The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-09/16/2015 of' / S0074,-- c . John M. Bredemeyer III,President ,� o Town Hall Annex Michael J. Domino,Vice-President � l0 54375 Main Road * , P.O. Box 1179 James F. King,Trustee 41( Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen,Trustee ` �0 ��1 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Charles J. Sanders,Trustee % (ift A Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECCMinutes !VED -Ft led G a ' pni Wednesday, September 16, 2015 AdCA 5:30 PM C:L Southold Town Clerk 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, October 14, 2015 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 5:30 PM WORK SESSIONS: Monday, October 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 19, 2015. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For those of you who have not been to a Trustee meeting before, we have extra copies of the agenda on the lectern, probably both left and right. Help yourselves. Also in the agenda you'll see there are a number of items that have been postponed. They are listed as follows: Number Four on page four, 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, has been postponed. Number ten on page seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ROBERT& Board of Trustees 2 September 16, 2015 MARGARET SLIFKIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 4'x123' timber catwalk, 3'x12' ramp; and three (3)6'x18' floating docks; and to add two (2) new piles and four(4) stop beams in order to keep the two most landward floats off the bottom. Located: 2520 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue. SCTM# 103-3-11, is withdrawn. And numbers eleven, 12 and 13 on page eight, En-Consultants on behalf of RYAN HUTCHINSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock consisting of a 4'x78'fixed catwalk using open-grate decking; a 3'x14' hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' "T" configuration float secured by(4) 8" diameter pilings with chocks to support the float; and equip the dock with water and electricity. Located: 1030 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 104-9-12; Number 12, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KONSTANTINOS ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x52' set of bluff stairs to beach with 6 landings consisting of a 4'x4' top landing, one 4'x4' upper mid landing, one 4'x6' upper mid landing, two 4'x4' lower mid landings, and one 4'x8' bottom landing with 4' wide steps to grade. Located: 980 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM#30-2-78, has been postponed. And number 13, 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 +1-30' 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 have been postponed. At this time I'll make a motion to hold the next field inspection on Wednesday, October 14, 2015, at 8:00 AM. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion for the next Trustee meeting Wednesday October 21st, at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion for work sessions, Monday, October 19th, 5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and Wednesday October 21st, at 5:00 PM in the main meeting hall. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of the August 19th, 2015 meeting. Motion to approve. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2015. A check for $10,700.25 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. Board of Trustees 3 September 16, 2015 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, September 16, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Ronald E. Cassara SCTM#73-4-1 FBO Associates, LLC, do Arnold Fisher SCTM# 7-1-2.1 Katie Nickolaus SCTM# 51-1-2 Southold Sunsets, LLC SCTM#54-4-3 FBO Associates, LLC, do Arnold Fisher SCTM#7-1-2.1 Willow Point Association, Inc. SCTM# 56-5-28 Joan Beletsis, do Stamy Beletsis SCTM#21-5-4 William H. Price, Jr., Esq. SCTM#43-5-10 Corchaug View LLC SCTM# 116-1-8.3 Robert & Margaret Slifkin SCTM# 103-3-11 Denis & Nancy Cole SCTM#57-1-17 Ryan Hutchinson SCTM# 104-9-1 Konstantinos Zoitas SCTM#30-2-78 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to have a more orderly meeting and to dispense with items that the Trustees have found are minor in nature, that we have already reviewed the applications for and done field inspections for, for administrative permits, we will group these to expedite the meeting. They are not subject to a public hearing, so we'll group them according to the ability to approve some in a group where we have performed our inspection and environmental review. Accordingly I would move to approve under Item IV, Resolutions for Administrative Permits, I would move to approve item one, item two, item three, and item number five as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, Samuels & Steelman on behalf of PETER & SUSAN HONIG request an Administrative Permit to construct an 84sq.ft. addition onto the side of the dwelling; and install a 12'x12.6' terrace and a 5'x6' outdoor shower landward of addition. Located: 745 Waters Edge Way, Southold. SCTM#88-5-62 Number two, Nancy Dwyer on behalf of THOMAS MACARI requests an Administrative Permit to remove the lap siding from the existing 1,700sq.ft. 1 1/2 story dwelling which will expose the studs, install new sheathing onto the exposed studs, and install cedar siding; and replace the 525sq.ft. deck and deck support posts attached to dwelling on existing footprint. Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 111-14-19 Number three, ALFRED A. MAGILL requests an Administrative Permit to install an 8'x10' shed on the property. Located: 1145 Fleetwood Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 137-4-26. And number five, K. Russell Glover, Architect on behalf of CELESTE THEOPHILOS Board of Trustees 4 September 16, 2015 requests and Administrative Permit to remove a set of existing bluff stairs and landings that encroach onto the property from the abutting property by cutting the posts at ground level and remove all stair debris off site; no ground disturbance will occur. Located: 310 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM#21-5-5 That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and second to approve the group. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number four, Trustee King, if you would take that one, please. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Number four, PETER SCHAEDEL, JOANNE BLUM, WILLIAM SCHAEDEL &JAN SCHAEDEL request an Administrative Permit to replace the existing ramp and floating dock with a 3'x12' aluminum ramp and a 5'x20' floating dock to be held with two (2) 6" diameter pilings; and re-position the ramp and dock to extend out in the center of the "U" shaped basin. Located: 3830 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 122-4-25 I went out and looked at this. It was found inconsistent. The structures were not constructed with the benefit of a Board of Trustees review permit. That's the reason it was found inconsistent. I didn't see any permit in the file for the basin but I vaguely remember being out there a few years ago. It's a whole new basin. And there is a stone buffer around it. It's buffered. I didn't have any issues with it. It's all within the applicant's property. It's carved out into their property and they just want to put a ramp and float within that basin. thought it was pretty simple and straightforward. I had no issue with it. I would recommend approval and find it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made to find this application consistent with the LWRP by virtue of obtaining a permit, and it has an existing buffer. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item Five on your agenda. The applications for extensions transfers and administrative amendments, similarly for these actions that were minor in nature and for which there was no need to change any of the applicant's requests and where the Board has already reviewed the files and performed field inspections on these applications, we can group a number of these together that are simple and are not going to be altered. Accordingly I would move to approve item one, item two, item four, and item five. They are listed as follows: Number one, GINA MAXWELL & BRUCE OSTER request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#3694 from Anthony& Carolyn Leggio to Gina Maxwell & Bruce Oster, as issued on March 30, 1989. Located: Board of Trustees 5 September 16, 2015 2300 Glenn Road, Southold. SCTM#78-2-40 Number two, ANDREW& LINDA TOGA request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8532 for the second 4' long wooden bench on the landing. Located: 2425 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. SCTM# 51-6-40. Number four, ROBERT P. AUTERI requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#8537A for the replacement of the cement patio on landward side of cottage with a 14'x16' area of brick pavers; the addition of 8 cubic yards of sand/top soil in an area along the east side of cottage and landward of cottage; and install stepping stones from driveway to waterside porch. Located: 3885 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 123-5-31 And number five, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of RONALD & THERESA FURMAN request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8432 for the as-built 4'x97' fixed dock with 4'x8' steps at seaward end that was installed further south than originally proposed. Located: 1455 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 116-7-7. That's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number three is Walter J. Strohmeyer, Jr., Chairperson on behalf of ORIENT-EAST MARION PARK DISTRICT requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit #8525A to include a 4' high split-rail fence starting at the northwest corner of the parking lot and running +/-135' directly towards the water and ending above the Mean High Water mark, with the first+/-20' to overlap the existing fence of the abutting property; install two 8' high posts each topped with a sign at+/-35' and 70' from starting point of fence; around the seasonal porta-potties, existing seasonal "L" shaped screening enclosure made of latticework wood; add two signs onto the existing eastern fence; install two signs approximately 8' in off the shoulder along the private road that runs alongside the seawall. Located: 17805 Route 25, East Marion. SCTM: 17-5-3.3 The Board in reviewing the code provisions for signage and inspecting the site and measuring the proposed length of the fence finds that the proposed signage exceeds the code limitation and that the fence as proposed was excessively long. Accordingly I'll make a motion to alter the, rather stipulate a change from what the applicant had applied for and I would move to approve this application with the stipulation that only one sign on the west side fence be displayed on the split-rail fence, and that the split-rail fence would be only 80 feet in length and run no longer than 80 feet seaward of the existing parking lot barrier, and not the 135 feet that was initially applied for. So again, it would be one sign instead of two, and 80 feet seaward of the barrier. The other sign provisions in the application can be placed and we noted that the barrier screening that is around the port-a-potties is non jurisdictional. So my motion is to approve as stipulated, noting also that a portion of the application is beyond our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. Board of Trustees 6 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a motion to go off the regular meeting agenda and enter into the public hearings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Public hearings. Number one, RONALD E. CASSARA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built installation of 1 to 2 ton boulders placed along +/-230 feet of bluff toe; restoring the bluff face with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean fill deposited from above; the installation of erosion control matting on a steep section of bluff; and American beach grass planted along bluff surface. Located: 30185 Cabots Wood Road, Peconic. SCTM# 73-4-1 The Trustees did a field inspection on the 9th and noted that it was a fairly straightforward application. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CASSARA: I'm Ronald Cassara. First of all, thank you very much, for allowing me to be here today. And I apologize for not obtaining the proper permit in the first place. At the end of the day it was my responsibility. Storm Sandy had a devastating effect on my bluff and I was extremely concerned about the consequences. I met with two of the Trustees in the immediate aftermath and it was suggested that a stone revetment was the best option. Contractor stone, fill plants, were all in short supply. The first contractor obtained an emergency permit for sand bags, to fill in the plantings. Prior to implementing the activities authorized under the original permit, several knowledgeable persons including an experienced contractor, a senior DEC administrator, suggested boulders should be used. One to two ton boulders were placed along the bluff, as originally placed by the previous owner about 1950. The bluff face was restored with clean fill. American Beach Grass plugs were planted along with erosion control matting. And I thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Questions, comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 7 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application number two, En-Consultants on behalf of KATIE NICKOLAUS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 300 linear feet of stone revetment along eroding toe of bluff with angled westerly and easterly returns; restore bluff face with terrace retaining walls, approximately 2,400 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment, and native plantings; establish vegetated 15' non-turf buffer with berm on landward side of bluff crest; remove existing swimming pool and patio; relocate existing sanitary system located near bluff more than 100 feet from bluff crest; install drainage system at least 100 feet from bluff; and remove any discharge pipes protruding from the bluff face. Located: 17555 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 51-1-2. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I'm sure the Board has made itself quite familiar with this site over the past couple of weeks. This was originally a project for which the Trustees issued permits back in 2011. And just to review for the record what the originally-intended purpose of the project was and what the purpose of the project remains, was a comprehensive bluff stabilization and shoreline retreat plan. It is a plan that I had worked on with Jeff Butler who is the design engineer and the Nickolaus family who has owned the property for the duration. It's a project that we probably started working on back in 2010, probably after the Christmas storm, if not prior to that; had several meetings with the DEC at the site; talked with the Trustees about the site; we had hearings; the original applications were approved; the application was deemed to be or recommended by the Trustees to be deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator and was determined to be consistent in approval by the Trustees. And the original plan called for the placement of a stone revetment at the toe of the bluff, the complete re-engineering of the base of the bluff including extensive terracing, re-nourishment, revegetation, cutting back the lip at the top of the bluff, construction of a vegetated berm to controlled runoff, and also the demolition and removal of pre-existing nonconforming swimming pool and patio, which by the time the Board looked at this application several years ago was sitting right very close to the top of the bluff. Although at the time there was no proposal to relocate the house, I was advised by the owners that they, and I have now since seen it, but since the time that permit was issued, they also relocated the house. I understand that there was some issue regarding the relocation of the house to the effect that the Building Department apparently had issued a permit for that but the Trustees did not. I would focus on the fact that that is something the Trustees would want to have happened, regardless. So if that is something that needs to be addressed after the fact, obviously we would address it. So at the end of the day there was a bluff stabilization, Board of Trustees 8 September 16, 2015 reconstruction and shoreline retreat project proposed as a comprehensive plan. It was a good plan. It remains a good plan. But what has happened is, as we have all learned over the past few weeks, is that instead of coming in twice over the past four years and paying a $50 fee and extending the permit, in which case this permit would still be valid through the end of this November, the permit was allowed to lapse. The contractor started the job with the permits being expired. There was also an issue, as I understand, that has been brought to my attention, and I have seen it, regarding actual execution of the plan with respect to access. Although the --well, let me take one step back. If the Board remembers, it was not just this property that was approved for re-vetting, it was this property and the property to the east, the McAllister property. So the original plan actually called for a short angled westerly return on the west side of this property, a short-angled easterly return on the east side, the McAllister property, and then one long continuous revetment across the two properties in between. Both this approved plan and the approved plan for the project to the east specified access from the top of the bluff. At the time, I have not honestly looked at the Minutes, I know there had been some conversation at the time of what that meant. There was some discussion of a crane at the top of the bluff that would lower material. I don't believe we ever specifically discussed vehicular access coming down through the bluff and that has, I know, raised a great deal of concern with the Board,just from the contact and communications I have been given thus far. I have gone out to the site, I have looked at it. The cut at the top is a bit awe inspiring on first glance, but basically it provided access for the stones to get down to the beach. I understand we have been contacted by the westerly neighbor's attorney, Patricia Moore. I don't know, I didn't see if Pat is here tonight or plans to speak. I understand that there has been some assertion that there has been some disturbance caused to the easterly side of that property to the west which is owned by, I believe by Mr. Booth. I have taken a look at it. I have to tell you, in all honesty, I have been looking at this shoreline with Jeff Butler the design engineer, I don't know if Jeff is here, if he made it, Jeff can offer testimony also. We have been staring at this particular shoreline now for the better part of five years. As the Board knows, you recently granted similar approval to Kevin Gallagher a few properties down to the east of the subject property, and much of that shoreline retains the same severely eroding slope that it has had for five years and more at this point. I don't have them here because I didn't plan to come here tonight and have a big fight with Mrs. Moore or the neighbor. But I mean Jeff and I have a photo array of the shoreline that dates back to 2010. So if-- and I should say that the Nickolaus' attorney Board of Trustees 9 September 16, 2015 Kevin McGowan from Essex, Hefter&Angel is also here. But I would just say from an environmental manager's perspective, if the assertion by the neighbor will be that some disturbance has been caused to part of his property in connection with the installation of the return, I don't doubt that. That would be common place. There is specific indications in the plan and of course conditions of your permit that any and all disturbed areas associated with this project are to be restored back to their pre-existing condition at the end of the project. Obviously the terracing and extensive re-nourishment and planting was never proposed to be extended on to the property to the west, but any part of that property that was disturbed would absolutely be Mr. Nickolaus' responsibility, to make sure he leaves that property along the property line as he found it. If there is going to be some assertion that that bluff to the west has now only begun eroding as a result of the beginning of this project, I would just respond to that now that it's nonsense. And again, we can provide extensive photographs of that, the condition of that entire bluff dating back several years. But again, unequivocally, any specific sloughing or loss of sand or sedimentation that occurred as a direct result of implementation of the stone would absolutely be the Nickolaus family responsibility to restore and resolve, and I believe their attorney has already conveyed that to Mrs. Moore. Beyond that, I'll let the engineers and attorneys fight that out. The only other thing I would say, and I would, I really say this as objectively as possible, is we would really urge the Board, if possible, whatever these peripheral issues are to, we are hoping that the Board will grant approval again for the same plan, for the same work so that it may continue, and whatever concerns, any and all legitimate concerns, both of the town and of the Nickolaus family, Booth and anyone with interest in the project are restored as quickly and efficiently as possible. I had originally contacted Jim about this because we were right on the cusp of the application deadline and I was, not even seeing the property, this is having had it described to me, I had great concern that this would then sit like it is now until the end of October. And everybody including your office worked very, very hard to make sure this got on before you tonight. And what I said to Jim was just to step back. The fact that this went on without valid permits is inexcusable. There is a violation that has been issued and the Nickolaus family has agreed they would, they'll absolutely pay that fine. I think they came here tonight with their checkbook. I don't know if that's resolved but they are absolutely willing to resolve it. And the issue of the access, you know, we'll, I'm sure they'll hear you out. But what has been done to get this work started has been done, and as I said to Jim, pretend this had been done for some completely unrelated and stupid reason like somebody wanted to destroy the bluff and create an access route so they can bring ATV's on to the beach. Other than public chiding and Board of Trustees 10 September 16, 2015 fines and punishment, what would the Trustees want to have happen. You would want to have the bluff immediately stabilized, immediately re-nourished, immediately replanted and restored as quickly as possible. This entire plan has been designed from its get-go to accomplish that purpose. And dating all the way back to my initial conversations with the DEC, when I spoke to George Hammarth and at the time this goes back to Karen Graulich, they said would we don't want to see a permit being issued just to put a bunch of stone at the bottom of the bluff. We want to see structures being retreated from the shoreline. We want to see demolition of that pool and patio at a minimum, we want to see a comprehensive bluff restoration with stabilization, re-nourishment and plantings. So that remains the purpose of this application. And the sooner the Nickolaus family is allowed to get back to that, the sooner everybody's concerns can be addressed and resolved and that cut can be refilled and terraced, nourished and planted. With that, I would ask the Board to voice whatever concerns or questions you have and then I can either respond to them or pass your questions on either to Mr. Nickolaus himself or his attorney or his engineer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, there are probably several other issues that will probably not be addressed by this Board but would be part of the development of the property that include needing a state SWIF permit and a town permit under the town's provisions of 236. I did have opportunity to work with the Town Engineering Department on a preliminary basis and I think there is general agreement that we would try to work quickly, the engineering department would try to work as quickly as possible to address issues concerning 236, and if they need help with the SWIF authorization from the state, given the degree of disturbance to the soils there, and concerns about the destabilizing the bluff from the bluff cut which is so proximal to the demolished switching pool and the old foundation. Additionally, there were communications from the Town Engineering Department with the US Army Corps of Engineers and there was some concerns there about the activity taking place at mean high water and with some of the staging taking place below mean high water. Again, I believe that the Trustees discussed that at worksession and we'll leave those sorts of things to be approached independently by yourself on behalf of the Nickolaus', and I don't know if any of that has come to your attention yet. But this is starting to, there was some discussion starting with respect to that. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Well, I can respond to each of those quickly or you can keep going. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just one more point. I think the Board agrees the situation is certainly difficult there and we want to move and expeditiously to see the project meets the standards of the Town Wetland Ordinance and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Board of Trustees 11 September 16, 2015 Management, particularly as it relates to the support of lateral lands and the activities that have already started where there may be at issue concerns on the, particularly the westerly return and of the bluff face. Go ahead, I know you were going to finish. MR. HERRMANN: On that topic, Jay, one, at an absolute minimum, and I'm glad you raised those because there is obviously a lot that has gone on here, very quickly. But one of those issues, one modification at a minimum that would have to be made to the plan relates to the prior description of the fact how these two properties originally were designed to run together. So because McAllister has apparently not decided to proceed with the project at this time, and I don't know whether they have kept their permits current or not. Unfortunately I have not heard from these folks in a while. But we would have to show on the plan now an easterly return on this property. So we included in our project description, because the way the plan was originally depicted showed an overall 300 linear feet of stone inclusive of the return, and that number has not changed. It's just on the east side a portion of that stone instead of running parallel would have to get cut in. The issue as it relates to the US Army Corps of Engineers, that is tricky because originally this project was designed to be implemented completely landward of the spring high water line, which would be out of Section 404 jurisdiction, also out of the Rivers and Harbors Act jurisdiction. Obviously quite a bit has changed down there not only over the years, but as a result of the work that has begun some of the sliding of the sediment at the bottom, et cetera, and when the work was stopped there is a bunch of these large boulders, as you have seen, that are in effect currently stored really seaward of where they are supposed to be stored. And unfortunately when the stop-work order was issued, it's not like a renovation or something, the carpenters or plumbers can pack their trucks and drive away. You have five-ton stone that has to the moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We appreciate that elaboration, because that was the concern of the engineering department when they were there. MR. HERRMANN: Now, with regard to the SWIF, that is something that I have heard preliminarily. I have to discuss it with, we have to explore it with Jeff. He, in his defense, has not had enough time since being brought back into this to look at it. Just for the record, we understand that a SWIF was required by the town as a local matter, regardless. A state SPDES permit and the associated SWIF is only required when you are disturbing more than a mathematical acre. And that is not a mathematical acre over the life of the property with separate projects. It's being disturbed as part of a particular project. So. