Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/21/2015 /'�/� ilii John M.Bredemeyer III,President i��//4 S0U11. Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino,Vice-President to° #1/41 ' l® 543Main Road P.O54375. Box 1179 James F.King,Trustee21.1 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen,Trustee ,1 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Charles J.Sanders,Trustee ;l,YCO A/I Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOV 23 2015 Minutes • Wednesday, October 21, 2015 Southold Town CIer6 5:30 PM Present-Were: 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, November 10, 2015 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 5:30 PM WORK SESSIONS: Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of September 16, 2015. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Welcome to the October meeting of the Board of Trustees. We are down to three tonight. Unfortunately, Jay Bredemeyer is out ill tonight. He might try to join us someplace along the way, but in the meantime we are going to get started with the agenda. I'll start out with, we would like to set, or could I have a motion for our next field • inspection on Wednesday,-November 10th, 2015, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make the motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our next Trustee meeting being Wednesday, November 18th, 2015, at 5:30 PM. TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 2 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: And our work sessions are scheduled for Monday, November 16th, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and Wednesday, November 18th, at 5:00 PM in the same main hall meeting room. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 16th, 2015, meeting. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for September 2015. A check for $8,659.81 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, October 21, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Gayle B. Wallace SCTM# 1000-136-1-1&5 Alan B. Litner SCTM# 1000-54-4-12 Cross Sound Ferry Services, do Richard MacMurray SCTM# 1000-15-9-16 Michael Niamonitakis SCTM# 1000-31-14-12 Walter& Barbara Fitzgerald SCTM# 1000-59-6-27.3 Russell C. McCall SCTM# 1000-116-6-3 Harrington Family Ltd. Partnership, do Ellen Campbell SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.1 Harrington Family Ltd. Partnership, do Ellen Campbell SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.2 430 WSD, LLC, do Peter Casola SCTM# 1000-80-5-2.1 Peter& Diana O'Neill SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3 Ryan Hutchinson SCTM# 1000-104-9-1 Brenda C. Keil SCTM# 1000-107-7-3 Benjamin & Siobhan Morden SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2 Elizabeth M. Sheehan Family 2012 Trust SCTM# 1000-123-7-11.1 Jay P. Quartararo SCTM# 1000-111-14-27.1 Lois Anderson SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.5 monthly report, TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? Board of Trustees 3 October 21, 2015 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Before we get to Resolutions, I wanted to bring to your attention there are some postponements. They are listed as follows: Page four, number one, GAYLE B. WALLACE requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1866 from George A. Brown to Gayle B. Wallace, as issued on August 31, 1984; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#1866 for the existing dock consisting of an as-built 8'6"x11' platform; a 3'x25'walkway; a 3'x19'8" aluminum ramp; and a 5'x30'float. Located: End of Right-of-Way on Briarwood Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-136-1-1&5, has been postponed., And page four, under Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, number 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# 1000-54-4-3, has been postponed. And then on page nine, actually starting on page eight, numbers 15 through number 19 on page nine are all postponed. They are listed as follows: Number 15, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DAVE BOFILL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 9.1'x11.4' shed with wood ramp; existing ±4'x23' wood steps on south side of property and 4'x10' wood steps on north side of property, both seaward of top of bank; existing 4'x4' landing with 4'x24' steps to 4'x10' wood walk to irregularly shaped 12'x42'wood deck to a step, and 10'x15' wood deck with 8.7'x11.8' shed on deck; existing 13', long wood tie wall; along seaward side of toe of bank the remains of 22' of wood bulkhead; and existing 48' of functional wood bulkhead. Located: 5785 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.4 Number 16, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of KONSTANTINOS • ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x52' set°fof 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# 1000-30-2-78 Number 17, Michael Kimack on behalf of RICK NAPPI requests a Wetland Permit for the demolition of existing dwelling with foundation to remain; construct a two-story(1,140sq.ft. first floor, 786.25sq.ft. second floor)dwelling with a 110.5sq.ft. Board of Trustees 4 October 21, 2015 second story deck onto foundation; remove and reconstruct concrete stoop on southeast corner of dwelling; add two (2) cellar windows airways to south side of foundation; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain runoff. Located: 5210 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-128-2-22. Number 18, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of THOMAS MACARI requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 106 linear foot vinyl retaining wall with a 12' return; and install a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the retaining wall. Located: 1320 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-19. And number 19, 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 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# 1000-56-5-28 We don't want anybody sitting here for a permit application that has been postponed. IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under IV, Resolutions and Administrative permits, what we do is try to group some together that we didn't have a problem with. They have been reviewed either in the office or in the field by members of the Trustees. So number one, JEANNE HARMON requests an Administrative Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut the Common Reed (Phragmites australis) to not less than 12" in height on an as needed basis; and to rake out the fallen phragmites by hand. Located: 1175 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-18.1 And number two, JOSEPH A. ZITO requests an Administrative Permit to modify the existing driveway by removing the blue stone and replace with asphalt, and install a drywell for runoff. Located: 3600 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-17-8, are both found consistent under the LWRP. As such, I'll make a motion to approve both numbers one and two under Resolutions and Administrative Permits. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Applications for Extensions, Transfers, Administrative Amendments, again these have been reviewed and we can group together numbers one, two, three, four and five, as a group. So I'll make a motion to approve numbers one, two, three, four and five inclusive. They are listed as follows: Number one, WILLIAM GIACONE & CINDY NANCE request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8331, as issued on November 13, 2013. Located: 1130 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-17 Board of Trustees 5 October 21, 2015 Number two, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of GREG &CAROL KARAS request a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8334, as issued on November 13, 2013, and Amended on July 22, 2015. Located: 135 Soundview Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-3-3 Number three, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL McALLISTER & BARBARA JONES requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7692 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7692C, as issued on November 16, 2011, and Amended on August 22,;2012. Located: 17665 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-1-3 Number four, LIN BUCKFIELD & MELISSA KELLY request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1792 from Peter Eco to Lin Buckfield & Melissa Kelly, as issued on March 13, 1984. Located 965 Cedar Point Drive East (a/k/a 250 & 350 Lakeside Drive), Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-3-15&16 And number five, JOHN & KIMBERLY KEISERMAN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5279 and Coastal Erosion Permit#5279C from William & Louise Segallis to John & Kimberly Keiserman, as' issued on February 23, 2001, Amended on July 25, 2001, and Amended again on June 17, 2015. Located: 1170 Willow Terrace Lane, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-2-23 TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, CLAIRE MATHER requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#653 to modify the non-turf buffer area along the landward edge of the western bulkhead to consist of 5' wide wood decking, and 3'wide non-turf buffer area against the decking. Located: 805 Osprey Nest Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-6-25. The Board did go out and looked at this, and we reviewed it, and we want the non-turf buffer to comply with a ten-foot non-turf buffer as consistent with the neighbor next door. So I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that instead of a three-foot wide non-turf buffer, it be a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to have a discussion? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE KING: They have the five-foot wide decking. Do we want ten-foot landward of that decking or ten-foot including? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think ten-foot total. So ten-foot including the five-foot decking is appropriate. TRUSTEE KING: So it would be five-foot landward of the five-foot decking. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. So I'll amend my resolution and put forward the resolution that this application include a five-foot wood decking, a five foot wide non-turf buffer, to total a ten-foot non-turf buffer to connect with the next door neighbor. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? Board of Trustees 6 October 21, 2015 (ALL AYES). VI. RESOLUTIONS OTHER: Under Resolutions, I'm happy to say it's that time of year when the scallop season is upon us. Hopefully it will be a good scallop season. Under Resolutions, Item VI, number one, Set 2015/2016 Scallop Season: RESOLVED, that the'Southold Town Board of Trustees open the following dates to scallop harvesting and pursuant to Chapter 219 (Shellfish) of the Code of the Town of Southold: From Monday, November 2, 2015 from sunrise to sunset through Thursday, March 31, 2016 inclusive, in all Town waters, as per Town Code. I'll move that. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: We'll move now into public hearings. We'll ask everybody to please, if you do want to make comments regarding any of these permit applications, to come up front to the dais so that we can get your information on the record. Please be sure to start off giving your name and the town or village in which you live. And if you would please limit your comments to five minutes or less, that would be great. So I'll make a motion to move to go off our regular meeting • and into our public hearings. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: First, under Wetland & Costal Erosion Permits, Number one, Robert O'Brien, P.E. on behalf of ALAN B. LITNER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace the existing ±1,503sq.ft. deteriorated wood deck, ramp and stair in-kind. Located: 1025 North Sea Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-54-4-12. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent because the structures were built without the benefit of Board of Trustees'review and permits. The original building was built circa 1973, and that's probably when this deck was built. This was reviewed by the CAC and the CAC--that's the Conservation Advisory Council -- resolved to support the application with the condition gutters, leaders and drywells are installed to contain runoff, the deck is reconstructed using non-treated lumber, and the project complies with FEMA. Again, we did go out and looked at this. We did check That the deck that was there had a prior CO for the deck. And since this already hada CO and they are looking to replace it in-kind, excuse me, they are going to replace it in-place, I don't think the Board had any issue with this. Board of Trustees 7 October 21, 2015 Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. O'BRIEN: Robert O'Brien PE, from Laurel. I don't understand the rejection, because it's an existing structure. We can't save the foundation, we have to do a whole new structure. But this major addition, which I think you are hanging your hat on, the 25% increase -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. This has not been rejected. That's our purpose here tonight is to decide if we are going to approve it or disapprove it. It has not been rejected. MR. O'BRIEN: All right. I had gotten feedback that it exceeded the 25% rule of the major addition. Is that the case? TRUSTEE BERGEN: But as a pre-existing deck that already has a CO -- MR. O'BRIEN: It has a C of O. So it was not subject to a coastal erosion permit or Trustees permit at the time it was constructed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I need advice of counsel. MR. O'BRIEN: If I could save the foundation, I would have. But it's on locust posts. That's how old the deck is. (Trustee Bergen discussing off the record with Counsel). MS. HULSE: Right. It's separate jurisdiction. You can have him rebuild it to code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we can require it be downsized to 25% as per Coastal Erosion. MS. HULSE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So as can you see, we have an issue under Coastal Erosion. I don't want to get ahead of ourselves here. I don't know that we have an issue under Wetland, but under Coastal Erosion, because of the both the 25% and the 200-square foot, the decks are allowed maximum under Coastal Erosion. MR. O'BRIEN: It seems to me though the statute is referring'to new structures for a new house or an addition to an existing . house, not reconstruction of something that is pre-existing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have had decks that are reconstructed that exceed Coastal Erosion that have had to be downsized to meet Coastal Erosion code today. We have had that happen. Particularly after Superstorm Sandy and Irene, we have had decks-- MR. O'BRIEN: In this particular case because we have entranceways around the entire house, they can't have individual staircases. They have to have a wraparound deck for access. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, you know, we are bound by the code, and this does exceed code. What I would like to give you the offer to do is to go back to your client and explain that to your client and see if there is something else that can be designed that would fit your client's need as well as -- MR. O'BRIEN: I can tell you right now that's not the case. It's impractical. So this has to go on appeal, then, for a variance? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And just so everybody understands, the variance process for Coastal Erosion is to the Town Board. MS. HULSE: It has not been determined yet. MR. O'BRIEN: Is that because all variances go before the Town Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, no. First off, we have not made a decision Board of Trustees 8 October 21, 2015 here tonight. So I don't want to us get ahead of ourselves. MR. O'BRIEN: Well, I hope you don't make a decision in that direction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be glad to recommend tabling this to give you a chance to go back to your client and explain the situation and come back to us next month, and then you can decide whether you want to proceed forward with it as is or maybe amend it in some way, shape or form. MR. O'BRIEN: There is no way to amend it, so I'll have to golor the variance. I would rather get it before the Board on their next session. If you give me an adverse ruling on it in writing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, do you have any other comments? MR. O'BRIEN: That's it. Are you going to issue the Wetlands permit? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm going to see if there is anybody else in audience who would like to comment on this application. Again, I don't want to get ahead of ourselves and say yes or no to anything until the Board votes on it. MR. O'BRIEN: All right, I'll just go on record there is no other alternative than rebuilding the entire deck. I have a Utility room on the deck, I have four entrance ways around the house. I mean, to build individual staircases, we'll be back to a deck anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Any other comments? MR. O'BRIEN: That's it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. Vonzuben. Just a quick question that Mr. O'Brien can answer probably very quickly. Mr. Vonzuben lives next door. We just want to confirm that in fact the replacement deck is the same size as -- MR. O'BRIEN: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would address your questions to the Board and then we'll -- because we don't want back and forth going on here, okay? MS. MOORE: All right. That was the only question. Just to confirm size. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment on this application, either for or against? (Negative response). Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: It looks like we are stuck under Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments? (No response). If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion first off under Wetland, to approve this application, but deny it under Coastal Erosion as it does not meet code under Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. Board of Trustees 9 October 21, 2015 MS. HULSE: You need a basis why you are approving it for Wetland. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, for that. Okay, again, I have a motion on the floor to approve as a Wetland and deny under Coastal Erosion. And this will, as far as Wetland goes, the consistency or inconsistency under the LWRP, the approval of a Wetland Permit now would bring it into consistency under the LWRP since it was inconsistent because of a lack of a Wetland Permit in the past. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Milone & MacBroom, Inc. on behalf of CROSS SOUND FERRY SERVICES, INC., do RICHARD MacMURRAY requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the entire dock area which is approximately 20,000sq.ft.; to construct approximately 270' of new bulkhead along the shoreline in front of the existing degrading bulkhead which will result in permanently filling approximately 600sq.ft. of water area; install temporary docking dolphins during construction to accommodate continued ferry use; and to remove and rehabilitate the existing vehicle access ramps and stanchions, and replace the support structures. Located: 41270 Main Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-15-9-16. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. .The CAC resolved, on October 14th, to support this application, recognizing the importance of the Cross Sound Ferry committee, however it recognizes there are engineering details that do not take sea level rise into consideration, and plans should be in place to address that. The Trustees did a field inspection on October 14th at 9:45 and made a note to check for any dredge permits previously issued. Other than that, it seems to be a straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CUDDY: I'm Charles Cuddy, I represent Cross Sound. I'm really here to introduce Glen Jarvis, who is the engineer, so if you have questions where he can maybe highlight some of the concerns that you have. I have an affidavit of posting I would like to hand up and also my authorization on behalf of Cross Sound Ferry. As I said, if you would like to hear from Mr. Jarvis, he's here, the engineer, he may be able to answer some of the questions that you may have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, sir. MR. JARVIS: Good evening, Glen Jarvis, I work for Milone &' MacBroom, Inc., from Cheshire, Connecticut. We are the design consultant hired by Cross Sound Ferry to redesign the ferry dock. I can just run through a quick description of what we are doing, if you need that. The only question I know you have was the sea level rise. We did talk about that, but since the whole Board of Trustees 10 October 21, 2015 rest of the parking lot is basically the same elevation, rising just the dock portion would not really help anything. Because the water would just go around it. That's why we decided to just keep the same elevation of the dock. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response). Questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I recall, this will be a two-phase process? MR. JARVIS: Yes, it will be, because we want to keep the ferry operating at all times. We'll do it half at a time. Basically half this winter and the second half next winter, between November and March. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't believe we had any questions, from what we saw out in the field. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I have a comment for the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, please. MR. HANLON: My name is Robert Hanlon, I'm the President of the Orient Association. The protection of our shorelines is of critical importance. The Trustees are our first line of defense for this most valued part of our community. The Cross Sound Ferry is a key feature of our town. How it operates and maintains its facility is of interest to all residents of Southold, not just the adjacent property owners. We welcome the role the Trustees play in evaluating and monitoring the proposed bulkhead repair project to ensure that it's carried out in a responsible manner. And that does also include the dredging that is going on at this time, even though it's under another jurisdiction. However we are concerned that the current rules and procedures that the Trustees must follow limiting how the public was made aware of this application and all applications and hearings. The Trustees office has indicated they'll meet with us in the very near future to discuss possible ways to improve that process. MS. HULSE: Sir, I'll have to stop you. Your comments this evening have to pertain directly to this application before the Trustees. It can't be as generalized as you are making it and really has to be specific to the hearing before the Board. Not procedures, not policies, not conversations with the office. So if you could just address your concerns or comments about this application, that would be preferred. MR. HANLON: I am. My last sentence before being interrupted was we thank the Trustees for this commitment and all the good Work that they do. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments? MR. MCGREEVEY: As a representative from the CAC, we did make our recommendations but they were not complete. Could it be the Board of Trustees 11 October 21, 2015 recommendations made by the CAC on this application be completed? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What are the recommendation in there? MR. MCGREEVEY: Only half were addressed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The recommendations was regarding the pubic beach re-nourishment to begin by pumping sand from the east and depositing it on the state beach park to the west. Or bring in clean sand by truck. MR. MCGREEVEY: And in addition to, the runoff from the pervious parking lot should be addressed as part of the application. That's a CAC concern. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. Any comments from the Board on that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: As far as bringing in material, you know, or pumping material down to another location, that is not part of this application. That is something the applicants can consider for the future, in future projects, but that is not part of this application. MR. MCGREEVEY: We found out, the CAC has found out that the process, I think, is lacking, because there are things that we recommend that are concerns with the conservation. If it is not added into the Minutes and is not addressed by the Trustees, we would like to see the process show that it's forwarded to some other agency for addressing. We don't want to see it die in the process. That's our concern. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MICHAEL NIAMONITAKIS requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the as-built 4'x70' fixed timber pier; and to add a 10'x12' pier extension onto the seaward end. Located: 13220 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-31-14-12. This was found to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. He finds it inconsistent under different policy standards here. There's three or four standards. He brings up Coastal Erosion, the proposed fixed portion of the dock equals 280-square feet, the extension will equal 120-square feet for a total of four-hundred square feet. And that exceeds the code requirement of 200-square feet. It's located in the Coastal Fish and Wild Habitat Area. And he indicates it may result in loss of productive areas. The CAC resolved to support the application. His concern with fertilized lawn and ten-foot non-turf buffer should be installed along the landward side of the bulkhead. There are no Board of Trustees 12 October 21, 2015 docks in the area and the existing dock could be impacted by'a northeast storm. The docking facility should not restrict the public right-of-way. Those are the CAC comments. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this Application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why but it seems to me a few years back, it was something to do with the bulkhead, we wanted a ten-foot non-turf buffer. But we can't find anything in the record. So. And there was an old permit on this dock, it was a little surprising to me, if I could find it. This is from April 29th, 1987. There was an approval for a 70-foot by four-foot wide dock. I don't even think Trustees had jurisdiction at that time in the bay. So I don't know why they issued a permit. But it's a valid permit. I agree with the CAC on that non-turf buffer, I would like to see that. We can't tie that into a dock application. I don't see it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we could. TRUSTEE KING: We could tie it into it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The dock is connected to the bulkhead, so I think we could tie it in. TRUSTEE KING: It's already been re-built, am I correct? (Perusing). Yes. We were out there. It looks like they used untreated lumber on it. MR. PATANJO: Untreated lumber, correct. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Question concerning the water and electricity. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it was not applied for. It could be added to it. MR. PATANJO: Is there water and electricity? TRUSTEE KING: I don't recall seeing it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is a light at the end. And water lines going out. TRUSTEE KING: I had an issue with any additions from the start. That's my issue. I think that platform is excessive. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The original permit was for how long? TRUSTEE KING: The original permit was for 70x4' dock. I believe that is what is there now. So it was a permitted structure. But it preceded Coastal Erosion. Can we approve it and not approve it under Coastal Erosion? That's my question. Because it exceeds -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: What is the water depth at the end of 70 feet? MR. PATANJO: I believe they have around four feet of water. That's actually one of the comments from the DEC. And I actually asked the DEC to hold any further comments. I'm not going to reply to them until I get some feedback from the Trustees. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any soundings. MR. PATANJO: I didn't do any soundings yet. That's part of the DEC comments. I did not respond to them yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's tough, without soundings, to justify an extension onto a, beyond the 70 foot. Board of Trustees 13 October 21, 2015 • TRUSTEE KING: To be honest with you, I would like to table this and do some more research on that non-turf buffer and get some soundings along the dock. MR. PATANJO: I need to do them anyway, so. Any other information that I can get for this case other than soundings? TRUSTEE KING: I don't think so. So I'll make a motion to table this until we get more information on it. Anybody else here want to comment on this application? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to table it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under wetlands permits number one,•Creative Environmental Design on behalf of WALTER & BARBARA FITZGERALD request a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x30' gunite swimming pool with cartridge filter system; and install pool enclosure fencing. Located: 8915 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-6-27.3 The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, with a recommendation that a 50-foot wide natural vegetated buffer incorporating existing vegetation be included. . It was reviewed by the CAC and they resolved to support the application. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. CHICANOWICZ: Dave Chicanowicz, representing the owners. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I said, we did go out and looked at this. And actually the entire proposed work, the pool and the fence, is landward, partially landward of the house. It looks like it's about 75 feet away from wetlands that are more toward the south. MR. CHICANOWICZ: The DEC had already a 75-foot barrier set from the freshwater wetlands areas, and we are a little more than that away on this structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't have any other questions. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Creative Environmental on behalf of Walter and Barbara Fitzgerald, and also deem it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 14 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Joan Chambers on behalf of RUSSELL C. McCALL requests a Wetland Permit to repair and resurface existing 12"thick, 32" high by 128' long concrete bulkhead by resurfacing it with 6" of new reinforced concrete; remove by hand the existing fill from along the landward side of bulkhead which will be stored and replaced when work is complete; and install a silt barrier during construction. Located: 10140 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-116-6-3 This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application asking if a silt barrier will be used when work is underway. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. CHAMBERS: Yes. I am. Joan Chambers, Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I did go out and looked at this and the question I had, is there an opportunity here to raise the structure? Because I know the Board has been, over the last few years, given property owners the opportunity to raise seawalls or bulkheads. MS. CHAMBERS: The resurfacing itself raise it six inches. I spoke to Tim Gray who will be doing the work and he says he has no problem raising it a further six, to be 12 inches. And the DEC permit that was just issued gives us the latitude to raise it as much as 18. So we'll go up at least 12 inches. We may go up 18. That will depend when I can get out there with Tim Gray and see how that works with the adjoining bulkheads. But we can go up at least 12 inches. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. So this Board could consider a 12-inch raise for a total of an 18-inch raise. That's something I'll bring up to the Board. MS. CHAMBERS: Yes. The DEC left some latitude. They said they are fine if we go up 18 inches above the existing seawall with the repairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then the other question I had was I did not see in the plan a non-turf buffer. I noticed the property immediately to the east has a non-turf buffer, it was approximately six foot. And would Mr. McCall be willing to put in a six-foot non-turf buffer here so it matches the buffer to the east? MS. CHAMBERS: I don't think that's a problem. I can include that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Anybody else here to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any thoughts from the Board regarding raising this 12 or 18 inches? TRUSTEE KING: To stay consistent with the DEC, so if we give them 12 and they want to raise it to 18, make it consistent with them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Likewise. MS. CHAMBERS: So 18? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Up to 18 inches additional height. MS. CHAMBERS: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, there being no other comments, I'll make a Board of Trustees 15 October 21, 2015 motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application of Russ McCall as described with the change that the height of the wall can go up a total of an additional 18 inches, a six-foot non-turf buffer will be included, and a new set of plans will be forwarded to our office to reflect chose changes. MS. CHAMBERS: I'll get them to you in a day or two. Thank you, for your time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And note that it is found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. MS. CHAMBERS: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of HARRINGTON FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, do ELLEN CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a 1,350sq.ft. footprint; a 430sq.ft. seaward deck attached to dwelling; a 170sq.ft. entry porch; install a sanitary system; install a driveway with a 2,250sq.ft. gravel parking area with three drywells for drainage; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.1 This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. And he states that the regulator natural feature is the top of the bank. The setback as shown is 39 feet. Chapter 275 defines the setback as the minimum distance by which any building, structure or operation must be separated from the wetland boundary of coastal erosion line or bluff. He suggested in the event this application is approved, to relocate the residence to a maximum distance from the waterbody, establish a 20-foot wide natural vegetated buffer, and limit the removal of vegetation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a set of plans? TRUSTEE KING: The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore there was no recommendation from them. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just, JMO Environmental Consulting, on behalf Of the applicant. Mr. King, I missed the first part about the setback from the bluff that you were talking about. TRUSTEE KING: His comments where the setback is shown as 39 feet from the top of bank. I'm just trying to get my stuff together here so I could -- MR. JUST: Because I'm showing 51 feet from the top of the bank. TRUSTEE KING: Because we reviewed this in the office. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have here in the plans 39 feet from the corner of the deck, top of bank. MR. JUST: Is this for lot 12.1 or 12.2? Board of Trustees 16 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: This is 2-1-12.1 MR. JUST: If you don't mind if I come up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure, please. • TRUSTEE KING: You have two here back to back. So, I think I'm on the right one. MR. JUST: This shows 51 from the top of the bank. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's not what I have here. MR. JUST: No, that's a different plan. Let me grab that one. TRUSTEE KING: We have different plans coming here. MR. JUST: You show it as lot five or lot six your plan, on the CME plan. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This says block 28, lot six. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that the right one or the wrong one? MR. JUST: I think it's the wrong one, quite frankly. But I could be wrong, too. It's not the first time. (Perusing). On that particular plan for lot six, it does show it a 37-foot setback from the bank. And what was the recommendation or the comments? TRUSTEE KING: Try to move it back, if we can. Which one do you have there? TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is lot six. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so we are on the right one. MR. JUST: That's lot 12.2, correct? TRUSTEE KING: We are on 12.1. MR. JUST: Well, that's the wrong plan. That's 12.1 you are looking at. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 12.2 includes 104 feet of retaining wall. MR. JUST: Correct. But 12.1, which we are on, does not show that. TRUSTEE KING: The one I opened up is 12.1 on the tax map. We have plans from the other property in this file. MR. JUST: I think there was a little confusion originally when it was submitted because the Building Department thought they were not single and separate lots and they had the same tax map number. We had to go back to the Suffolk County Department of Real Property to prove that this was a lot that was approved by the Planning Board back in the '80s as well as recognized by the original street cove subdivision. TRUSTEE KING: So you are saying they are not single and separate lots or they are? MR. JUST: They are. TRUSTEE KING: They are single and separate lots. So it's 12.2 and 12.1. MR. JUST: But when we originally submitted the application, the Building Department determined they were not single and separate, but they then changed their decision to say they are single and separate. But I think you are on 12.1 because it doesn't show anything about retaining walls. It does show a small one, but this is very confusing at this point. TRUSTEE KING: It certainly is. MR. JUST: Because for 12.1, I have a project description of a single-family dwelling with 1,350-square foot footprint, 430-square foot seaward deck attached to dwelling, 170-square foot entry porch, sanitary system, driveway, parking, three drywells Board of Trustees 17 October 21, 2015 for drainage and gutters. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, so we have the right plans. The concern is the closeness to the top of the bank. I think that's the concern. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. What the CAC coordinator is asking is if the proposed residence can be moved farther landward. MR. JUST: Again, which plan are we looking at, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at one that is lot six, is the one that matches 2-1-12.1, because it does not have any rock retaining wall in it or boulder retaining wall, which is in 12.2. 12.1 does not have a rock retaining wall. MR. JUST: All right. So we are looking at the one with the retaining wall? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we are looking at-- MR. JUST: Sorry about the confusion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's all right. We are looking at number three under Wetland Permits. MR. JUST: I don't think there is any room to push the house,any further back. I can check with the engineers on that. The house is 75 foot from the wetlands line, the septic system is greater than 100 feet away from the wetlands line. We have leaders and gutters 100 feet from the wetlands line for roof runoff. I think we have maximized the setback of the house from the edge;of the bluff. We are well landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. TRUSTEE KING: Is that a curved property line that goes around there, Glenn, by Clay Road? MR. JUST: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: What's the closest it can be to Clay Road,',the house? Could it be moved to the north and then closer to the road? MR. JUST: Again, I can go back to Dick Strauss tomorrow morning and check on it. But they are showing the building setback line, the typical one that is on the plan, I think is based on what is required by the Building Department. TRUSTEE KING: Why can't he put the house up here? It gets it further away from the bluff. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you approach? (Mr. Just approaches the dais). TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to address the LWRP concerns.,Could that house be moved this way? MR. JUST: I'm seeing this. That's set off the road. TRUSTEE KING: It's 50 feet. MR. JUST: That's what is required I think under Zoning. Because we did have a meeting onsite here, back in I believe it was mid-June. And the plan was changed quite a bit to try to meet with, I think Jay was the only Trustee there at the time. That was his recommendation. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Unfortunately Jay is not here. MR. JUST: I understand that. I can go back, again, tomorrow, to the engineer/surveyor and check about the building setback line. If we can relocate the house. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's worth a shot. I didn't go to the Board of Trustees 18 October 21, 2015 site, so it's hard for me to really visualize it and compare it to this. I know Jay was there. He might have some more input, too. I would like to see you make an attempt to get the house further away from that bluff. MR. JUST: And if we can't-- TRUSTEE KING: If you can't, it is what it is. MR. JUST: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: Is this non jurisdiction for the DEC? MR. JUST: We already have those in-hand. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And leave the septic where it is. TRUSTEE KING: All right, I hate to table things, but I'll make a motion to table this application to see if we can do a little better. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MCGREEVEY: What's the disposition on that, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's tabled. TRUSTEE KING: Okay number four, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of HARRINGTON FAMILY LTD. PARTNERSHIP, do ELLEN CAMPBELL requests a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling with a 1,350sq.ft. footprint; a 220sq.ft. seaward deck attached to dwelling; a 144sq.ft. entry porch; install a sanitary system; install a driveway with a 2,700sq.ft. gravel parking area with a 12" "nyloplast" drain to catch basins; install approximately 104' of boulder retaining walls with • fencing; and install gutters to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff. Located: Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-1-12.2 This is for another new dwelling. Once again, this was also found inconsistent and I think it's, again, the setback is shown is 51 feet. And it's the same comments, relocate the residence to maximize the distance from the waterbody. Those are the LWRP comments. MR. JUST: What is that based on? Is that based on Zoning? Because, we're not-- TRUSTEE KING: The top of bluff is 100 feet for us. MR. JUST: That's on the Sound? Or the terminology, it's not the same on the harbor. TRUSTEE KING: I think it includes Fishers Island Sound. MR. JUST: I don't think the harbor is included in that. And that would be the case for both properties. TRUSTEE KING: That might make a difference. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have a copy of the plans? TRUSTEE KING: The only comments Jay made is a 20 foot non-turf buffer with the four-foot path. MR. JUST: Which can easily be accommodated. But as far as the comments of the LWRP, they didn't state any section of the Town Code or anything with their comments? TRUSTEE KING: Not really. He's putting it under blanket, 6.3, protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. Board of Trustees 19 October 21, 2015 MR. JUST: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: You might be thinking of Zoning on that, too. As far as it just being the Sound and Fishers Island Sound and Block Island Sound. Under the Wetland Code, I think it's just bluff. I'm almost positive. If we don't make a distinction between the Bay or the Sound. It's strictly bluff. MR. JUST: And this they said it was West Harbor, it was not Fishers Island Sound. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And this one is, it shows the proposed structure is 51 feet from the top of the bank. MR. JUST: We finally got that together. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I guess the question, if it was moved farther to the south here, could it even get any closer-- could it get farther away from the top of the bluff without being too close to the road. MR. JUST: Again, I'm looking at the building setback lines on the plans that. I think that's all from Zoning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This one seems tight, the way it's situated. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't seem to be as high an elevation on the bank either. MR. JUST: It drops down pretty quick there. That's why initially we moved the house back further than we even originally proposed, after Jay was at the site. TRUSTEE KING: Glenn, I'm just looking through our code here. ' It says residence, 100-feet is the setback. It just says top of bluff. MR. JUST: I have to research that myself a little bit. TRUSTEE KING: We can also at the end of these setbacks, I want to make it clear, the Board of the Trustees reserves the right to waive or alter these setbacks. We have the authority to alter it. Just to let you know. MR. JUST: With the new system you have in place, we did submit to the Building Department first. And again, if it didn't meet code they would have maybe gone to the ZBA before you guys could make a judgment call on the applications. So that's in place as well. If you feel more comfortable with me coming back next month or E-mailing you tomorrow. TRUSTEE KING: We are holding up one, what's the difference. I'm a little more comfortable with this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I am, too. I'm comfortable with this one. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to move forward then? Are you all right with that? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm all right. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, anyone else here to comment on this application? (No response). There is no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing on this one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with Board of Trustees 20 October 21, 2015 the stipulation that we need a 20-foot non-turf buffer with a four-foot path. And we can get that drawn on the plans. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And with that it will bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Motion and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. I apologize to the people in the audience. If you know me, I never take this long. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Robert Brown Architect, P.C. on behalf of ELENA COLOMBO requests a Wetland Permit to repair sections and replace sections of damaged foundation of an existing 1,045sq.ft. cottage; and to replace the two existing cottage landings. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage#3, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support this application with the condition that the project conforms with FEMA and Suffolk County Health Department standards. The Trustees did a field inspection on October 14th and after an in-house review noted it was straightforward and consistent with previous actions in Breezy Shores Cottages. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BROWN: Robert Brown on behalf of Elena Colombo,just here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions from the Board? (Negative response). Any questions or comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BROWN: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number six, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of 430 WSD, LLC, c/o PETER CASOLA requests a Wetland Permit to add a 13'x47.9' porch onto existing dwelling; install an 18'x36' in-ground swimming pool with pool drywell; and to maintain the existing 10'wide non-turf buffer along the top of the bank. Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-80-5-2.1 The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved not to support the application because the project was not staked, there was no drywell for pool backwash, and the setbacks were questionable. Board of Trustees 21 October 21, 2015 When the Board went out and looked at that, it was staked, just so the representative from the CAC knows, it was staked when we went out and looked at it. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of Mr. Casola who is the principal of the WSD, LLC., short for West Shore Drive LLC. So creative. This application, you have been to this property lots of times. The original house was demolished with a permit in 2015. The new house was approved for construction. The,new house and garage had conforming setbacks with respect to the 75 feet of the Zoning, the Zoning setback, but it did need Trustee approval. We do have drywells and gutters that are proposed for the house and all structures. We do have the non-turf buffer, which has been there since the original house was placed there. And if you recall, this property was one that the bulkhead was, with a permit, was replaced, and part of that application process the Board had him remove an upper deck that was pre-existing. All of that having been said now, we are here to add just the covered porch, which is a 13x47' covered porch on the back of the house. And the proposed pool. Both of those structures have Zoning Board approval at 63 feet from the retaining wall or 83 feet from the bulkhead. So we would ask for your approval for these structures. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now, looking at the conditions the ZBA required, and they talk about pool mechanics, with sound-deadening enclosure. And I see where the pool equipment is here, I'm looking for the drywell for backwash. MS. MOORE: It's right next to it, there is a little circle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The initials BW. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For backwash. That's the only question we had on our notes. Was there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). I'll make a motion to close this public,hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as described. And it has been deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of ', PETER & DIANA O'NEILL request a Wetland Permit for the.existing 4'x135' wood walk with steps from top of bank to an existing Board of Trustees 22 October 21, 2015 wood deck that is 58' in total length consisting of a section which is 29' long by 8' wide, and a section that is 29' long by16'wide along the landward edge of the bulkhead; existing 16.2'x30.4' boat house; two existing 15' bulkhead returns; and 15' of existing dilapidated bulkhead with a 5' return. Located: 5875 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-1-1.3 This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. The structures were built without the benefit of Board of Trustee review and permits. I think that's the inconsistency. And I think he has a little concern about the boathouse. It's located in an APF FEMA flood zone. It's an area that is prone to flood from previous storm events. And the CAC supports the application, however there is a, concern that storm water runoff from the upland structures. The CAC recommends the improper drainage be addressed. MS. MOORE: Sorry, the what? TRUSTEE KING: The improper drainage be addressed. This application doesn't concern the upland structure, so we are looking at the dock and walkway. MS. MOORE: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: We all went out there. It's just old, deteriorated structures that probably need upgrading. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore on behalf of the O'Neill's. The boathouse and decking actually has C of O's. It's pre-CO's actually. We know from our site inspection that its vintage is the teenage years of Mr. Bergen. He's familiar with the boathouse. And it's been there for certainly over 30 years. Maybe longer. TRUSTEE KING: Probably a great deal longer. MS. MOORE: Yes, but I didn't want to be rude. TRUSTEE KING: I personally didn't have any issues. Everything is there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an opportunity here for this frame boathouse to put gutters and leaders leading to a drywell landward, so the drywell will be installed on the landward side of this boathouse? MS. MOORE: I don't know that it's practical because you are talking about the drywell being buried probably into the water. Because of the depth of the water in that area, you would really have to bring up the drywell much higher on the topography. Then you would be pumping water up. I don't know that that is feasible. The rainwater is just seeping through the wood deck so -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: It looks like the elevation line on the landward side of this bulkhead is at four feet. And you do have a good distance to the six foot elevation. So I'm just wondering if, again, in that area a drywell could be put in to address the runoff from the roof. MS. MOORE: I mean if it makes the Board happy, I'll talk to my client about it. You know, I don't know that that is --what might suggest is that if we have to come in for repairs of the Board of Trustees 23 October 21, 2015 structure, at that point it would make sense because then we could incorporate it into any kind of repairs. So I think my answer is, fine, we'll do the best we can. It might have to be a very shallow drywell. TRUSTEE KING: Not a very practical place to do any kind of drainage except maybe a little French drain behind it. MS. MOORE: That's certainly feasible. TRUSTEE BERGEN: French drain behind it on the landward side. MS. MOORE: That's feasible. That would work. Thank you. That's a good idea. TRUSTEE KING: I think that's the easiest way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that would act as a filtration system also before that water seeps down into the groundwater and into the creek. MS. MOORE: Sure. That's a simple solution, okay. If you want to add it to your permit, behind, French drain behind the boathouse. That's fine. TRUSTEE KING: We'll probably do that in the motion, and probably stipulate there is to be no plumbing in that boathouse. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And no habitation. MS. MOORE: That's fine. There is none. And it's not habitable. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Ah, but we have seen it before. MS. MOORE: Well, not my clients. But we all peeked in, so we know it's not habitable. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on the application? MR. MCGREEVEY: For the record, stormwater runoff from the upland structures, since we have such a very, very steep topography from the back of the building down to the water, the stormwater runoff from the upland structures is a serious concern of the CAC. It can be easily addressed in the application, if it's proper, but it is a serious concern. It's the first thing that came to our observation, and we would like it as part of the record for processing. TRUSTEE KING: We have run into this before. I don't know how to address it. We are looking at a dock application. We are not looking at the upland structure, we're not looking at the house. MR. MCGREEVEY: Is that a question for me? TRUSTEE KING: No, it's just I don't know where to go with it. MS. MOORE: It's just a jurisdictional issue. MR. MCGREEVEY: It is a jurisdictional issue. The CAC is trying to bring across a point that in the processing, even though it's out of your jurisdiction it should be a matter of record and referred to the proper jurisdiction. Because we are concerned about all the natural resources in the town. And we want it to be somewhere as part of the town record. And that has been brought to our attention to do this. It's already a letter to the Town Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fair. Thank you. MS. MOORE: If I may suggest, I understand his point, it's a valid point. Maybe as a recommendation, it's not a condition. But as a recommendation for the future to address drainage of the principle structure. That is certainly acceptable and my Board of Trustees 24 October 21, 2015 client, I think as time goes on, is certainly something they can look at. TRUSTEE KING: You can bring it to their attention. MS. MOORE: If it's a recommendation, not a condition, that's fine. MR. MCGREEVEY: Appreciate it. Thank you. MS. MOORE: You're welcome. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Board? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation it would have a French drain behind the frame boathouse on the landward side of it to take care of some of the roof runoff, and there is to be no plumbing or habitation of that boathouse. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Which that will address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE KING: And that brings it into consistency. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 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# 1000-104-9-1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from several conditions. One is that Chapter 275 requires the determination of the length of the dock must include the dimensions of the vessel. And it mentions the dimensions are not specified. And that important views, watersheds and vistas in the community have not been identified or discussed. And in the event the action is approved, suggests a gravel or mulch path replace the 4'x78'fixed catwalk. And the second condition, a significant non-disturbance buffer equal to or greater than 30-foot width from the tidal wetland line be established to mitigate the local impacts from. the dock structure. The CAC voted to support this application, with no conditions. The Trustees did a field inspection on October 14th, and noted the access path seemed to drift over the property line. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant Ryan Hutchinson, who is also here. Sorry, I was trying to jot down notes of what Mike was reading from the LWRP. I'll respond to those as quickly as I can. With respect to the application, this is a fairly routine Board of Trustees 25 October 21, 2015 application for a dock that would be located between two adjoining docks. The one to the west is a dock that was permitted by the Board ages ago, I think in the '80s. And the Board --the dock that is located immediately to the east was approved by the Board pursuant to Wetlands Permit#7892, that was issued to Joseph Zelner on August 22nd, 2012. This dock actually would be located generally between those two, but actually it would be tucked in, inside the pier line relative to those two docks. So probably even with an eight or nine-foot vessel on the outside of the float, we would still only be out about in line with the two floats on either side of the property. As the Board knows, I met with the Board here on a pre-application conference basis before we ultimately prepared the plans and submitted the application. There is a little bit of a shoal out there, so we centered the dock in the deepest part of the water. It's probably around two feet of water at low tide, which is why we show the chocks at mean low or low. We got a reading from the survey of a foot-and-a-half, which is actually consistent with the mean low or low on the depth of the Zelner dock to the east which was approved in 2012. It does get pretty shallow out there at mean low or low. Really in response to one of the comments from the LWRP coordinator, we really did intend to design this dock to have minimal structure to it by really just using what is an existing sort of meandering foot path out to about where the dock begins, really just landward of the tidal wetlands boundary. So we are really consistent with his recommendation. You could not replace the rest of the structure with a gravel path because it would be under water at high tide and through the wetland vegetation. So I think our design is actually consistent with that. And it was consistent with what the Board did for a dock that was located on the other side of Broadwaters Cove a couple of years ago. When we met during your field inspections there was some discussion of the existing footpath. There is really two foot paths there, one which runs along the unopened town road, North Pond Road, and Dave discussed a little bit in the field that that is used by Nassau Point Property Owners Association. I spoke to Ryan, he's actually met, I think there is two people that use it and maintain it. Ryan has met them. To me, the issue of overlap really has more to do with that path meandering on to the subject property, which Ryan has no objection to. The foot path on Ryan's property does meander off a little bit but it is really just meandering on to town property. So unless there is some objection by the Board, we are not really proposing that foot path, we are just proposing to continue to walk through it, which is the same condition that exists now. And since moving . the footpath would require cutting new wetland vegetation, unless the Board has a serious concern with it or feels they have to address it, we would ask for the situation to just remain as it is. Board of Trustees 26 October 21, 2015 And I think that addresses the comments. I don't really have a response to the issue of the view shed in the LWRP. There's docks all along this shoreline, as I said, including the two docks on the immediately adjoining property, so there is nothing really that this smaller dock would do to change the existing vistas along that shoreline. If the Board has any other comments or questions of me, I'm happy to answer them. And again, Ryan Hutchinson is also here. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Rob,just to clarify something. You said eight or nine foot boat. I assume you meant the beam? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, I was just thinking the boat would be docked on the outside of the float. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I just used to scale, the limit of clearing is far greater than the 30 foot non-turf buffer that is being asked for. So if you are honoring that limit of clearing, that addresses that issue. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, thank you, Mike. I was going to say a good part of this property is actually a non-turf buffer. I would say that I don't recall any other prior instance where this Board has asked for a covenanted buffer in connection with a dock. So we would take issue with that, because a non-turf buffer protects the wetlands from upland impacts from the house or drainage or septic or fertilization. The dock is really located in the wetland and would be seaward of any buffer. So there,is really no nexus between a non-turf buffer and the dock, and this Board never asked for that before. But there is certainly no proposal for any clearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, for myself, I appreciate what you are saying regarding the access path meandering slightly off the applicant's property on to another. But I, since this is going to be, depending how this goes in next few minutes, possibly a permitted structure by this Board, and included in that is the access path, I would want to see the access path remain on this individual's property. If he was to then have an informal agreement with the adjoining property owner that satisfies everybody, great, but I'm just not comfortable with approving an access path on paper here that goes off this gentleman's property on to another property. MR. HERRMANN: The only point of clarification on that, Dave, is it's the Town's property. It's not a privately owned road. It's not an easement. It's not a right-of-way. So it's really not that much different from somebody walking into the street and then walking back on to their own property. It is literally a town roadway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can I see the survey? (Perusing). MR. HERRMANN: That's a copy of the tax map that actually shows that it's a public road. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Just for the record, Rob, something like that should be submitted seven business days before the hearing so Board of Trustees 27 October 21, 2015 that we have an opportunity to look at it and the public has an opportunity to look at it. MR. HERRMANN: Point taken, Mike. It's just a tax map. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm familiar with these roads on Nassau Point, similar to Pond Road, and I can tell you that these are maintained by the property owners association and not by the town. So again, I just think it would be a lot cleaner if the access path was on the piece the property of the applicant. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue with the path at all. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe the Trustees are prohibited by code to give permission to do something on someone else's property. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we are giving him permission. We are just permitting a dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm saying the plans include an access path that meanders off the applicant's property and I think the cleanest way to do this is to have the access path included and shown to fall on the applicant's property and not off their property. That way there is no question about this later on. MR. HERRMANN: I mean,just to be clear, again, we are not proposing a foot path, we are not asking you to approve the footpath. But I don't think complying with the Board's request, if that's the Board's request, is problematic. To me it seems like, you know, I don't know exactly where that bend occurs, and if we have to remove existing wetland vegetation to make the adjustment, I don't see that it's necessary. But we are certainly not going to live or die on our application for a dock based on the application for footpath. So if that's the Board's disposition, I think Mr. Hutchinson will honor it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: If you could later date submit plans showing the footpath on the applicant's property, I think it would go a long way to resolving my concerns about this. MR. HERRMANN: That's what I'm saying. If you would condition an approval on actively proposing an adjustment to the existing foot path we can certainly submit those. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (No response). Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out how much it intrudes on to the North Road. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It didn't appear to be intruding that much. It's very little. TRUSTEE KING: Four, five feet, maybe. MR. HERRMANN: It's like two, three feet. So just for point of clarification. I mean Mike, what we would do is submit a revised • plan that would just show a proposed connection say from this point inside the property line to that point, and abandon the part that goes over. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That works for me. MR. HERRMANN: And just let it passively revegetate. I don't know if you also want to address the fact that the access path for whoever is using it from the property owners association 0 Board of Trustees 28 October 21, 2015 effectively ends at the property line and then runs on to the applicant's property, because that access path, which would be, you know, a quasi-public access path, would now lead directly to the dock. But I don't know how to address that. MS. HULSE: That's not this Board's concern. MR. HERRMANN: I mean, Mr. Hutchinson has no objection to it. But as I said, he has the people that use it. TRUSTEE KING: I think we are kicking a sleeping dog. That's what I think. MS. HULSE: That is outside our jurisdiction for us to consider. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application noting that the limit of clearing addresses the inconsistency as pointed out by the LWRP coordinator, and that new plans will be submitted showing the path, footpath, will be entirely on the applicant's property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The question is are we incorporating a buffer. But there already is a limit of clearance, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of BRENDA C. KEIL requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 126 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead; construct a +1-29' vinyl return in-place of existing timber return; place as backfill landward of new bulkhead approximately 50 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source; establish a 10'wide non-turf buffer landward of new bulkhead; remove remaining portion of previously existing dock and associated pilings, and construct in its place a new fixed timber dock consisting of a 4'x48'fixed timber catwalk; a 3'x20' ramp; a 6'x20'float secured by two 10" diameter piles; and install water and electric to the dock. Located: 2045 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-3 The Board did go out and looked at this proposed proposal, and it was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt and inconsistent. Specifically ,the replacement of the bulkhead was exempt; the inconsistency of the dock structure as it was constructed without a Board of Trustee permit; the applicant currently enjoys access to public water via an existing private unpermitted dock structure. In the event the action is approved it is recommended the proposed non-turf buffer is vegetated with native dry-tolerant plants, open-grating is required and ramps and floats are required to be removed in the winter months and stored in an upland location. The CAC resolved to support the application. Board of Trustees 29 October 21, 2015 Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Brenda Keil, the property owner. I think Mattituck Creek was the last place in town where docks were not inconsistent and it appears we lost that battle now as well. There is a dock that has been on this property, we can find it dating back at least to 1980. It has been in place and used for long time. It was severely damaged during Sandy. The owners have not addressed it really until now. We have, submitted a couple of different aerial photographs where you can see where the dock has existed in the past. The pilings, this Board knows from site inspection, you can see in the photo associated with the prior dock, are still set out there, and we have designed the dock to remain within the pier line that is set by the many, many, many docks located along the shoreline in Mattituck Creek here. The bulkhead replacement is quite routine. It's in-place replacement of aging bulkhead that is due for replacement. We show a proposed ten-foot non-turf buffer on the property which would be consistent with the non-turf buffer that was required of the adjoining property owner to the south, Renganeschi. $o I think we have addressed that concern. And that's really it. It's actually a pretty straightforward application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, there was one observation we made out in the field and that was to consider this to be L-shaped rather than heading straight out into the creek. The reason for that is, as was pointed out, that in storms that involved southerlies, it gets pretty nasty in there for boats that are docked straight out, where if they are on an "L" or"T" shaped, their stern or bow is into the wind, so to speak, so it doesn't cause as much damage to the boat, or potential for damage to the boat. So I didn't know if your applicant had considered that recommendation that we made in the field. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, as we mentioned in the field we looked and there are various docks along here, probably more than 50% of them are parallel, but there are several that are straight out. Is that Mr. Keil? Mr. Keil is here. I only met Mrs. Keil. But I don't know if you would like to respond. I mean my response, if Mr. Keil was not here, was that there was a specific desire on behalf of applicant's part to have a float aligned perpendicular to the shore so you would have full length access for a boat on either side of it. I don't know, Mr. Keil, would you like to maintain the proposal? MR. KEIL: Eric Keil, Mattituck. Yes, basically he's nailed it. We just want to be able to put two Boston whalers off the dock instead of one. If you want to give us two floats and do a big "L" instead of little "L," then sure. But otherwise, no, I think we would like to keep it the way it is. One other comment I would like to make, too, and that is Board of Trustees 30 October 21, 2015 none of my neighbors, and some of their docks are quite new, pull their floats in in the wintertime. And I'm wondering when that requirement started. Because that will be an expensive and onerous proposition to remove that float in the winter, and I wondering why we would have to do it when other docks that have been permitted quite recently do not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Please understand, that was a recommendation from the LWRP coordinator. That's just a recommendation. And again, as far as the dock going straight out or going into an "L" or a "T,"that's a recommendation we were making based on one Trustee's years of experience living in that Mattituck Inlet. MR. KEIL: I understand. Thank you, Mr. King, for looking out for our interest. It's really just a matter of wanting to put two small powerboats there and not wanting to have to keep one on a trailer. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we noted that the dock that is to the north that is L-shaped, has that, has a very large powerboat on the outside and a small powerboat on the inside. Again, it's just a recommendation. I heard what you have to say and -- MR. KEIL: Well, if it turns out I'm making a big mistake, I can always come back and apply for the change, after the fact. TRUSTEE BERGEN: After the fact. After calling the insurance company. MR. KEIL: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: You just have to keep an eye on the weather. A lot of these folks don't live here. They leave their boat, a storm comes up and their boat gets damaged, but they are not here to remove the boat. MR. KEIL: My neighbor you are talking about, the boat has been there since Memorial Day weekend. It's been out three times, you know. So you are right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Rob, is there an opportunity for flow-through decking to be put over from the bulkhead out to the mean low water line? Again, I'm trying to address the inconsistency. That was recommended by the LWRP coordinator. MR. HERRMANN: I'm trying to remember,just looking quickly at the photos here. I don't recall there was any marsh vegetation or other aquatic vegetation in the area of the dock. I know there is down at the corner of the bulkhead. MR. KEIL: There is no vegetation probably within 50 or 60 feet of the dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But there is the opportunity for vegetation there; that that opportunity could be encouraged with the use of the flow-through decking through that area. MR. HERRMANN: Dave, I would say, I mean the height of the decking there from the bottom is about eight feet. I mean -- MR. KEIL: I mean, the dock is very high, a lot of light gets in underneath and, Dave, I would have to respectively disagree with you. If you go from our bulkhead south in Mattituck Creek there is no vegetation in front of any of my neighbors' houses because with the tide and the water and length of time the water is Board of Trustees 31 October 21, 2015 there. The reason there is vegetation on that corner is the corner grade at that corner gets much higher. So there is the bulkhead is maybe only six feet high. Down at the other end it's eight or at leash eight feet. TRUSTEE KING: There is one property to the south where there is vegetation. That's because the bulkhead was built about 15 feet landward of the existing bulkheads. That was last piece of property to get bulkheaded and they had to put the bulkhead a little further. It's the only place that has some vegetation. I know. MR. KEIL: The water is just too deep there. MR. HERRMANN: Dave, you know, usually I'm pretty quick to accede to these kinds of mitigative requirements, but I don't see it as an appropriate place for open-grate decking. I can't think of any other dock on Mattituck Creek the Board has asked for that. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it would work myself. I don't think it would help the vegetation. I really don't. I was surprised it was found inconsistent also. Because for many years most of the docks in Mattituck Creek were found consistent, because it's a maritime center. MR. HERRMANN: I'm thinking maybe just because Mark couldn't find an old permit for the old dock that used to be there, but there, is not much of a dock there anymore, so. MR. KEIL: The clock has been there since 1962, I think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience want to comment on thi application? (No response). 1 If not, any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think it fits in with the neighborhood. It's the nature of the beast. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application noting with the inclusion of the non-turf buffer, and granting a permit to a previously unpermitted structure, will then bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of BENJAMIN & SIOBHAN MOR®EN requests a Wetland Permit to construct 3'x6' steps leading to a 4'x52' fixed "kayak dock" consisting of an elevated 4'x44'fixed timber catwalk with open-grate decking, and 4'x8' stairs to grade at seaward end; and equip the dock with light, water and electricity. Located: 801 Maple Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-1-30.2 This was also found inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. One of the questions he asked, what's the purpose of lights, . Board of Trustees 32 October 21, 2015 water and electricity for a kayak dock. And mean low low water at the end of the dock is shown as 12 inches. There is no restriction offered on vessel size in the future. Those are basically his comments. The applicant currently enjoys access to public waters via a public launching ramp accessing Town Creek at the end of Terry Lane. And this structure will extend further into public waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to the public underwater lands and near-shore areas. The CAC supports the application with removable or seasonal stairs to the seaward end of the dock. Questions the overall length of the docking facility and whether it exceeds one-third of the distance across the width of the creek. Those are the CAC comments. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. I met with the Board during field inspections. We did discuss the issue of the overall seaward intrusion. There are distances reflected both on the certified land survey and then also on the plans that show that we are within the one-third, the structure itself is actually within the 25% rule, which the Army Corps imposes. As I mentioned to the Board in the field, actually, I had not realized, foolishly, that there had been actually a permit issued for virtually the identical structure that we proposed to a prior property owner Robert Peters in May of 2006, which is permit#6369. And fortunately, as it turns out, looks like I designed essentially the exact same thing that Bob Fox of Sea Level mapping had designed almost ten years ago. But what I noticed, interestingly, after we met, and if you recall when we met in the field, we discussed the fact of possibly extending the catwalk farther landward to intersect with the slope, and then taking this about eight-foot wide historically cleared path and revegetating it, and just having like a four-foot wide . stepping stone past directly down to the dock. Which required extending the catwalk back about, oh, gosh, maybe --what's the originally proposed length of the catwalk, was it 40 -- on the original plan there, Jim, what is -- TRUSTEE KING: Let me see if I could find it. MR. HERRMANN: Sorry. I'm asking a question I should know the answer to. (Perusing). 44 feet. We extended it back six feet. And interestingly what I noticed even since we met, on your original permit, is that you condition the permit that the landward end of the catwalk would start nine feet landward at the insure edge of Spartina Alterna Flora. And with my second stroke of luck here, when I extended the dock back, I just submitted up to you a revised plan. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm looking at here. MR. HERRMANN: Our catwalk would now extend about nine feet landward of the inshore edge of Alterna Floras. So what we are proposing now would be virtually identical to what the Board Board of Trustees 33 October 21, 2015 previously approved, but with the addition of the stairs at the end. So it would be 4x56 timber catwalk. The Board previously approved a 4x50'fixed timber catwalk, with open-grate decking as we proposed here. But with the access stairs at the end. To me I think it makes sense to secure the stairs as timber stairs. We had not contemplated the thought of using seasonal stairs. Sometimes the metal stairs can get pretty slick. Sorry Jim, I handed up a set of plans dated 10/2015 that just coincided with what we discussed in the field. The only difference it adds to the proposal, it will revegetate that pathway is it establish four-foot stepping stone path to the catwalk at the location of the proposed catwalk. So the overall length increases, but to the landward side. So the overall structure becomes 58', consisting of a 50' catwalk and eight-foot stairs. And as we discussed in the field it would just, it shifts the landward end of the dock back to the slope. In terms of access, this is really the head of this part of Town Creek. The water is shallow. We are proposing the structure out to where we are proposing it to in order to just reach a foot of water, which has basically been the standard of the Board and the DEC for one of these kayak-type docks, is'to get to 12 inches of usable water at lower low tide. Jay is not here tonight but as he observed during field inspection this is not an area anyway where there are vessels passing in front of the property or heading north up to the end of the creek. There is nothing but marsh. The Morden property is the most northerly property on this side of the shoreline that has water access. So there is definitely no issue here in terms of navigational access. It really just provides a structural -- safe, structural point of access to the water. The water is not deep enough to have a traditional floating dock, and in circumstances like that, especially like in Richmond Creek, that this has been the alternative the Board has allowed. And as I noted it has allowed here previously but the prior owner never acted on it. TRUSTEE KING: I think he had a good question. What's the need for lights and water and electricity to that dock. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, again, I know-- in fact Ben had asked me today about installing low voltage lights along the stepping stone path. Just the idea if they want to walk on this at night you would be able to see where you are going. I don't think it's something they would have like a navigational Coast Guard light at the end, necessarily. But I think they would want the ability to use it, you know, for access at least after sundown, safely. And we know we have had that issue before where if we don't include that in the application and then they install it later, they end up getting a violation. So just as a habit now I include it now on all these actions. Just to make sure we have permission for it if they want to do it. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's feeling? Board of Trustees 34 October 21, 2015 MR. HERRMANN: It's really an esthetic thing more than anything else. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My only concern would, the requirement would be it would have to be Dark Skies Compliant to comply with the Town's Dark Skies Compliant ordinance. MR. HERRMANN: They would not have any problem with downward facing lights. In fact I just had, I think one of the applications we just closed, we had a situation with that where there was concern with the other neighbor shining lights up in the air at the end of the dock. That certainly would not be the intention here. I mean what, even if it was something, even for the structure it was sort of low voltage type lights as opposed to wired electricity. Just something, I think they just want to be able to physically get down there and walk there if it's dark, • safely. That's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know people do go out on the water even in kayaks, rowboats, canoes, at dusk. And so I don't have a problem with low voltage lights, again, Dark Skies Compliant, out there. That's just myself. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to address the inconsistency. We have open-grate decking already, so that's already in the program., MR. HERRMANN: I mean we really, we try to make an activeeffort to address possible inconsistencies when we design the dock. Basically there is a consistent recommendation of inconsistency for every dock that is proposed in the Town. So it's hard to manage it when the code allows for it. TRUSTEE KING: What's the Board's pleasure? (No response). Are there any other comments to be made? MR. MCGREEVEY: Because of the location on the creek, would seasonal stairs to the water's edge be applicable in this application? I know where you can have storm damage it makes sense. I don't know if seasonal stairs -- TRUSTEE KING: I never seen seasonal stairs at the end of a dock yet. Usually it's a permanent structure that is fastened into the'bottom. MR. MCGREEVEY: I agree. I'm just posing a question. I realize what you are saying. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm thinking of it from an ice perspective,that that is more structure in the water which would be ice in the winter which would have a tendency to pull it up also. I think it's a good recommendation for somebody, not just this but anybody who has stairs at end of a dock to pull them up. Again, just to protect their own property in the event of ice. MR. MCGREEVEY: It's not only for the protection of the applicant's property, it's also for a concern these stairs are ripped off by any means, storm, ice, it becomes flotsam or jetsam, whatever you call it, and you have a safety issue for navigation in our waters. MR. HERRMANN: If that's the concern we would rather see a stairway as part of the permitted structure. Board of Trustees 35 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: All right. I just have a problem with lights on the dock, on a kayak dock. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you feel comfortable to defer it to myself? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. Does anyone want to make a motion? Because I don't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. First off, any other comments from any members of the audience? (Negative response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application noting that the Board finds it consistent with the use of open-grate decking. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have a question. Are we restricting this to a kayak dock? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If that's a condition you would like to put on it. TRUSTEE KING: That would help. MS. HULSE: You have a motion with no second. You can't discuss it at this point. Either there is a second on his motion and then discuss it, or you have a new motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I have a second on my motion? (Negative response). Not hearing any second, I withdraw the motion. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application. This is restricted to kayak use only, and only to have low level lighting on the catwalk, and it's only to be used while the dock is in use. In other words not lights on it all night long. MS. HULSE: That's not enforceable. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that motion. MR. HERRMANN: Jim, I would just ask-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Hang on. It's a motion on the floor that is seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Can I ask for a point of clarification on the use of the term "kayak"? I assume a canoe or some similar? MS. HULSE: This is not part of the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: That's just common sense. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can come into the office and discuss this with us in the office. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eleven, En-Consultants on behalf of ELIZABETH M. SHEEHAN FAMILY 2012 TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 232 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing timber bulkhead to be removed; construct +/-36' section of shore-perpendicular bulkhead and retaining wall in-place of+/-26' section of bulkhead, and +/-36' section of landward retaining wall to be removed; remove and replace +/-10' section of timber retaining wall with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace in-kind and in-place existing 4'x5' platform, 4'x19' stairway, 9'x11' landing deck, and 4'x8' beach steps; Board of Trustees 36 October 21, 2015 backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source; re-vegetate +/-12' wide areas adjacent to new bulkheading with Cape American beach grass; and restore and re-vegetate all disturbed portions of naturally vegetated slope landward of new+/-138' vinyl bulkhead with native vegetation, including Virginia rose and northern bayberry. Located: 640 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-11.1 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted unanimously to support this application. The Trustees did a field inspection on the 14th of October and noted modifications and conditions, none were necessary, this being a straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicants. I'll keep this one short. Yes, it is a pretty straightforward, inplace replacement, except we are taking out that bump-out and we are reducing the outer and inner return to just one bulkhead section where the two sections of wall on the west and east sides of the properties meet. We discussed it in the field, the Board seemed to think it all sounded fine. So unless you had any further questions or comments, I would reserve any further comments. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: It's a straightforward application, replacing a bulkhead on the bay. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further questions or comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of JAY P. QUARTARARO requests a Wetland Permit to construct an 18'x36' swimming pool; construct a surrounding at-grade ±756sq.ft. pool patio; install ±172' of pool enclosure fencing; and install a ±55sq.ft. pool equipment area with pool drywell. Located: 4294 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-14-27. The Board did go out field inspections and looked at this property. It was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support the application, however the work has already commenced and there should be a drywell to contain the backwash from the swimming pool. Board of Trustees 37 October 21, 2015 Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant Jay Quartararo. I don't have much to add other than to point out that we have already provided the drywell. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I see that on the plans. When we went out and looked at this, we didn't see that any work on the pool had started yet. MR. ANDERSON: It hadn't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just asking for the CAC. MR. MCGREEVEY: I didn't do the inspection on this one. It may have been brought up at the time, but I don't recall. MR. ANDERSON: There is ongoing work relating to the house. And also there was a driveway between the house and the water,that is being removed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, we thought this was a project that has already been before ZBA. The ZBA already put their conditions on it. We didn't have any issues with it. It also includes the drywell for the backwash. So we were comfortable with it. Is there anybody else in the audience that wanted to speak for or against this application? (Negative response). Any comments from the Board? (Negative response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as described and as deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 13, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of LOIS ANDERSON requests a Wetland Permit for a Ten Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance dredge an area along the south-westerly bulkheading to a depth of-3.0' during average low water; the area of proposed maintenance dredging measures ±3,500sq.ft. and will result in approximately 200 cubic yards of dredge spoil to be kept on site and deposited along the southeasterly shoreline, landward of the apparent high water mark to dewater, then grade/groom and plant with native vegetation (i.e. Cape American Beach grass (Ammophila breviligulata @ 1.0' o/c); siltation fencing will be installed along the seaward side of the deposited dredge spoil; and the proposed dredged area will include 1:3 slopes along the edges for stability. Located: 2515 Calves Neck Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-4-45.5 This was found inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. The proposal to place the dredge spoil on beneficial wetland or 1 Board of Trustees 38 October 21, 2015 transitional vegetation which serves as a vegetative buffer that protects water quality is inconsistent with this policy. It is recommended dredge spoil be located offsite to approved disposal location. That was under 6.3 of the LWRP. , The CAC supports the application however questions the total square footage of the floating docks. