropriate. And again, impervious RCA seems to be a bit in conflict in terms of runoff. Would we not be better suited with a porous surface? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Question noted. MS. PARRA: Thank you. And I would like to note there is an existing osprey nest. I did speak with Mr. Costello briefly, about two weeks ago, so I'm a little bit aware of what he would like to do with that, with the project. And I just wanted to make note there is an osprey nest there as well. And I believe the constructions going to start in the fall when they have vacated, but I just wanted to bring that to the Board's attention. TRUSTEE BERGEN?We noticed that when we were down there. MS. PARRA: Great. Thank you. Board of Trustees 36 August 19, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With respect to the issue, I think maybe someone can speak to this, but RCA I think is usually termed as impervious by its nature, but I don't know if Mr. Costello or any engineers or any of the people here are better apt to speak to that. MR. COSTELLO: I'll take the easy one first, the osprey nest. When they do vacate, it was at higher elevation, it was on top of a travel lift. It was at a higher elevation. And I intend to install a pole up near one of the buildings, away from the trees, and place the same osprey nest up higher. The ospreys in the nest right now are a little bit nervous when there is a little barge boom there. They will not vacate. The parents will not vacate the fledglings. If they are there, then unfortunately, when the season is over, they are going to have to move probably a hundred feet or so. Hopefully, so. I hope they'll come back. Now, the other thing, RCA does not form -- I'm personally against any blacktopping, asphalt. The drainage systems, the natural drainage systems between sand, the RCA does not retain water. It's concrete with small spaces between it. I have it in part of my driveway. And the puddles just go away before the end of the day. They drain down through it. I have done several marinas and I have owned several marinas over the years and the RCA, unfortunately, the best probably is what is there now. What is there now is oyster and clamshells. And I tell you, if I could purchase clamshells and oyster shells, they act, exactly like RCA. They let the water drain through. There is no drainage on that property except the Highway's comes in through the basin. And there is very little retention of water anywhere. That may not be totally true because the bulkheads slightly leak, so, in a couple of spots. So only 880 feet of spots. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MR. GOLDSMITH: I'm Bruce Goldsmith, I'm president of Goldsmith's Boat Shop, and this project is in desperate need of repair. As soon as possible. And I think John is the right person to do the job and get it done. It needs to be done soon. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak to this? MS. MANNING: My name is Mary Manning, Terry Lane, Southold. I live around the block from where this construction is going to start. And I can hear everything from my house. In the wintertime I'm the only one there, beside a couple of my friends. And I just want to know about how long this will take, how long the pile driving will take, how loud it's going to be, and what time they are going to start. I was also concerned about the birds being there, because they have been there for a long time. I know it's not for you to tell me how long this will take, but will this all come down and be on a list of things that they are going to be doing. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this? Board of Trustees 37 August 19, 2015 MR. COSTELLO: Could I just try to rebut that? I appreciate the neighbors and I have other places, I have a boatyard in Greenport that has neighbors all around it. And what we normally do, normally, everyone shows up at 6:30 in the morning or 6:00 in the morning at Greenport. We organize who will be going where. And what we have done several times, near the weekends, we have come in a half hour later in order to do other jobs. We select doing less noisy things early. We are not going to drive pilings. We are going to jet piling, and we are going to tap the sheathing in with a small air hammer. There is very little driving. There is not any big --there is a crane, but there's not very big, noisy equipment. There will be noise, but we'll try to minimize it. And most of it will be in the wintertime when I have less work going on than in the summertime. I understand the concern of anybody in the summertime. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, anyone else? Trustees? (No 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 make a motion to approve this,application as submitted with the amended, amending as requested to increase the bulkhead height by one foot. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion on the motion. And whereby granting a permit for the heretofore historic structures that may exist on the property, and performing the consistent maintenance dredging, it would bring the entire project into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of NARROW RIVER MARINE, c/o MAUREEN & FRED DACIMO request a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge two shoaled areas of an existing navigational channel to a depth of-4.5' below mean low water; the resultant ±970 cubic yards of dredge spoil is to be transported to shore by barge and trucked off site to an approved upland disposal site. Located: 5520 Narrow River Road, Orient. This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support the application. I believe this is identical to a previous permit for dredging from 2005. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is still John A. Costello. I'm the agent for the Dacimo's on Narrow River dredging project. As you can see in the past records that there was a ten-year Board of Trustees 38 August 19, 2015 maintenance project on that site, and what we are going to do, the DEC permit is still in effect up until August 31st. TRUSTEE KING: Of this year? MR. COSTELLO: Of this year. And we have a couple of months, have an application before them, for the same exact ten-year maintenance dredging permit. And as can you see, there is a combination on the permit application, one area approaches the marina, there is about six-hundred linear foot. The channel is not very deep, but we are only going to take off approximately a foot, plus or minus, going into the marina for six-hundred feet. It's not a lot of dredging, but it's over a long area. Six-hundred feet long. We are going to go in there and take off approximately a foot, a foot and two inches. And most of it is right dead in the middle of the channel, will be a combination mud and sand. The mud comes from the dead vegetation, leaves, and that goes into the lowest spot in the channel, and that's where we'll try maintain that. The other section, there is a second section, we have them in two sections, A and B. Mid-channel going out of the marina, there is one shoal spot, and it stays shoal. There is quite a bit of rock and debris that was put there at one time, probably a hundred years ago, that was trying to keep the channel open. And it still doesn't keep it open. It doesn't work. The rocks are under the soil. And we are going to go and take 300, 370 cubic yards, again, dredging it 25-foot wide channel, which will result with a tapering of the shoreline by up to about 40 feet. It will be a natural taper with the mud and the silt material that is in there. There will be a taper. It will encompass about 40 feet. The dredging will only take place in the center 25 foot. If the Board has any questions,. I'll do my best to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have any questions. As a kid I remember the south channel as they used to call it, was still well-formed enough to occasionally pull a striped bass out from between the rocks. So I don't know what you'll find when you get into it, whether they fall into the bottom or they slid or what's happened. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's pretty straightforward. This is a re-do of the prior permit that the marina had, and actually if we were to try to do this through the public policy side of the house with the county, it would take forever and ever to get the county engineer, so in a sense it provides a public benefit because clearance of this channel allows for those navigating and using the Narrow River boat ramp, which is a public facility, to get the benefit of this dredging as well. So it's in the public interest as well. MR. COSTELLO: Well, in the ten-year permit, I think, I don't believe they dredged but about two or three times. When it gets Board of Trustees 39 August 19, 2015 to complaint from their tenants or whatnot, and it's actually maintaining a fairly public channel, okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application Lark& Folts, Esqs. on behalf of ELLEN F. EMERY 1999 REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 100' timber pile vinyl sheet bulkhead; as-built 80' timber pile tongue-and-groove sheet retaining wall with two 8' returns located ±25' landward of bulkhead; as-built 80' mid-bluff timber pile tongue-and-groove sheet retaining wall with two 8' returns located ±55' landward of bulkhead; as-built 85' timber pile vinyl sheet retaining wall with a 12' return and a 25' return located ±10' landward from top of bluff; as-built bluff stairs from top of bluff to beach consisting of a 4'x7' access platform leading to a 4'x28' set of stairs with associated 75sq.ft. Platform to a 4'x7' set of stairs with associated 95sq.ft. Platform to a 4'x17' set of stairs leading to a 4'x13'walkway with a 4'x10' set of stairs to beach parallel to bulkhead, supported by 8"timber pile posts and composite materials on stair treads and decking; as-built 1,800 cubic yards clean fill spread evenly between retaining walls to replace lost bluff material with placement of erosion control jute matting on bluff; for a proposed rear-yard drainage system to direct roof rain and surface water away from house foundation and upland retaining wall by providing a drainage swale with 4" PVC pipe to a drywall in the front yard area; and for a proposed 200sq.ft. deck of composite decking supported by 6"x6" posts located 10' landward from top of bluff. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF JUNE 30, 2015: For the as-built 100' timber pile, vinyl sheet bulkhead; as-built 80' timber pile tongue-and-groove retaining wall with two 8' returns located ±25' landward of bulkhead (buried); as-built 80' mid-bluff timber pile tongue-and-groove retaining wall with two 8' returns located ±55' landward of bulkhead; as-built 85' timber pile, vinyl sheet retaining wall with a 12' return and a 25' return located 7' to ±10' landward from top of bluff; as-built bluff stairs from top of bluff to beach consisting of a 4'x7' access platform leading to a 4'x28' set of stairs with associated 75sq.ft. landing to a 4'x7' set of stairs with associated 95sq.ft. landing to a 4'x17' set of stairs leading to a 4'x13'walkway with a 4'x10' set of stairs to beach parallel to bulkhead; as-built±1,800 cubic yards clean fill spread evenly between retaining walls to replace lost bluff Board of Trustees 40 August 19, 2015 material with placement on top thereof an erosion control jute matting with plantings of American beach grass and environmental grasses; as-built drainage system to direct roof rain and surface water away from the house foundation and upland retaining wall by providing a drainage swale with a 6-inch perforated pipe to drywells in the front-yard area; at the top of the bluff on the northerly property line, propose to extend the mid-bluff timber tongue-and-groove retaining wall 14' to the northerly property line; extend the vinyl sheet pile retaining wall landward from the top of the bluff 12' to the northerly property line; construct along the northerly property line a 6'x6' timber pile and lagged step-down binwall with 8 inch pile posts 10' long; remove small overhanging lip of vegetation at top of bluff to establish natural angle of repose; clear brush from the top of the slope; add ±20 cubic yards of clean sand and re-grade as necessary; place woven geotextile on re-graded area, and plant with beach grass and other environmental grasses; and related minor steps to complete project and restore landscaping; at the southerly property line, propose to extend retaining wall approximately 8'to the property line; increase height of retaining wall by 18 inches; reinforce with helical anchors; repair existing timber bulkhead wall at bottom by replacing damaged walers; clear brush; add ±10 cubic yards of clean sand and re-grade as necessary; place woven geotextile on re-graded area and plant with beach grass and other environmental grasses, and related minor steps to complete project and restore landscaping. Located: 5925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This project is a return from prior Board discussions and review. The Board went and performed inspection on August 12th. Still with some concern and at issue was the stairs to the beach, a platform associated with the stairs which was not as planned in the original permit, which exceeds the hundred square foot maximum, and walls that were constructed not in conformance with the prior permits. And the applicant proposes to put new extensions to existing retaining walls to have extended returns on the north and south. The LWRP -- I'm looking at this presently because I have not had an opportunity--the LWRP in the re-reviewed action is inconsistent. The recommendation still applies to the action even in consideration of the improved project. The reason is the as built construction of the structures. So the LWRP is noting the fact that we have as-built structures that do not have the benefit of a Town Trustee wetland permit. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. SELIGMANN: Good evening, my name is Dan Selligmann, I'm a licensed engineer in the State of New York, and I did the design for this. I'm just here to answer any questions you might have regarding any of the work that was done. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In doing the file review on behalf of the Board, and also the Board discussing it, the project, as in the Board of Trustees 41 August 19, 2015 • project description, you are basically bifurcate it. You seek to get an as-built permit for the prior work done, then you seek - to extend the retaining wall returns where there is some erosion evident. And the question, we could see the erosion evident, the question we have is with these returns going back into the land, as an engineer, do you not see the potential as neighboring properties also have erosion, since there is no tie in to neighboring bulkhead retaining walls, will there not be an additional tendency for water to go off these sheer faces and then cause the kind of erosion we are seeing? In other words is the solution you seek to extend those retaining structures back into the land, is that a solution or are there viable alternatives that should be done, considered ahead of that, that would be less structurally, you know, less of a face or combination of jute matting and stone, you know, stone material stabilizing them? Because the neighboring properties don't have the benefit of the extensive retaining wall, as built retaining wall structures. • MR. SELIGMANN: On the north side of the property, first let me say, that the walls that were built did not go to the property lines. So the idea here is really to extend those walls to protect the Emery property from property line to property line. And on the north side there is planned in the drawings to put a bin wall which runs east/west which would essentially protect Emery's property from the neighbor to the north. On the south side, the erosion there, again, the slope of the property in general, the way it's been sloped down, slopes toward the road. So any runoff, hopefully once the walls are built on the south side to the property line will allow the runoff to go to the road, of which there is extensive drainage plan done and drainage was, new drainage was put in on the property to keep the water from going over the bluff. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure I understand you, because I thought during the course --we have a photo here, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a set of plans? . TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. MR. SELIGMANN: Unfortunately, part of the problem as well is the , neighbor to the north is having erosion that is coming on to the Emery property. So whatever action they plan to take, it doesn't help Emery. So the idea is to try to cut off any erosion from that property on to Emery's. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I see here, it looks like helical screws are being proposed to back the system up, similar to what was used previously in construction. MR. SELIGMANN: Yes, that would be the piles that are installed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How are the piles installed with this construction with helical screws? Are they jetted in? MR. SELIGMANN: Typically, they are jetted or augured in, similar to what Mr. Costello had mentioned. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No driven piles? MR. SELIGMANN: No, there is no impact piles here. That photo is Board of Trustees 42 August 19, 2015 on south side of the property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are doing is looking at a set of plans here. Number 201 on the bottom,'just for the record. MR. SELIGMANN: Yup. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Can we ask for a clarification just to make sure we are all looking at the same part of the plan. It says provide pile and lag binwall stepdown the slope at place fill as necessary, maintain three to four slope minimum. So you are suggesting this binwall, which is the north side of the property down slope will not have a face, it will not have a facing wall on the north side that will be catching rain or erosion? MR. SELIGMANN: No, the intent of that wall is to minimize on to Emery's property any erosion that is occurring from the adjacent property, which right now there is erosion from the adjacent property, which I believe there are several photos that show. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the bluff is tending -- so let me characterize this and just tell me where I'm not getting this or if lam. If the neighboring bluff is starting to fail, okay, and understandably this binwall will protect and keep soils on the Emery property, but is it not as the wind, rain and other forces on that north face, is that just going to accelerate the down slope erosion on the neighboring property?And then it begs the question maybe we need to see an alternative or a point of armoring with stone or other material and a letter from the neighbor so we are not making worse erosion on the neighboring property as you are stabilizing Mrs. Emery's. MR. SELIGMANN: Again, most of the erosion on the north side is due to the neighbor's property. And I have spoken to the neighbor and I did a report for him outlining fairly much what you are saying. At this point, they have not decided what they are going to do. But to protect, again, to protect the Emery property-- I can't prevent erosion on someone else's property without-- all I can do is try to design something to try to protect the property that I was retained to protect. So it's, the wall is an east/west wall, so it's not facing any weather. That's why I call it, it's called a binwall. It's just like a bunch of bins. It just protects the fill that we intend to place to the property line of Emery to protect her side of the property. What happens on the north side, you know, hopefully they'll come to an agreement about how to stabilize that, and that will protect the property to the north. And I -- do you follow what I'm saying? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems there should be stabilization of the neighboring property. MR. SELIGMANN: And you are probably right, unfortunately I have no control over what the neighbor does. MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Cutchogue, New York, for the applicant. What Mr. Seligmann was referring to, I participated in talking to the neighbor and the neighbor's engineer. Soil and Water came , Board of Trustees 43 August 19, 2015 out and looked at it, Polly Wiggin came out and looked at it, and she said our retaining wall should be extended to the property line. This is on the north side now. And, they should extend it literally over to their deck and stairwell, which is probably about 50 feet. Because she says theirs is failing, and by extending the retaining wall from our retaining wall, if we do extend it to the property line, will`protect their bluff. She also found when she came out in the spring this year, that the deer were using that has a path on her property and they were exacerbating it because they were creating a gully going up and down. I was surprised to see that until she showed me the deer tracks of going up and down. But she then said both retaining walls, the upper one and lower one, should be extended across. Their engineer, which is the brother of the owner, acknowledged that, but he said it's too expensive at this time and we're just going see what happens and we are not going to do it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That Krupski property. MR. LARK: No, that's the other side. It's owned by Axelrod. The other side. And extensive conversation was done with Mr. Seligmann and them and it all came down to money. They didn't want to spend the money to extend. Because when the Soil and Water verified everything the engineer said, and I saw the erosion there, and if you look on their property, their fence is failing and things are gradually coming down. Fortunately we have not had too many storms in the last two or three months, thank God, so it has not exacerbated. But that was explored with them, because when Soil and Water came and said extend the line, do yours and let them extend. So the proposal you have from Mr. Seligmann will allow that in the future if they decide to deal with their erosion problem they can tie in. And Mrs. Emery personally spoke with the owner and said you have my permission to do it any time you want. MR. SELIGMANN: I want to point out I was retained to write a report on my findings, and that was my findings. Again, they are choosing to do whatever is financially best for them. So we can only protect the property I was retained to work with. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The permit that we granted for the stairs to the beach, based on the original line drawing of Chris Gentry, I think that was going back to a prior permitting cycle in 2014, may have been February of 19th, I don't think that the Board fully appreciated then that there was going to be such large pilings used for the construction of that set of steps. The not-to-scale scale drawing had it at four foot width going perpendicular, which may not be neither here nor there, it's for the Board to discuss, but I think the concern exists that most of the steps to the beach in this location are usually seasonal in nature or built with smaller timbers so that they can be extracted to allow other contractors and people that need to move along the beach to conduct activities. Does it pose a problem that modification be made to bring in seasonal steps as previously requested? I think that was Board of Trustees 44 August 19, 2015 requested -- MR. LARK: Do you have the affidavit of Marilou Folts before you? The statement you said is not factually true. If you'll read her affidavit with the pictures, I'll give you the numbers in a second for the record, but half of them are what we call parallel and the other ones are perpendicular. And there is only two of the entire length of the beach from the causeway to the tip that are -- and they are kind of flimsy, one of them I • saw, where they can retain them, you know, pull them in and out. And 50% are sideways. And when you look at them, and there is very little beach there anymore, but what little there is, if pedestrians or anybody is trying to move along, it's much better with the parallel than the perpendicular. And Mr. Bergen lives there, so he can verify. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think you misunderstood. It's not an issue so much with parallel versus perpendicular. It has to do with the fact they are so substantial that seasonally they are not capable of being removed. Because a lot of the work that takes place on bulkhead repair and replacement is seasonal work, and the timbers there are at least ten inch timbers, whereas the typical dock is made of steps and stringers of two by-- MR. LARK: Again. Not true. The ones that are parallel, most of them that are parallel are of similar material, they might not have the flow-through steps that we have, but they are not moveable. They are not moving anywhere. They are solid. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll have to defer to Trustee Bergen. MR. LARK: Yes. And you can see the picture and see her affidavit. She did an analysis of it. MR. SELIGMANN: I'll point out if you look at that photo there, there seems to be considerable room to get around the stairs, even at low tide, for access for equipment, and in fact from what I have seen, it's almost impossible to get equipment, heavy equipment down to that location, in that location. They have to come from quite a distance to do so. MR. LARK: For the record, there were 74 individual properties. 28 of them had fixed stairs perpendicular, 28 had fix stairs parallel, three had retractable perpendicular and two had retractable parallel. And one property had a dock perpendicular. There is only one dock on the whole thing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand. We have been involved with permitting issues with that and are familiar with that dock. MR. LARK: So that's the facts of what is there. Is that right, David? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll just address the issue of the stairs because I don't want too much emphasis, this is myself speaking, I don't want to overemphasize the stairs. I think the stairs situation is minimal compared to the rest of the issues on this property. I would agree totally, without going out and doing a numerical count, I'm sure what you are saying is correct with regard to the number of stairs being parallel versus perpendicular versus seasonal. I, myself, had approval from this Board of Trustees 45 August 19, 2015 Board for a parallel set of stairs that I chose not to construct. But the challenge is the scope of those stairs, in other words construction standards of those stairs, from what I observed, are much greater than what the Board would normally approve; which set of stairs, whether it's parallel, perpendicular, whatever. And I think that's part of the problem here is we are dealing with stairs and other structures that were constructed without a permit. If they had come in for a permit first, of course, we could have addressed that and the set of stairs, I'm surmising, probably would have been approved parallel, but maybe with downsizing of the pilings or maybe some changes one way or the other. That's the permitting process is coming in and getting a permit first before you build. Once somebody goes out and builds without permit, they are then coming back to us asking for forgiveness. We are not the bad guys. Coming back asking for forgiveness saying please give us permission to keep what we have there. And if it complies with current standards that we have done in the past, for myself, I don't have a problem with that. I don't.So with the stairs, I don't have a problem, I know what we approved was one thing and they chose to construct it differently, I don't have a problem with that. MR. LARK: And I do make an apology because I did personally ask the contractor two years ago when he did that, I said why did you do that. He said because they'll last. Because the other ones won't last, because what he encountered, because it was one of the last items that he did, and it was with the failure he was counting from up above and the way Sandy hit the property, you know, so that, it was a feeble excuse, but that's all I got from him. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does the Board have any other questions? (No response). I think we have a very complete record now. We have the report of the Soil Conservation Service, we've seen the plants are in conformity with the recommendations of Soil Conservation Service. We have the record shows the town drainage has been approved by the town engineering staff. The issues that remain for us and maybe would be appropriate to have the Board at next worksession discuss permitting aspects, take the time to go through some of these areas where we still have concerns, I know concerns exist that Dave Bergen gave a great description of the stairs at the bottom, the initial plan that we had approved had a single landing of course we end up with two landings, one exceeds the code minimum, so that's a point for discussion for the Board during a potential permit phase. And requested extensions to the retaining walls going north and south as we discussed. And the fact that the upper retaining wall was moved from its original planned location and is still above the height of the soil. I think there is some concern there also. We have a structure above that might encourage erosion. So I think these are issues for the Board to discuss as part of the permitting Board of Trustees 46 August 19, 2015 phase if we were to move forward. Do you have any thoughts concerning those; those are the issues that we seem to be, you know, dealing with now as a Board. MR. SELIGMANN: I can address some of those. With regard to the landings, again, there are walls in there, retaining walls, to help retain the bluff. The stairs, the lower stairs, are anchored to those walls, so the geometry would be governed by the location of that wall. As far as it being a turnaround stair, again, part of that, I believe, the contractor did that because of the geometry issues that we had trying to anchor the stairs to the backside of the wall. And also be able to get the correct rise and run of the stairs to get down to the beach. So again, I don't want to address it-- I believe the drawings indicate that that stairs is 75 square feet. I would have to check. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, that's the area of the landing. The actual platform, the code is specific to platforms associated with stairs is limited to 100-square feet. This actually was a code change that took place after the initiation of construction, so you had the benefit of a code change in the interim. Previously they were limited to 32-square feet. It was based on the current Board's observations and experience that we felt they could be enlarged somewhat, because we carefully constructed open decking as high as possible. We were comfortable with increasing those deck areas to make them safer and allow for benches in some cases, but this is over 120-square feet. So it's not-- the stairs end up going down on to it. We've got the measurements here in the file. It's essentially 10x12. MR. SELIGMANN: Again, are you referring to the sum total of both stairs or both landings? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm talking about the lower platform is a platform that exceeds code by at least 20-square feet. MR. LARK: They are all under 100 square feet, each one of them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, we went out and measured them. I'm not here to argue, I'm saying we went out and measured each one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just for point of clarification, I measured it twice and the measurements are like within a half a square foot. So it's a 75 square foot landing area that you walk on, but the decks proceed up over, excuse me, the stairs proceed over the landing on both sides, so there is area that is covered by the steps, but it's landing itself which is over the bluff face. The landing itself was measured up by Trustee King the last time we were out. It was measured up by myself and an independent assessment prior and it was also measured up by Trustee Domino. Three separate Trustees, essentially three separate days,just to make sure we got it right. The day-- MR. LARK: I'll give you what the surveyor measured it. MS. HULSE: Hold on. Would you finish your thoughts please, finish what your sentence was. I don't think you finished it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically we had the structure, here again, it goes to the point Trustee Bergen made that was constructed without the benefit of a permit and it exceeds the code Board of Trustees 47 August 19, 2015 requirements, and three Trustees on at least two separate occasions measured it up and it exceeds the Town Code requirement of not exceeding 100 square feet. MR. LARK: Would you accept a certification from the surveyor as to what they actually are, a licensed surveyor? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I saw what the licensed survey said. A landing is not the same as a deck. In other words, the platform, we are talking apples and oranges here. MR. LARK: No, you are not. It's not a platform and it's not a deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I would have to say that the members of this Board are capable of making physical measurements with a tape. Some of us have done it for quite a while. MR. LARK:,So you are disputing the measurement of the surveyor? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm disputing the fact that we have an application that says 75-square feet and we measured up a landing. We didn't-- it's not arguable that we have a 75-square feet of quote landing, but the platform beneath including the area covered by the stairs is in excess of 120 square feet. MR. SELIGMANN: All I can tell you, I don't want to get into that semantics. My only comment again is going back to the structural issues of being able to anchor the stairs to the wall. They required that landing to be that way. That should answer that question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The physical dimensions of a platform is what we are talking about here. So I think the upper retaining structure, there is serious concern by the Board, the upper retaining wall, there again, it might be a great limiter for limiting lawn and other such areas but the fact is it has an east facing slope, so with driven rain, wind and snow, the Board is concerned it starts to be a focal point for erosion. I think the members of the Board feel that upper retaining wall cut flush to the grade would be more appropriate given the typical storms and the face of it that it's at. And it's a highly • unusual place. There again, it did not have the benefit of a permit so the Board was not involved in a discussion with the engineers or engineering staff ahead of time as to the size and scope of the construction. MR. SELIGMANN: I can address the upper wall. Again, there are several retaining walls there built especially for the purpose to limit the amount of erosion potential that is there. It's not just one wall at the top and one at the bottom. We limited --the slip surface of the slope is limited by those walls. That's why they are designed that way. As far as the location of the wall, I guess you are asking two things, you are asking the height-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The issue now is the height, because behind it to the house ward side is sloped away now and you have gorgeous drainage on the property. So it should not be an issue with erosion or water there. But it's seaward, the seaward side of it is still some whatever, 18 inches approximately above, 12, 18 inches above-- Board of Trustees 48 August 19, 2015 MR. SELIGMANN: 12 inches above. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing) 12 inches above, and there is just a concern that while we are addressing issues after the fact, ex post facto, if you have an engineering thought that is counter to the feelings of the Board and our experience, we are thinking this probably could be cut flush and would minimize those concerns we have. MR. SELIGMANN: I think having a physical barrier between the slope going to the west and the bluff is an advantage because you would not have any rainwater or any wind, rain or snow action that is on the other side of the wall, the water will drain to the west, as you point out, the nice drainage that was created. If you cut the wall flush, now you have potential for it to erode and now it can erode back over to the other side and now you would be creating potential problem on the bluff side. That wall is 16 feet into the ground. That is not, I don't see -- I understand your concern but I think it's actually better to have a physical delineation between the two to allow the drainage that was designed to go to the west to go to the west, and not potentially have erosion once you cut that flush, and now to potentially erode over the wall and now you create a problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Here is the thought I have. The ever-present deer you mentioned, deer running up and down these slopes. Now when the deer tries go north and south, he runs along the wall, next thing you know there is no lawn there and there is no vegetation along the wall. MR. SELIGMANN: Should we put a sign saying no deer crossing here? Obviously we can't--that was a little tongue in cheek, I'm sorry. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have all seen bluff failure already, caused by deer, and here not only is this barrier, but there again, every foot or two we see above grade with a smooth surface, I'm just sort of trying to think through this. appreciate your take on it. And the Board has heard it. Does the Board have any additional questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any outstanding violations right now, on this property? Do we know? Are there any outstanding violations? MS. HULSE: Yes, there are. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. And our attorney just said there are. Just for informational purposes, it is not our habit to grant a permit when there are outstanding violations. So it's just a suggestion the outstanding violations get taken care of because that will sure expedite things. MR. LARK: Yes. We put them on hold pending the outcome of this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All I'm saying is that it's not our habit to issue permits when there is outstanding violations. MS. HULSE: To release permits, right. Board of Trustees 49 August 19, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. To release permits. Yes MR. SELIGMANN: If I can, one more, to discuss the deer. There is a fence this high on the other side of that wall also and there is a fence to the neighbor to the north as well. So as far as the deer are concerned, there is a barrier there no matter what. For them. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. I don't know how the Board feels about this, but I'm uncomfortable with moving to an approval phase tonight without possibly looking at the site one more time or taking up some of the issues that we have discussed here during the course of the hearing for consideration that the project is taking several years,to move ahead without our - approval, it doesn't seem like we necessarily want to move to a different phase, and given the fact that there is a violation that would be a wise maybe to settle ahead of that. I don't know how the other Board members feel. I want to share that. TRUSTEE KING: For four years this has been going on. We start out with a single stairway going down with a 32-square foot platform on it. And this is what it's grown to. Very disturbing. Very troubling to me. Personally. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very troubling to all of us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could just make a suggestion for the applicant. Obviously you have heard what the Board has had to say tonight. A suggestion to go back to your client for consideration. You have heard discussion about the top wall. You have heard discussion about the landings being in excess of code; and you've heard discussion about the stair, the construction standards of the stair. So just something to go back and have a conversation to see if there is any opportunity for amendment, movement, whatever. And not to be forgotten in all this, definitely, I know for myself, I agree, I do see a need for erosion control with the problems that you are having with the two sides, the east and west side. We saw that in the field, and agree there needs to be something done to address that erosion. I don't want that to be forgotten. We started with that discussion, we've gotten into other discussions, I just want to make sure you understand I don't have a problem with that. And I think the Board agrees. Some type of erosion control is needed as long as it's engineered correctly and it doesn't have a negative impact on the neighbors. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds like a great suggestion. I think it's a worthy one. If we are to employ that suggestion of Trustee Bergen then we should probably table the application and maybe table it for a limited time of one month to allow the applicant to gets back to us if there are some discussions amongst the applicant, their engineer and Ms. Emery to get back to us in case we needed a further amendment to what is before us before we close the public hearing and move into a potential permitting phase. Does that sound reasonable? MR. LARK: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, is there anyone else who wishes Board of Trustees 50 August 19, 2015 to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments or concerns I'll make a motion to table this application for one month to allow the applicant to consider some of the discussions we have had here and possibly bring us a return, ideally if there was a request for change you could come before next month's field surveys which are scheduled for September 9th, so that the Board would have the opportunity for any change you would propose to review during monthly field surveys. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, jil,"-- aliv% 064/41105,7(4)-2,M John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED -C'► led SEP 1 7 2015 S%iOpry\ Soelicata hold ow Clerk '