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's probably beyond our ability-- MR. HERRMANN: Well, that's the thing. The original revetment plan would not have exceeded that requirement. And that is the plan that is before the Board tonight. But as I said, I was Board of Trustees 12 September 16, 2015 unaware that the house had been moved. And while that is a wonderful thing from the Board's perspective, that obviously created additional disturbance. So somebody who is SWIF certified has to be able to look at that and determine what the overall area is and then if a SWIF plan is needed, they would obviously prepare it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For the sake of sharing information, it's my understanding that the SPDES unit of the DEC had a representative at the site and that the need for that may be forthcoming. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. We were contacted by the Tidal Wetlands staff, I believe after they had met with you. And we were told that a warning letter would be issued regarding the controlled sedimentation and so forth. And the question of the SPDES permit came up. And my understanding was there is at least one or two staff people from the water unit at DEC who would make the decision about the need for SPDES, would be going out to the site. I have not heard back, I don't know if that's been done. All I can say if it's not required, I don't expect that the engineering department could force us to do it. And if it is required we would obviously do it as quickly as possible. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The reiteration is the Town Engineering Department also understands the need to move quickly with this and they are willing to sit down with the worksession with the Trustees. MR. HERRMANN: Great. That's all I have. Jeff, did you want to offer anything or wait to see if you are needed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think you might have some questions from the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I just wanted a point of clarification from when the original permit was issued. And my memory reflected that I asked the question about access, I went back and I looked at the Minutes. And, yes, the issue of access was addressed, and material i.e. the bluff restoration material, sand, was to come in from the top. Other access was to be from a barge, from the sea. So I just wanted to put that on the record that that discussion was held in the original hearing because of our concern of the bluff during construction, as we mention normally with a lot of other permits for similar activities along Long Island Sound. MR. HERRMANN: Right. And Dave, honestly, I don't remember, I don't recall, as I said, I have not looked at the Minutes. I did see that the plan referenced access from the top of the bluff but as I recall the conversation at the time, and I don't remember if he was here at all, but Mr. Nickolaus had been in talks with John Costello at that time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. MR. HERRMANN: And John had talked about access from a crane from the top. And I remember somebody had asked him, you know, how do you know the crane can hold the stone, and he joked if it starts to tip over he knows the stones are too heavy. So I know the conversation. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is on the official record. The Board had, ahead of the meeting, had reviewed copies of that. It was Board of Trustees 13 September 16, 2015 discussed at that time. Thinking forward in the productive sense I think we'll be discussing a number of environmental issues surrounding the projects like this in the future. MR. HERRMANN: Agreed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Board members? (Negative response). Anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Booth. I want to thank the Board because I know you are very involved in this. I'm very happy that En-Consultants and Mr. Butler is back on this project. We have retained Joe Fischetti to help Mr. Booth with respect to the engineering that concern us. Some of the things that are really very basic here, are that, well, one, we are not looking for this family to be punished in any way or fines or anything to that effect. We want to be cooperative. Secondly, anything that can be done, the fines help the town but won't help Mr. Booth. So I would rather see the effort and the expenses go to remediate the condition that has resulted in a deterioration, further deterioration of the Booth property and the protection of the easterly neighbor as well. I understand both sides are very concerned about the condition, the post-start of construction condition of the bluff. We have not had an opportunity sit down and review it, and I would ask if at all possible, we have the second part of this hearing is the wetland permit application. You are working on the coastal erosion permit presently. What would be very helpful is for us, all of us that are here on this project, to sit down and review it in the hallway, at least preliminarily, because the attorney sent me an E-mail that he was away on Monday and Tuesday. Wednesday was the first day he was available. So at least we are all here now. It is not our goal to delay this in any way. I want to be clear about that. We just want to be sure that my client, on behalf of my client, the Booth property is protected and restored. My client, as you know, as my client's house is very, very close to the edge of the bank, and quite frankly he was moving things out of his house when that bank started to go because of its proximity. So I want to have him calm and assured that his property is going to be protected. One of the other issues are the topography that was used for the original plan, I understand was post-Irene but pre-Sandy. And there could have been significant changes to the bank, to the bluff, in the interim, so that the plan while it was engineered under one set of conditions, was actually another set of conditions when this project was actually started. So I want to be sure those are issues that the engineers are considering. And rather than have an exchange here on the record, I think for now would it would be very helpful for us to discuss it in the hallway. We are trying to come to an immediate agreement among neighbors to begin with. And then obviously the Board of Trustees 14 September 16, 2015 Board has to consider everything. But I think we are, we obviously want to encourage the restoration, the protection of the property. How it's going to be done, I'm not qualified, but that is why I have an engineer here and Jeff Butler is here as well. So I think their involvement is crucial, and we can use the time now to get an idea of what kind of a plan or paperwork you'll need to move this process along. I think the CAC has concerns as well, but more importantly we are trying to do an immediate stabilization of the properties. So that's our primary concern right now. I don't really know what to put on the record because I don't know what we can all agree to, you know, among the neighbors. And unfortunately because of the time on this project, and everybody's availability and involvement, there just has not been a lot of time. But the land will continue to erode. So with all due with respect I would ask this matter just be adjourned for a few, an hour or so, and maybe re-started as part of the wetland permit application, because then you can do both together, and deal with both issues simultaneously. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Just as a point of correction. We opened both hearings simultaneously. MS. MOORE: Oh, I wasn't here. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a rule they are both opened simultaneously since the issues are inter-related. MS. MOORE: All right. I assumed this matter would be at the back end of the calendar. Then I saw the coastal erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because this particular situation puts the Board in an awkward position. Because if this draws out, we are talking time is of the essence, to those of us who have lived through perfect storm Irene and Sandy. Unless, I would say, if the Board has no objection, but particularly if other individuals may want to briefly speak to the record, we might possibly recess this matter to near the end of the agenda if there can be some discussion. Also for a point of clarity, the Trustees understand this is a very difficult situation. During our Monday night worksession we had discussed the possibility if we need to we'll convene a special meeting to conclude the matter, if we can't have it resolved. Because it might be difficult for either way, for a meeting of the minds, for a submission of engineering plans, that different interests might have to have them come together, meeting of the minds, to satisfy the Board's interest might be difficult, so. I see a gentleman here wants to speak. Maybe some brief comments on the record, and if there is no principle objection and the Board has no objection. MR. MCGOWAN: Kevin McGowan of Essex, Hefter&Angel, for Mr. Nickolaus. I would just say, I'm not sure what would be accomplished with such a brief recess and such a short amount of time. In any event, any issue of damage that might have been caused by the return, installation of the revetment, the return Board of Trustees 15 September 16, 2015 on that side of the property, is purely a civil matter. If as we said Chesterfield is going to restore the bluff entirely once the work is done, if at that time there is still any outstanding claims or issues which we informed Ms. Moore's office, we would be happy to discuss it and deal with it then. But as of now, we want to move forward with this so it is not left in its current condition. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, as the Chairman of the Trustees and speaking for the whole Board, we have been out there a goodly number of times. I'm not sure if this distills down to us. It's simply a matter of it might be a civil issue, because we have witnessed some of the land failing of the westerly neighbor and the uniqueness of the way the plot lines are, draws into question the fact that maybe backfilling and terracing and more extensive work might have to go beyond property lines, which exceed the current plans. And I'm sure the Board will be willing to take into consideration a meeting of the minds to have the appropriate extension of terracing and revegetation and fill to stabilize properties. But I think because of the way our ordinance is constructed, unless I'm advised differently by counsel, our obligations specifically go to the lateral support of adjoining properties. It's one of the main features of the Coastal Eosion Hazard Area ordinance. So, I'm -- MR. HERRMANN: Jay, I fully understand what you are saying in principle. I think the question that is being asked, as a matter of procedure, because again, there may be some civil side to this, but the part you and I are concerned about, which is the bluff restoration, if there was terracing or re-nourishment, or even a new revetment, or something that Mr. Booth was interested in undertaking, I mean, based on all my history with your Board, he would have to submit his own application for his own property with his own plans and his own design. And I understand Pat just said Mr. Fischetti has been hired presumably for that purpose. So while there could be some cooperation between Jeff and Joe, I'm sure we would all be welcoming that. But that's . not going to happen tonight. So the revetment with the return as it had been previously approved, is at the toe of the bluff. It's already been put in against that property line. And as I said, any simple re-nourishment work that would have been caused by that would be restored in-like. But if there is going to be structural additions, as you just said, over the property line on Mr. Booth's property, the Board's practice, and I'm sure Lori will correct me if I'm wrong, has always been they'll have to submit a separate application showing structures on that property. And that application would have to come from Mr. Booth. And we certainly would not do anything to try to inhibit that process. But it seems almost to me like, in other words, I don't know what Ms. Moore is getting at. Like are we going to go out in the hallway and decide who will pay for what? Because that has nothing to do with this Board or this plan. We have to be Board of Trustees 16 September 16, 2015 concerned with the substance of what is going to go forward. MS. MOORE: I'll just clarify. We have to treat this, your application, as if there are no property lines. Because of the angle, where the property lines are, and where the land has sloughed off and the bluff has fallen, it can't, we can't re-nourish or repair your side and expect that our side will be stable. So we have to treat this as if it's a continuous, natural feature. And we are working on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Let's direct it up here. MS. MOORE: Sorry. MR. HERRMANN: I understand what Pat is saying, but again, for whatever structural components would be on the Booth property, now I'll ask Lori to correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Booth would have to submit his own application showing those structures. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think for the purposes of this, the Board is sufficiently convinced that an emergency exists is sufficient. And time is of the essence. And I believe we would probably have to give consideration for work to continue beyond those property lines and whether we would require permits to follow or such. Because if we start to fall into the abyss, we are just going to eat up time. You know, we are going to generate a lot of heat and no light here, and no bluff protection. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I get that. But even for when this project came in as one purposely designed,joint project, we were still required to submit separate applications for McAllister and for Nickolaus, and those permits were issued separately. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess we'll continue to move forward with the public hearing then. It seems to be no willingness to go outside. I'm sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I was just going to interject and say let's resolve whether we are going to postpone this to the end of this meeting tonight or move forward with the public hearing. Because I feel like we are getting testimony now that is part of the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems pointless to do that. It doesn't seem to be a willingness to go. So maybe that will change with additional discussion during the course of the public hearing. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? MR. FISCHETTI: I thought this would have been cooperative, and especially hearing from Mr. Herrmann, the original design had some failures to it. Gravity just doesn't look at property lines. So this should have been looked at in the original design because the revetment and the construction was past the area of where it should have been. So once they started to excavate the revetment, that was directly perpendicular down the Topo lines. And that should not have been. It's along engineering design. I'm sorry for Mr. Butler, but this should have been brought up initially when it was designed that it would have been a problem when this happened and that the Booth property should have been notified. And the way to handle this is, I'm a construction man Board of Trustees 17 September 16, 2015 from a long time ago, that this should be done now, while you are doing your bluff stabilization. We are going to come back in afterwards? It has to be done now. The stabilization should extend past the property lines and to the Booth property while it's being constructed right now. That's what should happen now. Otherwise, if you guys stop at the property line, there is, we are left hanging to come back in for that permit when it should be done now. So we are saying in the method of cooperating, it should be fairly simple for them to extend the bluff stabilization past the property line to protect the Booth property. That's what has to be happen. MR. HERRMANN: I have just a few quick responses. One in the form of a question. One, just to respond to Mr. Fischetti's characterization he thought this would be cooperative. I think part of the issue here is the initial communication on this from Mr. Booth came through, not through a phone call. I've worked with Pat for 20 years. I didn't get a phone call on this, I got an E-mail to Mr. Nickolaus saying that Mr. Booth expects Mr. Nickolaus to pay for his engineering plans and his revetment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is irrelevant. MR. HERRMANN: I'm just telling you why there is concern by Mr. Nickolaus as far as cooperating. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is not an appropriate line of questioning. MR. HERRMANN: The second question would be understanding that there would be some structural continuation on to the Booth property. Is the Board saying that that is something that you would either(a) allow or(b) actually want to see come through this plan, so that that stabilization would go on to the property line and stop? Because then the question is it's going to stop where? And at what point is Mr. Nickolaus no longer responsible for the stabilization of Mr. Booth's property? And all I'm saying is that won't be resolved in the next 60 minutes in the hallway. It's far more complicated than that. Yes, the stabilization should absolutely continue onto the Booth property and it should continue onto the McAllister property. That's why we came in here and got permits from McAllister and Nickolaus. Mr. Booth only now has appeared with interest in stabilizing his bluff, and I don't begrudge him that interest. But I'm not sure that it's my client's responsibility to provide that at his cost. That's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I would like to put it to the Board to possibly recess this matter to allow some discussion, because otherwise I don't see we are in a position to move forward on this with the concerns that have been addressed, and we are just not, I don't think we are there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you talking about tabling this application? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'm talking about recessing to allow the parties to have some preliminary discussions. It may not come to a meeting of the minds in 60 minutes but you might be on the way. This Board has already offered to holdover a Board of Trustees 18 September 16, 2015 special meeting. I think we have extended ourselves quite sufficiently in the matter and that maybe 60 minutes, maybe you need an hour or so, and to provide that opportunity now because if this Board can't move forward and we don't feel we are sufficiently meeting the standards of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, conceivably the matter would be tabled or the motion would be lost, and I don't think that would be very good for anyone here. Board members, do you want to allow a recess? TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a problem giving them a chance to hash things out and fix things but I would like to move forward with this application tonight. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I support that position that Trustee King articulated. MR. ALLEN: Seth Allen, I'm with Chesterfield Associates. I'm the contractor. I just want to put a few things on the record with the Board as well. Regarding our access to the site, the plans do state, I was not involved with the original permitting or any of the original discussions with Costello Marine on the project. We have been involved with the homeowner for probably the last two or three years, pricing, going over different ideas. It does show access from the bluff. It did not state whether or not it was just a fill that was coming over the bluff and the stones had to come from water. We had always looked at this job and bid it as coming down the bluff. We have done a few jobs in the Town of Southold where we have done exactly the same thing, even on other jobs, cut across other properties to get down to the bluff, place all the stone, once the stone is in, we work our way back out and shape the slope, cover the road back over and do all the terracing and the planting, and by the time we get back out you would not even know we were down the bluff. One was off Oregon Road. I looked through our records, it was probably about a year ago, it was totally approved by the Board. I don't have the specific property. I have been involved with a couple on Fishers Island in the last year. Same thing, we cut a steep road down the bluff, placed all the stone as shown on the plans and worked our way back out and regraded it. I just want to state that for the record by now if we had had a valid permit, and again, major faux pas, without a doubt. The permit was in place, started to work as permitted. If we had not had a stop-work order we would probably would have been done placing stone now and we would probably be working our way back up the bluff. I just had to state that fact. We have done it before and within a period of about six weeks you won't even know we cut that hole in the bluff. Thank you, for listening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this point, with some advice of counsel and some discussion here that was not on the record, the Board is going to move ahead and conclude this hearing, and we'll entertain the application as it has been submitted since it would seem there is not going to be an opportunity to have a meeting of the minds. Accordingly, if there is anyone else who wishes to get their comments on the record, please try and keep your comments Board of Trustees 19 September 16, 2015 brief. MR. HERRMANN: Jay,just in response, I would like Jamie Nickolaus, who is the applicant, to speak. Because ultimately it's his decision, not ours, whether to go and meet outside or whatever. It's not my decision. MR. NICKOLAUS: Jamie Nickolaus. The purpose of this hearing is to renew the permits, which was an error on my part, and Chesterfields. But we have started the work. This was a plan that was approved years ago. Mr. Booth was here at that time, asked a few questions, didn't object. Whether it was built then or now, the goal is to save this property. And that's what I'm trying to do. And Chesterfield will do any repairs on Booth's side, not the full bluff, but whatever the return on the western side, he'll repair and he has already done that. So my goal tonight is to get those permits renewed to save this bluff, because we are approaching winter and nor'easters, and move on. We will get all the other permits that are required and done. This is not my field of expertise, but we have to move. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. MR. FISCHETTI: I'm not sure where the Board is going with this, but I just have to put on the record that if the project is completed as permitted and the stabilization is stopped at the property line, Mr. Booth's property is vulnerable. It will take some time for us to do whatever we have to do to get it stabilized. But right now when they, because the lower revetment extends beyond the vertical lines, which are gravity lines, which are perpendicular to the topography, we are vulnerable. So what I was hoping would happen, and I'm hoping that it still will happen, is Chesterfield continues the stabilization beyond the property line, carries the bluff stabilization perpendicular to the topography. We are not saying going all the way across. If the revetment stops, the revetment return should go slightly beyond the property line to help protect it. And that the bluff stabilization should end at a line perpendicular to the last revetment going up the line. So if can kind of say where it's going, it doesn't go all the way, but Jeff Butler understands where this has to go. I would like to see that happen. I would like to see Chesterfield while they are up there, to stabilize that. That has to be on the record. If it stops, something will happen here, then it will go to the courts. MR. HERRMANN: So, Jay, my question would be, given that what Mr. Fischetti is saying, certainly substantively makes sense, wouldn't the proper procedure for that be for Mr. Booth to submit an application for that work to continue on to his property? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not going to go there now. I don't think it's part of this hearing. MR. HERRMANN: I'm just not sure if you are asking us now, before you close this and take a vote, because I don't want to be left hanging here, are you asking us to include work onto Mr. Booth's property? Board of Trustees 20 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board will ask or make a determination according to the hearing, and I'm not going there now. MR. HERRMANN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Also for the record there is a letter that was addressed to the Trustees from Barbara Jones and Michael McAllister. They have only one concern with the project cited above and that is the effect it will have on their bluff. It's 17665 Sound Avenue. A lot of the existing bluff face on the Nickolaus property has been bulldozed away in the past few weeks to create a heavy equipment and construction road from the top of the bluff down to the beach. Boulders have already been placed at the shoreline via this road, cut like a canyon diagonally into the bluff, and some sort of trench has been dug on the western side of the property line. We assume this has all been previously approved and we sincerely wish the Nicholaus' only success in the whole project. We want this to be a big success. However with the work being done next door we want to be sure that measures have been taken in the design process that will ensure this project at 17555 Soundview does not act to dislodge our bluff or act in any way to speed up the deterioration of the bluff. As it stands now with the canyon road cut through the bluff and the very near our joint property line, there is now new exposure of soil open to erosion where there was never any exposure before. Our fear is that we'll now be dealing with erosion not only on our north side but from the west property line as well. Hopefully this will or has been addressed, and a plan to prevent erosion from all sides is part of the plan upon approval. I just want to enter that into the record. MR. BUTLER: Jeff Butler, professional engineer, for the Nickolaus', for this application. I agree with what Joe's concern where the revetment ends perpendicular to that going up the Booth property should be not just filled back in but terraced across as Jamie's is. The question I guess for you would be is that a new application or is that something that can be handled after this is reapproved? And a supplemental to this property, or a whole new, you know, that procedural question I guess is what Rob is asking and what Jamie is curious about. But I agree with Joe's concern on perpendicular to the revetment going up the Booth property. Obviously after it's all in, the Booth property gets protected by this wall because of the angle of the property lines, but what is disturbed during the construction should be terraced. I agree with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Butler, quick question. On the plans submitted August 31st, the revetment as constructed to the east shows straight, and I thought I understood, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Herrmann to say that that would now be angled. MR. BUTLER: It would need a return now because when we originally designed this, we were here for both applications at the same time, and it was discussion between the two property owners of it being a joint project. So we didn't have Board of Trustees 21 September 16, 2015 individual returns on the plan between those two property lines. Which now that only one is being built, this plan would have to be modified. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Correct. And this plan shows for continuation see adjoining property plan. So this is a meeting of the minds between your client and the people, the owner to the east, McAllister. Perhaps we can have the same thing for, between your client and the property to the west. It's not a stretch, I think. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Meaning that the perpendicular, to rephrase that, if I understood it correctly, in other words we would need a revised plan showing the angle of return and that the angle of return also if it struck an angle to the bluff that was not perpendicular, that it's understood that would also have to be stabilized. MR. BUTLER: Perpendicular or disturbed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Perpendicular or disturbed. MR. HERRMANN: That was really-- and I keep asking this question. Everyone keeps thinking I'm being antagonistic. I'm not. I'm asking the question. If we can work that into this permit, then that is something we can do. Because we have to amend the plan anyway for the return, which I mentioned. TRUSTEE DOMINO: My question would be why not adjourn for a few minutes to see if you can do that and then come back. MS. MOORE: Legally, there is no reason they couldn't request a short adjournment. MS. HULSE: But they have not requested that, Pat. They stood before you and said they have it. They are the applicant. The Board is deciding their application. They have indicated they don't wish to discuss it. The Board can continue discussing or make a motion to approve or deny their application. You know, that's the way it goes, so. MS. MOORE: Okay, if I can just speak on a few points, which is this situation, the activities without a permit have created this emergency situation. We are all trying to bend over backwards do get this resolved. We are trying to get this resolved. What we are talking about is design changes that, quite frankly, you know, I know Mr. Butler, but I want Mr. Fischetti to review Mr. Butler' proposal, and we were always willing from the beginning that any drawing that was done by them on our property, we would come in with an application ratifying what is being proposed over the property line. We are trying to be cooperative. But the problem here is that you are being asked to approve an application that is now different than what originally is before you. We have a different circumstance, different conditions on the ground that have to be addressed. So our efforts to be cooperative and to be, to expedite this, are going to put us all in jeopardy. I don't want to have to see the Board have to deny this to push them to talk to us. I'm hoping they will ask respectively for a few minutes to talk in the hallway. If they choose not to talk, we can't force them. We'll be in court. But then we'll be spending lot of money in Board of Trustees 22 September 16, 2015 court, in attorneys, rather than using the money in fix the problem. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are going around in circles now. Unless someone has a new issue that is material to this application, I would say, if not, I want to close this hearing at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Myself, I don't think we are anywhere near closing this hearing. I think there is other people in the audience who want to have an opportunity speak. I have questions that I want to ask. So I would not want to rush this hearing to closure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? MR. BOOTH: Hi. Ed Booth, 17235 Soundview Avenue. I'm looking at that picture over there, and I watched this go on for quite a few weeks, took a lot of pictures. And the first thing that happened was a very deep hole was dug underneath my property of course, because you are aware of the fact that the boundary line slants. Everybody has been talking about that. But from my point of view, the most important thing would be to remediate the landslide that occurred thanks to the backhoe coming into my bluff. The sand slid down. That little landslide is pointed right toward my porch. Okay, it would be nice if that got fixed as a first priority. Just to deal with the immediate danger have to my house, which might last, it could easily last a long time. It won't quite get there possibly. But it would be cruel, I think, for those who disturbed that soil would put some whatever, these boards in there, what do they call them. Steps. Anyway, it looks like steps on the drawings. It's the short-term thing I'm concerned with, just to keep the place from collapsing over the next month or two. If this hearing goes on until Christmas, you know, I'll move into some other place. Thank you. MR. BUTLER: I think Mr. Fischetti and I have come to an agreement and --Joe, if you want. MR. FISCHETTI: Yes. We understand each other. This is an engineering problem. MR. BUTLER: We both know the problem, we both know the solution. We don't want to hold up the application or continuation of the work. We can resolve it in the field. We can resolve it with you in the field and follow up with drawings that you need. MR. FISCHETTI: After the fact. While Chesterfield is out there, they'll extend the revetment slightly beyond the property line. Maybe ten feet beyond Booth's property,just so he can get a return. They'll extend the terracing that he's designed. don't need to redesign it. His terracing, what is on the plan can be consistent. It will carry across to the Booth property, and to save time, the definition will be that the extension will be to a perpendicular, perpendicular to topography line. So that's how we'll do it. So the exact, we don't have an exact. He and I talked about it. If we have to get a surveyor out there to survey it Board of Trustees 23 September 16, 2015 and give you a piece of property, it will take us two weeks. He and I can look at it and say exactly where it has to go. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Go ahead, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could offer a suggestion and then I do have questions regarding this application. I'm just trying to be patient, to listen to all the testimony being given so far tonight. We have in the past, when projects on a property extend slightly into another piece of property, with permission from the property owner, granted that. I think here, given the scope of the damage that has been done to this bluff, and the resulting damage to the neighboring properties, I am not comfortable just giving here, sitting here tonight, approval, this is just myself, to work being done on neighboring properties without seeing plans, having a chance to review those plans, having the CAC having a chance to review those plans, having the LWRP coordinator having a chance to review those plans. Which means a separate application, to answer your question, Rob. So what I would propose here is if there is an opportunity, and I don't want to look any crystal ball here to predict what will happen in next however many minutes, there is an opportunity to possibly act on this tonight with temporary measures included along the property line to hold those properties while properly engineered plans can come in that have been reviewed by all the appropriate individuals to address the neighboring properties, and then civilly you guys work out who will pay for this. So, I, myself, am not comfortable with extensive work being done on neighbor's property that is not part of these plans that have been not been reviewed under the LWRP, have not been reviewed by the CAC. So that's my feeling on this. I'm not saying stop everything here tonight. I'm saying possibly move forward, with just some temporary structure on each side to help protect and shore up the damage that is currently occurring. Given that, I do have questions now. Since the two of you are at the podium, and in no particular order, I have questions for both of you, since you are both engineers and I am not. When we went out and looked at this, one of things that really stood out to myself with this cut in the bluff was the fact that in the ten years I have been a Trustee, I have never seen this type of cut or damage to a bluff done. Never. And what I have noticed from a geological perspective, and I'm not a geologist. That's the first thing I want to put on the record. That you can look at the layers that have been, that the contractor went through the bluff, and where I'm getting at is to rebuild this bluff, it was not just sand that has been removed. There are layers and layers, hundreds of years of layers, geological layers and different substrates that have been destroyed by the contractor in doing this project. So how is this bluff rebuilt, addressing that from an engineering perspective. To just put sand in, I have a feeling that sand will just go right on down the bluff. Because there is nothing there in the substrate to support that Board of Trustees 24 September 16, 2015 sand anymore because the cut has removed that substrate. So that's my question, from an engineering perspective. I want to make sure in the repair work that is done, that it's done right. MR. BUTLER: Joe will speak to that. MR. FISCHETTI: That's your problem. MR. BUTLER: One of the issues that caused this erosion to begin with on this piece of property was the geology that you saw. And the clay lenses that were there, that were taking the sanitary runoff, roof runoff, all rain runoff, on the property going back we estimated about 50, 75 feet from the top of the bluff, hitting the clay lens and shooting out the top of the bluff, causing the erosion. That's why Rob and I have kept a close eye on this stretch of beach for the last five years. What has been removed, back to make that beach access, is the clay. What is going to be put back, we hope, is sand. The sand will drain properly and be terraced, and if we hit the planting season right, will grow in and be very healthy. The clay is the enemy. It doesn't help stabilize the bluff. It's the enemy of the bluff face. And the stabilization. It's what causes the sand to run off because the water doesn't properly drain. So that's, if you are asking is the strata going back exactly the way it was, I would not want it to. That's the answer to the question. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Joe would you agree with that? MR. FISCHETTI: Yes, basically the stabilization of the bluff is really the angle of repose on the face. And it doesn't matter how different materials of a full bluff will cause that angle to be different. But otherwise, to put it back the same way, it's still gravity. It's the bluff face and it's the toe of the bluff that has to be protected. And nothing else. It doesn't matter that it has to be put back together. It's the toe and the slope that has to be corrected. I wanted to address what you had said earlier about this repair to the Booth property. I kind of disagree with you. It's not, this is not extensive design, as I tried to say to you or to the Board earlier, that all we are doing is extending Mr. Butler's design across. Now, there was some loss of bluff face from their original construction, so we are going to need some sand up at the top in an area that was lost to be replaced. But that can be done during the terracing. But the actual design of the terracing is exactly what he has. He has designs in here. It's the same. Just carry it across to the property line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In the past where there has been a bulkhead return or a minor addition that has gone over the property line we have accepted a simple letter of permission from the adjoining land owner. In this case, as you purported, it doesn't seem to be a major issue with Mr. Butter, and you had that discussion, to continue that on. A letter of permission and the engineers working together to satisfy the stabilization there with those means, the terracing, the sand fill and the planting. I think that would likely address the issue with a letter of permission. Keep it simple Board of Trustees 25 September 16, 2015 MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. A design is not needed. It's already here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And then we can have a set of modified plan submitted showing the extent of terracing and also the return on the east side and the associated change in the terracing that might be necessary for that based on the current survey and the lines that you have. Is that starting to sound like we are coming to a point that's a good solution? Otherwise we can move ahead with this. MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: From my point of view, I would like to move forward with this. It's a disaster. We need to fix it as soon as possible. We have two licensed engineers here now, they'll draw up plans that they agree on. I'm not going to question these plans. I'm not an engineer. Leave it up to you guys. MR. FISCHETTI: Again, the plans are here. It's just a description of what is going to happen across. We don't need another set of plans. We just need a description of where that is going, and we can give that to you and we'll give the applicant the letter giving them permission to come across. MS. HULSE: Can you include that in a letter where you consent for them to go the distance, because that will be important. MR. FISCHETTI: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I would just like to hear from, I'm sorry, was it Mr. McAllister?What's the name -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The gentleman whose letter is here is Mr. McAllister. If he's here, do you want to speak to the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, were you representing the property to the east? MR. HERRMANN: This is Mr. McGowan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ah, I apologize. So what we have, what still remains, is the issue to the east. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Which can be addressed by a revised plan extending it similarly. I think we are close enough. Let's get-- unless the comments are brief, we'll close the hearing. MR. HERRMANN: Just in response to what you said. We both worked for Mr. and Mrs. McAllister. So that would be an easy person to contact. And we would, I would assume Lori would want us to get the same letter with the same contents we would be getting from Mr. Booth, and I think we can do that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. At this time I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). At this time I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the stipulation that the engineer for the applicant and the engineer for the neighbor to the west will meet and draw up, amongst themselves discuss the extension of Board of Trustees 26 September 16, 2015 the terracing, the sand fill and the revegetation to be perpendicular and some additional distance to the westerly for which there will be a letter from the attorney representing the westerly owner, and that the plans will include the requested amendment, plans submitted for the requested amendment for the return for the easterly neighbor, McAllister, similar with the attorney or the agent representing McAllister submitting a letter describing the permission for the extension of the terracing and sand fill and revegetation on the easterly side. That's my motion. Are there any additions on corrections? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. There is a second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before I open number three under Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits, just for clarification, and I'll wait for 30 seconds for people to leave the room. Just for clarification, there might be some confusion. There is one, a permit application for FBO Associates under Coastal Erosion. There is a second under Wetland only. So there is a little confusion there. I just want to make sure everyone understands, right now I'm opening number three, which is under the Wetland & Coastal Erosion permit, Samuel Fitzgerald on behalf of FBO ASSOCIATES, LLC, do ARNOLD FISHER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install along the length of the western boundary an approximately 215' long armor layer rip-rap revetment using 2' diameter rocks along the bank and tie into the existing revetment on the north neighbor's property. Located: 3300 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#7-1-2.1. This has been reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. It was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. And this is for 215 feet of rip rap. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Good evening, my name is Sam Fitzgerald, I'm the architect and I'm appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also with me tonight is Mr. Glenn Just of JMO Environmental Consulting. I'll be happy to take your questions if you have any. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did review this in the office and we saw that there is a need, pictures dictate there is a need for a revetment down there. We really didn't have any questions except we did want to suggest there should be a 20-foot non-turf buffer installed behind the revetment. MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Beyond that we didn't have any other questions. Is there anybody else here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (Negative response). Board of Trustees 27 September 16, 2015 Not seeing anybody, any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. Access will be from the beach and I presume because of the elevations we are not going to entertain a bluff cut here? MR. FITZGERALD: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make motion to approve the application as described. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number one under Wetland Permits, Samuel Fitzgerald on behalf of FBO ASSOCIATES, LLC, do ARNOLD FISHER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x40' swimming pool to the rear of the existing house; and remove existing deck from dwelling for pool installation. Located: 3300 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 7-1-2.1 This was reviewed under LWRP and they have found it to be consistent. And again, the CAC did not make an inspection and therefore no recommendation was made. The Trustees did review this plan in the office. We had no questions pertaining to this plan. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, Sam Fitzgerald, architect for the project, appearing on behalf of the applicant. Also with me again is Mr. Glenn Just. I would be happy to entertain any other comments or questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm noticing here on plans is that the pool is approximately 66 feet from the top of the bank and 80 feet from the bottom of the bank; is that correct? MR. FITZGERALD: That's right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We had no other questions. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the Wetland application of Sam Fitzgerald at 3300 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island, deeming it was found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. Board of Trustees 28 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, WILLOW POINT ASSOCIATION, INC., requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge and widen the channel entrance to a depth of 5 feet below mean low water; and place the resultant 500 cubic yards of dredge spoil on the upland portion of the association property. Located: 765 Willow Point Road, Southold. SCTM#56-5-28 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted to support the application. The Trustees did a field inspection on September 10th and was just questioning exactly where the spoil would remain on the property, and noticed that it is outlined in the plans received by the office on August 21st of this year. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. Colin Blanchard. I'm one of the directors of Willow Point. MR. NIKOLICH: And I'm Andrew Nikolich. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you want to speak to the application, sir? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. I think you guys had the problem with where we are going to put the spoil. Did you come to a resolution of that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would not characterize it as a problem. We had a question. We were wondering where it was. Now we see it on the plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question was whether the five-hundred cubic yards was going to create a problem for your association as far as raising the elevation in that area as much as it might. MR. BLANCHARD: No, I don't think we have a problem. Is there any problem we can't go that high up in elevation? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It just has to conform to Chapter 236 of the Town drainage code. There can't be any runoff going onto neighboring properties or into the water from raising elevation. That's just something for you folks to engineer as you are doing the project. MR. BLANCHARD: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: During the course of our field inspection we did note there seemed to note there seemed to be some areas that were non-wetland that were to the left side of the stone access drive, on the left side as you went in there, that might also be able to handle some of the fill, that could be an area that could also take some of the fill. Mindful that you can't fill in any vegetate wetland that would include Spartina or cedar trees. MR. BLANCHARD: So in your estimation we could fill on the left side of the drive going in. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. It might require a revisit and possibly a flag for staking. We were concerned you would create your own runoff problems and have the materials you are dredging going into the boating area as well. TRUSTEE KING: I think they are kind of creating an access problem from the driveway if they are showing two feet higher of Board of Trustees 29 September 16, 2015 spoils. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. You might create additional issues with the well-formed drive you have already, that you'll have soft material you'll be bogging down in. You know, it's such that maybe you would wish, if you are not entertaining conducting this work this fall or, it might be conducive to have the Board or the area Trustee help you flag out the area that is not wetland and maybe you would wish to alter the spoil sites slightly to--we are just concerned you may be creating I don't want to call it a consumer friendly approach, you may be creating your own problem down the road. MR. BLANCHARD: Could we have someone come by this fall and flag it with us? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sure we can get one of the Trustees to walk the site with you and help you flag it. MR. BLANCHARD: That would be very helpful. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Sir, do you have a question? MR. NIKOLICH: No, I have no question. Actually I'm jointly working on the application, so I'm here in case you have any questions or whatever. TRUSTEE KING: I think the spoils was the question. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There was no question about the in-water activities as far as the need of dredging, I think it was just a question of the spoil placement, we didn't want to approve something that might create a problem for you where we thought there might be a more viable alternative. MR. BLANCHARD: If could look at that flagged area with you guys, it could give us a larger area, it would obviously make that problem a lot less. TRUSTEE KING: so why don't we just table this. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application until such time as one or two Trustees can meet with you and reflag the area suggested for the spoil site. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number three, Frank Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of JOAN BELETSIS, do STAMY BELETSIS requests a Wetland Permit to remove a +/-40' section of existing bluff stairs that encroach onto neighbor's property by cutting the 4"x4" posts 4" above grade so that no disturbance of the ground will occur; existing +/-3.5'wide stone walk to remain; existing landward 3'x67' on-grade wood walk to an existing +/-104sq.ft. on-grade wood hexagon deck to remain; from the hexagon deck, construct 3'wide bluff stairs with an intermediate 5'x8'wood landing with bench; 3' wide stairs continuing down and connecting to an existing 5'x8'wood landing Board of Trustees 30 September 16, 2015 with bench, to 3' wide stairs to a 4'x6' wood landing with 3' wide stairs to beach; and existing 3'wide stairs off platform leading to the northeast to remain. Located: 380 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM#21-5-4 This application was reviewed about the CAC, and they support the application. The application has been considered both consistent and inconsistent with the Town's coastal policies under the LWRP. The inconsistency deals with the fact of historic structure that did not have the benefit of a town wetland or Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit. And the consistency review was for the policy of access stairs to the waterfront, and the LWRP coordinator recommended that there be a required vegetated non-turf buffer landward of the coastal erosion hazard area line. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. UELLENDAHL: My name is Frank Uellendahl. I'm here on behalf of the Beletsis family. I drew up the plans and as you know during your field inspection, I taped the area with yellow tape that actually encroaches on to the neighbor's property. It's quite substantial. It's about 40 feet long and it extends close to ten feet into the neighbor's property. This was built maybe 15, 20 years ago by the owners without a permit. But Ms. Beletsis passed away and the family is now putting the house and property up for sale and we need to make this right. So I'm here to request a permit for some of the existing stairs that were built without a permit, but also to remove the portion that encroaches on, I think it's Ms. Theophilos (sic) property and replace it with a two-tier bluff stair as designed, as shown on the property. I would like to hold on as much as I can to existing portions of the stair at the bottom of the bluff. So I hope this can be done according to my plan. We may even have to extend the lower portion of the new stair to the lower deck because of the pitch and slope of the bluff. That is something we may have to investigate further. But that should be doable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. I think the Board viewed this as a fairly straightforward project that existing slopes from the octagon and to the top of the bluff are well vegetated. The LWRP coordinator had requested that there be a non-turf buffer. MR. UELLENDAHL: How wide? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He was requesting it to be from the landward, it would go, so that it would be seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area to the top of the bluff. I guess he was -- I'm sorry, he wanted it-- I think he intended to mean there would be a non-turf buffer seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. Is that possible? In other words leave it as non-turf area. In other words, presently it's heavily vegetated. MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. What I like about the property is it's really pretty much intact and it's heavily vegetated. There is Board of Trustees 31 September 16, 2015 some wonderful trees and, you know, native plant falling down. So I can show you, I mean I'll have to look at the survey, would like to understand better where the area is that you would request the non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, could you just repeat the last thing you said. I didn't quite understand. MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, basically this is the top of the bluff here. This the existing on-grade coming on the platform and it really goes down and we are connecting to existing platform down. So we are talking about this area, probably. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The plan that was submitted stamped by yourself that included the coastal erosion hazard line for the purposes of considering approval of the application and honoring the LWRP program coordinator would be to leave this area a non-turf so that it would not be, in other words, we don't want to have all of a sudden with the creation of the stairs have it mowed and go into turf. It would stay either naturalized or be a non-turf area, whether it be wood chips or stone. MR. UELLENDAHL: It is naturalized now. I mean do you feel we need to do anything beyond this? I feel it's a pretty good situation now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If they are prepared to leave it naturalized, that would be even better. MR. UELLENDAHL: Because there is no lawn. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is no lawn and no plan to put a lawn. MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So if we could stipulate leaving it in the naturalized state seaward of the coastal erosion line, you're okay? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, absolutely. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, then I have a question concerning you had requested to leave the section of stairs that goes to the east. What was the purpose -- MR. UELLENDAHL: Right. Well, I don't want to touch too much. We can eliminate it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Was the idea to simply let it decay of its own accord and in other words not disturb the bluff? MR. UELLENDAHL: Yes, that's what I was thinking, because if I don't touch it then I'm not doing any more harm to it. But this is, I would leave it up to the owners. But if you are telling me to take it out, we'll take it out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess if it's a case that it's just going to be left there and it won't hurt the bluff and it will die, dissipate of its own accord, I guess the only question is the stairs not be a stairs to nowhere, that it be blocked off, for safety sake. MR. UELLENDAHL: Correct. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any other questions? Board members? (Negative response). Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make motion to close the Board of Trustees 32 September 16, 2015 hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the native vegetation existing that is seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line as depicted on the plans of Frank Uellendahl dated August 20th, 2015, that that area remain in its natural vegetated state. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. UELLENDAHL: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR., ESQ. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 30'x60' (1,800sq.ft. Footprint)two-story dwelling with a 722sq.ft. attached deck on the seaward side; install a sanitary system; install a pervious driveway; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: 100 Bay Road, Greenport. SCTM#43-5-10 This was found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC supports the application with the condition the project complies with FEMA regulations. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON:. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant William H. Price. We intend to comply with FEMA, we have a setback as much as we can from the wetland boundary. This is basically would be the fourth time I have applied to this Board for approval for this house. TRUSTEE KING: I was going to say this is the second or third time, at least. MR. ANDERSON: Well the first one, we go back to the Henry Smith days. And it was a John Bredemeyer factor at that time also sitting on the left, I thought, of where he sits now. But the house really has not changed, so we are hopeful that we can move forward. TRUSTEE KING: I think the only thing we wanted to see was the area seaward of the deck to remain in its natural state. MR. ANDERSON: It would. TRUSTEE KING: And maybe allow a four-foot path down to the beach. This is basically the same thing we have seen time and time again. We talked about that drain pipe many times, I just think when construction starts on this, when and if, the Highway Department should be notified so maybe they can put a drain in the road or something. MR. ANDERSON: I think that should be done. I agree with you. TRUSTEE KING: So that would be part of the permit that they be notified. MR. ANDERSON: I would be happy to notify them. I'm not sure if Board of Trustees 33 September 16, 2015 it does anything anymore anyway. It may pond water there, is the bigger problem. TRUSTEE KING: Throughout our town, we've had a lot of these pipes for drainage gets off the road onto properties, the properties get developed, now the Highway Department has a problem. So I think if we let them know that will be removed, they can -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had an opportunity to informally discuss the pipe with the town highway superintendent, so he will be aware of any incoming communication having heard from us previously. MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate that. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the only questions we had. Other than that, it's basically the same thing over and over. Is there anyone else wants to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. ROMAN: Yes, I would like to speak to the application. I'm Jane Roman and my husband Dick Roman is sitting over there. We are the owners of the adjacent property to this subject property. And I would like to submit photos. The attached photo shows a 12x56' privet hedge. The hedge has been meticulously trimmed and cared for us by us for the last 20 years. We ask that all future renderings and plans show the privet hedge and entitle it a living fence. I also have photos of the culvert at road level. It's approximately six feet from the privet hedge. The request for the building permit shows the culvert is to be removed. The subject property has had fill added to the property to level it out. The level of the property is higher than our property. Without the culvert, road water will run off directly on to our property. So we ask the Trustees to address this issue, which you may have already addressed. But I do have photographs and this letter. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there a concern about the privet hedge, is there a concern that it might be damaged during construction? MS. ROMAN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is it entirely on your property? MS. ROMAN: It straddles the property line. TRUSTEE KING: It's on the property line, you are saying, ma'am? MS. ROMAN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: I'm sure there is no interest in disturbing the privet hedge. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make motion to approve the application as it has been submitted and that the Highway Department is to be notified that that drain would be removed so they can address the road runoff. Board of Trustees 34 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Michael Kimack on behalf of CORCHAUG VIEW LLC requests a Wetland Permit to relocate existing gazebo; relocate mechanicals to the north side of the dwelling; construct an 800sq.ft. raised pool and 2,502sq.ft. pool patio with pool enclosure fencing; install pool equipment area and a backwash drywell; install an in-ground 1,000 gallon propane tank; install a propane generator; existing covered porch on dwelling to be removed and converted to an enclosed addition; construct a 276sq.ft. covered porch onto landward side of dwelling; provide new drywells for covered porch and pool/patio; remove 23 trees ranging from 2"-18" caliper for pool, solar project, or dying. Located: 3000 Moores Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 116-1-8.3 This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, with a suggestion that we do the best to retain or add indigenous plants and maintain and restore values of natural ecological communities. And it was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC resolved to support the application. As I alluded to, we have been out in the field and we have looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak to the application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack, on behalf of the application. I would like to make two slight corrections to the original description, which I had submitted to Elizabeth, which didn't pop up. The original pool was facing, it was much more seaward, and since that time we had turned it and resubmitted the plans for you. As a result of that, the raised pool, the pool patio went from 2,502 square feet to 2,139.85. And the number of trees to be removed went from 23 to 27. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, the square footage went from 2,502 square foot to what? MR. KIMACK: To 2,139.85. That's the pool patio. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 2,139.85. MR. KIMACK: Why don't we just say 2,140. Sorry Dave. It's the engineering side of me, unfortunately. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see you have a set of plans stamped received August 31, 2015. MR. KIMACK: The owner thought it best to turn the pool 90 degrees, which was a good suggestion because it took it further away from the wetlands. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what I was trying to say is the stamped plans received August 31, 2015, reflect the pool as you are describing, correct? MR. KIMACK: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. KIMACK: In addition to the pool there was some minor changes to the house. There was an addition on the easterly side of the house, adjacent to that, and there was an open porch that was Board of Trustees 35 September 16, 2015 going to be closed in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. So those are landward of the house MR. KIMACK: They are landward but I found through my experience dealing, once I think, since the pool is connected to the house, and basically I look at it as now it becomes a continuation of your jurisdiction. I would rather make that determination than come in here and say, Mike, you forgot about this. It's easier because it's just as easy to put it on. It's already on the plans anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. What I see here on the plans, again, date stamped August 31st, is that the pool and pool deck are, closest 106.5 feet from the wetland boundary. MR. KIMACK: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Which would make that non-jurisdictional for us. What is jurisdictional for us, is obviously any work within a hundred feet, which would include the gazebo and a lot of these trees. MR. KIMACK: We talked about it onsite, correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. I just wanted to make sure -- MR. KIMACK: I had already submitted the application because it had been turned the other way, and it was jurisdictional at the time. So the application was in and since the work had been done I saw no need to come back and lessen it since we would be talking about the same issues anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So what I'm trying to do is establish for the record the majority of this project is non-jurisdictional for the Trustees. MR. KIMACK: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: No questions, but as a former co-chair of the Southold Town Tree Committee I have to say it troubles me that an application before us had 23 trees up to 18-inch caliper removed for a pool or solar project. MR. KIMACK: Four of the trees on the property are dead. Many of the trees are within the pool confines. If you looked at the property, it's very heavily treed, both in the front coming up to the house on the side, and also all the way down to the water, basically. And they have a westerly exposure for their solar, I'm not an expert on that, basically, but I was told that basically they had been advised in order to get the maximum, some additional trees would come down that would not necessarily have been the footprint or near the footprint of the pool or pool patio, and thereby is the count, the way the sun is making its way around. But the number of remaining trees coming into the property and on its side is rather substantial. And they are all mature, they are all canopy trees. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can see from the photograph it will be a significant amount of canopy removed. MR. KIMACK: All the ones that are yellow flagged, yes. Board of Trustees 36 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just a comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: While the pool is non jurisdictional, Mike, I don't see any type of drainage for pool backwash system here or am I missing it? MR. KIMACK: It's on there, basically. And it's also in the description, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Oh, I'm sorry. I just found it. Okay, that's also non-jurisdictional. I just wanted to note it's there on the plans. Thank you. Being no other comments I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Michael Kimack on behalf of Corchaug View LLC with an amended description pool patio being 2,140 square feet and the removal of 27 trees. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Domino, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the motion passes three to one. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, 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 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that it's not consistent with policy number one four-point one, which ensures in the areas of flooding that you attempt to minimize the potential loss and damage by local development construction away from the flooding and erosion zones. And also notice that if the event action is approved, verify the storm water from the new sanitary system will not run on to McDonald Road or McDonald Crossing. The CAC voted to support this application with the condition that the structures be constructed in compliance with FEMA standards. On September 10th the Trustees did a site inspection and noted that the proposed reconstruction will be seaward of the neighboring properties, and questioned whether or not the structure could be moved landward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SOUTHARD: My name is Charles W. Southard, Jr., architect. I'm the project architect. We had that question also come up when we went to the Board of Appeals. What we did is relocated the house a few feet further toward McDonald Crossing, about three or four feet further away from the bulkhead and the wetlands. I have some revised drawings. I believe you were given Board of Trustees 37 September 16, 2015 different drawings from the first ones after Board of Appeals which showed the sanitary system. Discussions with the Suffolk County Department of Health Service, they want a small retaining wall around the system. And what I have also done is shown drainage structures for the roof drainage. There's two on the east side and two on the west side. So there are four structures, proper elevation above sea level. We received approval from -- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Excuse me. We are stamping them received today. MR. SOUTHARD: Good. Thank you. The difference in the drawing from the original is the addition of four storm water drainage pools to drain the roof and the roof of the garage and roof of the house. And the other addition is a lower retaining wall around the sanitary system. The Suffolk County Health Department was not happy with just a grading. They wanted it spread flatter over the area of the pools, so it required a small retaining wall. The height of the retaining wall above the grade is going to be anywhere from a foot-and-a-half to two-and-a-half foot above the re-graded line. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just for future reference, Chapter 275(8)(c), all paperwork is supposed to be submitted seven working days before the public hearing MR. SOUTHARD: I understand. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have a copy of the old plans, Mike? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes (Handing). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Had you received, with the new plans, had you received a town drainage approval? MR. SOUTHARD: No, we have not submitted it to town drainage. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So it has not received 236 approval yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are just looking at, it looks like the house structure has moved seaward between the old plan and the new plan by a less than a foot. In other words he had setbacks in the original plan, I'm looking at 37.77 feet for one angle and 52 feet on other and it's now 37 feet even and 51.4. So it looks like the house has moved a little bit seaward. MR. SOUTHARD: That's not correct. The house has actually moved four foot away from the bulkhead and the wetlands line from where it was before. If you look at the corner you'll see 37 foot from the bulkhead to the edge of the decking. Before believe it was 32.3. I don't have the prior for it. 55.94 was the edge of the deck from the wetlands line. TRUSTEE KING: That's the proposed deck? MR. SOUTHARD: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: What does the house itself measure, the existing house? MR. SOUTHARD: The existing, I don't-- TRUSTEE DOMINO: Question from the Board. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have an old survey showing the existing house? MR. SOUTHARD: This is the existing house. Board of Trustees 38 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: We have a question from the Board. The plans that you submitted today, are those referenced by the ZBA approval, that plan? Or the one that you previously submitted? MR. SOUTHARD: The one that you have that was submitted previously was the one that was approved by the ZBA. That was the one that was moved, that plan was moved from the original plan four foot away from the wetlands line and the bulkhead. What the ZBA didn't have was the retaining wall from the Health Department because that was just a recent, within the last couple of weeks. That was Suffolk County Health Department requested it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Last revised August 12th, 2015. The plan here actually has August 25th. The Zoning Board of Appeals approval that was forwarded to us to form the basis of our approval indicates that the building location variances and amendments shown on a proposed site plan and building location dated July 17th, 2015, but then apparently there is a last revised August 12th. We have an August 25 date on the new plans as well as the September 1 date. MR. SOUTHARD: The plan, the August 25 date was probably a Health Department revision. The Board of Appeals asked us if before they approved it, if we could move the house landward any further, and we were able to do that with the Health Department, we were able to move it four foot further landward. So the plan that you should have, I resubmitted after the Board of Appeals hearing, and they reviewed it and issued the approval based on the revised plan. TRUSTEE KING: That looks like the house itself will be landward of the existing houses on either side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It does. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Because this is the deck. The original house that is there now is roughly right here (indicating). MR. SOUTHARD: The proposed house is further landward than the existing houses. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? TRUSTEE BERGEN: See if we can inform the ZBA of the challenge here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: No other issues or comments from the Board? (Negative response). I'll 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 approve this application as submitted noting that it will address the inconsistencies. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SOUTHARD: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number seven, McCarthy Management, Inc. on Board of Trustees 39 September 16, 2015 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 The Trustees are in receipt of a new plan showing a four-foot wide access path to the beach revised dated September 15th, 2015. The application has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to support this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. MCCARTHY: Yes. Good evening. Tom McCarthy, McCarthy Management, for the applicant. As per our onsite meeting and the revised map offered into your office, we would like to propose that we agree to a buffer between stakes number one, two, three and seven, if possible, with the four-foot walkway proceeding to the dock structure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That in fact is the tenor of the field discussion during the course of which the members of the Board were infected by chiggers. That was my second dose for the week. TRUSTEE KING: It was not fun. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, what stakes are we talking about now? MR. MCCARTHY: We would like to see one, two, three and seven. Number seven is the fence post on the adjacent property to the south. As the limit of disturbance and buffer then without prejudice for future applications to come in for any of the other area outside the wetland buffer for any other applications to the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, this is looking similar to informal discussions in the field, but I appreciate that. Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). Any additional questions, anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as submitted with the revised plans dated 9/15 of'15, stipulating that the area to, that the area to the seaward of the lot from markers number one, two, three and seven on this application remain undisturbed, allowing for a development of the property Board of Trustees 40 September 16, 2015 to the landward of said stakes one, two, three and seven as shown on the survey dated 9/15 of'15. MR. MCCARTHY: With the exception of the walkway. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: With the exception of a four-foot walkway as proposed on the revised plans. That is my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCCARTHY: And for the record or in the motion we would like to be able to enter into that that it's without prejudice, to come in for another application or amendment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Well, we've closed and concluded a vote on this. MR. MCCARTHY: It would be in the Minutes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say since we didn't vote anything with prejudice, I'm not sure --the Board has always been open to amendments to applications. MS. HULSE: Without prejudice is sort of assumed, unless they say with prejudice. So you're good. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's what I thought. MR. MCCARTHY: Great. Thank you, good evening. TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DENIS & NANCY COLE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 16'x36' in-ground swimming pool with 5' stone patio along the northerly and southerly sides of the pool, and 13.5'x14.5' stone patio along the westerly side of the pool. Located: 655 Albacore Drive, Greenport. SCTM#57-1-17 This was found inconsistent with the LWRP coordinator. The depth to groundwater is unknown and a test well has not been submitted. This area is prone to very poorly drained soils and seasonally high ground water. The depth to groundwater should be required to determine if the drywells will function and the pool will not sit in groundwater. Elevations for the pool are also not provided. Those are the LWRP coordinator's comments. The CAC resolved to support the application as it was submitted with no other comments. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Cole and Mrs. Cole. Mr. Cole is here. You are very familiar with this property. Locasio, the prior owner, had lots of different applications for when they replaced their dock. They actually have a non-turf buffer that was installed as part of the dock replacement, so mitigation, there is not much more to mitigate here because it was all mitigated by way of the prior permits that were issued on this property. The proposed pool, as you saw in the field, is in the area where the existing deck is. It doesn't extend beyond the last step. I believe we measured out in the field and confirmed the measurements. We did get Zoning Board approval for this pool. Board of Trustees 41 September 16, 2015 And as far as the comments about the cross-section, there is a cross-section in the file and I believe he was provided with a copy of the cross-section. He just may not have realized what he had there. James Deerkoski provided the cross-section of this for North Fork Pool Care, which is the contractor who will most likely build this pool. Beyond that I don't know what more to tell you. It's a pretty straightforward application. So if you have any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see it is in cross-section, six foot deep drywell. It may put it close to groundwater. Maybe the Board would want to consider stipulating the drywell won't be located in groundwater, because of mosquitos, stipulate in the permit that during the construction of the drywell the contract will do it. Sand or-- MS. MOORE: That's typically what they do. So that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any questions on this, if I remember right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think there is any issue with that. TRUSTEE KING: No. Any other comments from anybody else? (Negative response). Board? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve the application and stipulate that the drywell will not be in groundwater. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number nine, 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'xl 7' set of stairs leading to a 4'x13' walkway with a 4'xl 0' 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 Board of Trustees 42 September 16, 2015 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 drywell 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. SCTM# 111-13-6 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 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. SCTM# 111-13-6 Board of Trustees 43 September 16, 2015 There doesn't appear to be anyone here. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (Negative response). I would note for the record I have consulted with the clerk and there is no new information. There was a letter that was submitted that seemed they were making a good faith attempt to address the concerns we had previously. Accordingly I would make a motion to table this for one month to allow the applicant, they may be waiting for reports from Soil Conservation and a few others they were going to try to get for us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Comment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sure. Motion is made. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are just going to table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Tabling it, sorry. I believe last month we told the applicant to come back in one month with the answer to some questions, and in the letter he stated he's hired a new contractor. That didn't address any of the questions that we asked him last month. Has there been any attempt, Counsel, for the violation to be taken care of this month? MS. HULSE: Well, the arrangement that we had made was that he did agree that they would plead guilty and pay a fine, which I know at the time that you might recall was contingent upon an indemnification to the neighboring property. So we have made an agreement, it has not been fully executed yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Great. I'm just uncomfortable continuing this yet another month with the fact that we told him to come back this month, talk to his client and come back to address at least three items pertaining to this application, and he has not done that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since he has sent us a letter, how about I return a letter inkind and indicating that if we table it that there is an expectation he gets that information to us. Is that okay? Does that sound reasonable, to keep the line of communication? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to resolve it by next month's meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would, too. So I'll get a letter out and put him on notice. TRUSTEE BERGEN: How many times has the applicant tabled this application? Because there is a limit in the code as to how many times an applicant can table. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know. They didn't request to table. I have no idea. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know they haven't tonight. Okay. MS. HULSE: I think it's presumed abandoned after a certain period of time. I don't think there is a magic number that the applicant can maximize tabling requests. I think it's just a matter they abandon it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would certainly would not meet a standard of being abandoned if we are continuing legal discussions and getting letters. MS. HULSE: Correct. Board of Trustees 44 September 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to table this application for one month and I will communicate in a letter to Mr. Folts. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to adjourn this meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, di"- 1P"'N ajotiorri SI- John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED -P 'i ed r a:oo pn\ OCT 2 01)(3 . / Southold Town Clerk