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. It sounds as though the need for dredging is something that is accepted by everyone who has looked at this. When you look at the aerials, it shows these photos depicted on it, shows just how bad the shoaling has become there, particularly after Hurricane Sandy. Also of interest is that this is an area, this is a dock, this is an underwater area that has been previously dredged,,and I include those permits attached to them. Fortuitously they also speak to the floating dock, which is 8x32', 4'x5', with the double piles there. This dock existed at the time, I know when my parents bought it, and it remains as such. I'm guessing it was built by the Blankley's in the Village in the mid '70's and is a permitted dock. As for the spoil deposition, we put it in a location where it's actually not in wetlands nor is it in the high marsh. We protected it with a silt fence to separate that. From that, my thought was it would probably be a beneficial use for the spoil, going where it is going. As you can see from your photos and your site visits, it's clean, pure sands. So my thought is we would deposit it there, grade it back and plant it with beach grass. Just as the area landward of the bulkhead was planted, with beach grass. I don't think I have any major objections to possibly trucking it offsite, although there could be a cost involved. So I'm not, I don't really have that much of an opinion one way or the other. I actually thought it was a good idea to place it where I had placed it, from an environmental and habitat standpoint. The vegetation that grows in the vicinity of where the spoil place is all sort of non-native invasive vegetation anyway. So I thought it was an appropriate site for spoil. But I'm open to suggestion. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any huge issues. But something we did notice on that sand buildup, I'm inclined to think that dock structure is causing that buildup. And if that was not there, the sand would continue along that shoreline. It's just-- it almost, the shape of the sand almost mirrors the "L" shape. MR. ANDERSON: That's an interesting observation. Yes, but, could understand what you are saying but it's very clear to me,, and of course I have a great deal of personal knowledge about this dock, that that really occurred after the hurricane. And it's really, it is, you know, once that sand becomes in contact Board of Trustees 39 October 21, 2015 with any portion of that dock, the dock itself serves as a jetty, if you will, and drops it off. TRUSTEE KING: It actually acts like a groin. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And if it's dredged, that effect goes away. I also think, well, that's basically my feelings as to why it looks the way it looks. So my conclusion is a good deal of sand was moved from probably wave fetch out of the east carrying that sand up against the bulkhead then eventually up against the dock. TRUSTEE KING: That structure and those boats are definitely having an effect there, on that sand deposit. You can see it very easily. But I don't know what you can do about it. In the future when it comes time for that dock to be rebuilt, I think it would be time to address it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would have to bring it into code. TRUSTEE KING: And it would stop that float from sitting on the bottom, that inside piece. It would probably change the whole dynamics of that area. But we are stuck with what it is. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the spoil location, and as mentioned under the LWRP, when I looked at this, I thought that it was a good area --an appropriate area -- I guess is a better, way to say it, to put the spoil, because as long as it's not going back over the shrubbery there, you have an area there where there is really just some scrub weeds, and I think it would be perfect to put it there. And as you proposed, vegetate over it with American beach grass, and I think you would have yourself a nice little berm that would act as a barrier in tidal surges in there. And beach grass will hopefully hold it. MR. ANDERSON: My thought is to build a sand dune. It's very, very clean sand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. So I think it's a very, very good idea to leave it where you proposed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to reiterate Trustee King's concern about the size of the float and the number of boats there. In both of the pictures that you submitted, there is a boat that runs parallel with a walkway, and that seems to have a great impact on the deposition of the sand there. So if the dredging becomes too onerous for them, they might want to downsize the float and downsize the number of boats there. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I'll pass that along. TRUSTEE KING: That's something to seriously consider in the future. Is there any other comments from anybody? Anybody in the audience? MR. MCGREEVEY: That total square footage, I didn't do the inspection, but I remember reading the details of the application. I think the total square footage of the floating dock exceeds 120-square feet. TRUSTEE KING: It does. But there is a Trustee permit for that from years ago. So it's a permitted structure. When the time comes to rebuild it, then we'll have to bring it into code. MR. MCGREEVEY: Thank you. Board of Trustees 40 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE KING: Hearing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application and along with what Trustee Bergen said, I think placement of that sand where it is proposed to be planted up with native plantings, American beach grass and maybe some other native plantings, is actually beneficial to that area. And that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. So that's my motion to approve. _ TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Have a nice evening. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 14, 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 1 a 25' return located ±10' landward from top of bluff; as-built bluff stairs from top of bluff to beach consisting of a 4'x7' access platform leading to a 4'x28' set of stairs with associated 75sq.ft. platform to a 4'x7' set of stairs with associated 95sq.ft. platform to a 4'x17' set of stairs leading to a 4'x13'walkway with a 4'x10' set of stairs to beach parallel to bulkhead, supported by 8"timber pile posts and composite materials on stair treads and decking; as-built 1,800 cubic yards clean fill spread evenly between retaining walls to replace lost bluff material with placement of erosion control jute matting on bluff; for a proposed rear-yard drainage system to direct roof rain and surface water away from house foundation and upland retaining wall by providing a drainage swale with 4" PVC pipe to a 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 Board of Trustees 41 October 21, 2015 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# 1000-111-13-6. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency follows from the fact that the project was built without a Trustee permit. . The CAC resolved to support the application, with no conditions. The Trustees have done numerous field inspections at this location. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SELIGMANN: Dan Seligmann, I'm the engineer involved in the project. Mr. Lark can't be here this evening. I believe the last time we were here you had asked for some concessions, information about the existing bulkhead, the top of bluff bulkhead, and I think Mr. Lark had provided some information for you. I'm here to just answer any questions you may have regarding his comment. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mike, I believe there is a letter there we received, if we could just stipulate it is entered --tell me what the date of that letter is we just received the other day. MR. SELIGMANN: October 9th. Board of Trustees 42 October 21, 2015 TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll stipulate the letter of October 9th is entered into the record, that way we don't need to read it here tonight. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right, any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No. We've looked at this, we've looked at this and we've looked at this. MR. SELIGMANN: Yes, you have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, this was on the agenda two months ago. We had a discussion at that public hearing and at that time we asked that some issues be addressed and so that it could come to the next public hearing, which was last month. And we tabled it because nobody was here last month to represent Mrs. Emery. So that brings us forward to today. We have read the letter, and again,just to reiterate what was on the record once before, the additions that we talked about did not meet current Wetland Code. So I don't want to infer anything from the letter. What I would like to know from you as the applicant is there any • movement on your part regarding the issue of, first off, the upper retaining wall that was built without a permit and does not meet code; the landings that are in excess size of the code; and then the stairs to the beach that also don't conform with code. MR. SELIGMANN: I believe Mr. Larkin in his letter reviewed several recommendations from some of the experts that he brought in. My personal recommendation was that the upper retaining wall, the piles that protrude above the top of the wall, could be cut down, which is a comment that you had made. The wall itself, structurally, can't be cut down without compromising the structure of the wall. And I think I had written a report, I believe should be in the record, that indicates that if the north side of the property, the wall is actually at grade, and the property slopes from north to south. So the upper retaining wall currently is at the top of, the retaining wall including upper walers is at grade. The south side of the property, the retaining wall is higher than grade, but again, the grade slopes off there. And I believe the amendment to the application was to extend, these walls to the property line to prevent further erosion damage. Also, so with regard to the landings, yes, the one, the upper landing can be cut down. There is no structural value to the decking behind the landing. So it was my recommendation that could be removed, as a concession. With regard to the stairs, you know, the stairs are built to withstand the weather. They have grating. I don't have much of a recommendation on that. That's a personal --that's between the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The stairs to the beach? MR. SELIGMANN: Yes. I mean the way they are built they really can't be modified. They are built to withstand the weather. So in order to, it's really up on the applicant if she wants to remove them, but there is really no modification I can see to make them less intrusive. Board of Trustees 43 October 21, 2015 As you, again, Mr. King had discussed, it's my recommendation was to cut down the piles to make them less intrusive on the upper retaining walls. The lower landing, the geometry of the slope makes it difficult to make changes there, the way it was constructed. So I mean, essentially, the landing meets at four or five feet on all sides, which meets most codes. So cutting it down, reducing its size, you could reduce the landing size, you would be reducing it to less than four feet. But, again, that could be;done. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to point out that the statement regarding the landings, the present geometry of it, makes it difficult to comply with the code, but that difficulty is a difficulty that the applicant created. MR. SELIGMANN: I can't speak to that. It was done before my time. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want that on the record. MR. SELIGMANN: I'm just pointing out that because of the slope and the way it was constructed, the landings have to be a certain way to maintain the rise and run of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Anyone else wish to comment? MS. HULSE: Are you a certified engineer? MR. SELIGMANN: Licensed Engineer in the State of New York. MS. HULSE: You were not involved in the construction of this project, correct? MR. SELIGMANN: Was I involved in the construction? Parts of it. It was started before I was involved. MS. HULSE: So your observations and testimony that you are giving tonight is based on your review of this after the construction was complete? MR. SELIGMANN: Correct. I was there while part of it was being constructed, yes. And those are my drawings, my scale drawings. TRUSTEE KING: Those are different drawings than the first drawings we got under the permit. MR. SELIGMANN: I believe the contractor provided the initial , sketches that were done for the permit. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments or questions, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to deny this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there a second to that motion, or-- excuse me, let's have a discussion of that motion first. MS. HULSE: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, okay. Is there a second to that motion? (Negative response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll withdraw my motion in lieu of further discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do is we close the public hearing, make a motion to reserve decision and the decision will be rendered at a later date. Board of Trustees 44 October 21, 2015 And the reason for that is because there has been a lot of material submitted here related to this, and I think the Board really needs to look at all the material and has to look at the Minutes from the meetings and then make a well-informed decision. So that's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Can I make a comment? TRUSTEE KING: No, the hearing has been closed. We reserved decision on it. We'll make a decision at a later time. TRUSTEE BERGEN : I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, 41154'- 61W*N et14.6°)779_aW. , 1 _. : g • John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees