Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-12/16/2015 '/�/� John M.Bredemeyer III,President ,#01,0?v ®���est" Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino,Vice-President X11 �® �® • 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 T James F.King,Trustee Southold,New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen,Trustee x aTelephone(631) 765-1892 Charles J.Sanders,Trustee ; C®UN11 9* .•." Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES R C IVSD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' ' uJA 2 2� u ' e. Minutes Wednesday, December 16, 2015 thold Town Clerk 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Diane Di Salvo, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:30 PM ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 9:00AM WORK/TRAINING SESSION: Tuesday, January 5, 2016 at 11:00AM WORKSESSIONS: Tuesday, January 19, 2016 at 5:30 PM at Downs Farm, and on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of November 18, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening. Welcome to the last major meeting of 2015 for the Board of Town Trustees, our monthly meeting for December. It is a bit of an unusual meeting because we are going to say a sad farewell to honored and respected members Jim King and Dave Bergen. Dave is-with us tonight. Jim, because of a fisheries hearing at the Department of Environmental Conservation, where his life goes forward as a fisherman out on our waters, is compelled to speak his mind before the State Department of Environmental Conservation. So he doesn't join us tonight. Also missing from the dais is Charles Sanders, who serves in the Army Reserves, and he is at the Guantanamo base in Cuba. So we have both an unusual meeting tonight and also a joyful meeting. We are welcoming two new Trustee elects to the Board next month, Board of Trustees 2 December 16, 2015 Nick Krupski and Glenn Goldsmith. We also have a representative of the Conservation Advisory Council, John -- sorry? Yes. And also our clerks, Elizabeth Cantrell and also our clerk-in-training Diane Di Salvo, and Vice-President of the Board Mike Domino. At this time we also have a rather large agenda with respect to establishing new meeting dates and times for the next year. So if you'll bear with us as we go through setting up the agenda for next year. Accordingly, I would move that we move to have our next field inspection on Thursday, January 14th, 2016, at 8:00 AM. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That we hold the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, January 20th, 2016, at 5:30 PM. Motion. Second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). That we hold an organizational meeting as well as back-to-back training worksession on Tuesday, January 5th, 2016, with the organizational meeting commencing at 9:00 AM, and the training session commencing at 11:00 AM. Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And for work sessions that are scheduled for Tuesday, January 19th, at 5:30 PM at Downs Farms, and on Wednesday, January 20th, 2016, at 5:00 PM at the main meeting hall. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve the Minutes of November 18th, 2015. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for November 2015. A check for $8,518.70 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 Board of Trustees 3 December 16, 2015 following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, December 16, 2015, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Mark King SCTM# 1000-106-4-5 Peter Sakas SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6 V.R. Weile Revocable Trust, do V. Regi Weile SCTM# 1000-21-2-11 Eileen T. McGuire Revocable Trust SCTM# 1000-86-2-1.4 Peter Nathanson SCTM# 1000-20-3-9.2 And those jobs accordingly are listed in your agenda under Item III. That's my motion for Type II listings. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under resolutions for administrative permits and also under Applications for Extensions/Transfers/Administrative Amendments, these items have been reviewed by the Trustees in the course of office review and also field inspections, and where possible we will group some of these items together if they are approved, they are simple and uncomplicated and approvable without additional modification of the application. However, if you will, under the first item, Item IV, we'll need some discussion on several of the items. Accordingly, the first item, under Item IV, BARBARA REHREN requests an Administrative Permit for the clearing performed within a 50'wide Non-Disturbance buffer area; and to further clear invasive poison ivy and vegetation within the buffer and re-vegetate area with native plantings. Located: 155 Breakwater Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-113-3-4. This particular application relates to some activities that took place in an non-disturbance area which appeared to have not been intentional, but through a history of property use and starting with a former owner, there were some degradation to a non-disturbance buffer area that is largely populated with invasive species and not high value species. Although this is not an opportunity for a public hearing, if Barbara Rehren is here we should probably start a dialogue with respect to some questions that were developed on the field inspection. Is Ms. Rehren here? MS. REHREN: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. We understand that the former owners, in transferring ownership to the property, never gave you a survey that included the description and survey boundary of a non-disturbance area. Am I understanding correctly on that, pretty much? MS. REHREN: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe if she stepped up to the microphone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. This is sort of an informal thing. We are not doing a hearing, but we wanted to work with you. If you speak into the microphone so that way it will be easier to record it. So we took a look at it, and your husband was very kind and took us around to view the property. Based on the inspection there we actually found two aspects that were new to us. We were not aware that there was a section of lawn area that had been Board of Trustees 4 December 16, 2015 expanded into the non-disturbance zone by the prior owner, and then there was that area where trees had come down that you had tried to remove the trees and then ended up with I guess the constable stopping by and giving you a violation. So the Board felt that this is an area that can be restored, but that additional activities in the non-disturbance zone are presently not authorized in the Town Wetlands Code. In other words removal of the poison ivy, additional shrubbery or even the invasive phragmites. We don't currently have tools in place to go into non-disturbance areas, even though I think it's, most of the Board realizes that things have changed since the last code amendments. We have a lot of areas in the Town where undesirable vegetation is invading beneficial fish and wildlife areas. So the general sense of the Board during the course of the inspection was that we would want to see a restoration of the entirety of only the lawn disturbed area. In other words where you have lawn that has encroached on the non-disturbance area. And for the sake of safety that the, there were like three black locust stumps that you had there, could be removed, and that would be advisable to have a revised planting plan come from your landscape person that you had retained that would include a restoration of the lawn area and including the removal of those stumps. And we would want to work closely with you doing that. And since you never had the benefit of a survey that showed the restrictions on the non-disturbance zone, the Board felt, in some cases where this has happened in the past and there was no filed restrictive covenants, because this predates the current policy where these are filed with the county, there might be the possibility that a low style split-rail fence or a small landscaping tie or some kind of delimiter that could be placed at the edge of the non-disturbance zone. I don't know if that's a possibility. But in any instance we wanted to work with you and your landscape professional, that we would hope some of the firewood that is stacked in there and possibly your boat storage might be a little over the line, but we were hoping that possibly we would have an opportunity either at a subsequent worksession or in the course of field inspection, to work with you. So we hope to come up with a plan to properly restore that area. MS. REHREN: I actually do have a plan which I have here present with me, and it is a formal landscaped format that was organized by Ms. Trimble. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that would be something that would be very good to review with you. Since we can't take new materials or modified materials at the meeting because we want to provide an opportunity for the public that might review materials and also have the Board study them, I would think it would be very good for the Board to be able to review the materials and possibly meet with you at our next worksession, if Board of Trustees 5 December 16, 2015 possible, or your landscape professional. And if you don't mind we can table the matter and have a discussion as to how we might go forward. Is that acceptable to you? MS. REHREN: That sounds just fine with me. We would be very happy to do that. Thank you, very much, Mr. Bredemeyer. Merry Christmas to all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And to you. Accordingly, I'll make a motion to table this application subject to review of a new proposal for restoration of the non-disturbance zone. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, DOMINIC NICOLAZZI requests an Administrative Permit to make a berm cut in order to access the public road, and install an approximately 8 foot wide circular pervious driveway. Located: 105 Waterview Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-7-9. We met onsite and reviewed the plans during the course of field inspection. This project is providing a minimalist driveway employing pervious materials that are actually going only in essentially two tire widths in an area that is not a wetland area. So it is actually very environmentally suitable. The applicant also doesn't use any fertilizer or any chemicals to the area of the lawn. So I move to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number three under Resolutions for Administrative Permits, BRIAN PARKER requests an Administrative Permit to install four(4) 12'x14'floating platform upwellers (FLUPSYS) against the existing bulkhead for raising juvenile shellfish. Located: 305 Williamsburg Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-78-5-15 Based on the advice of Town counsel, the Trustees are requesting that we postpone this application subject to a training session that the Board of Town Trustees will be haying later in January or early February concerning rights the individual may have with respect to the Home Occupation Law for home shellfish occupation, since the applicant owns some underwater land over which this shellfish operation is proposed. There are all also Trustee issues involved with this application, and it was felt that since the Board is in transition with new Board members coming on, it would be an opportunity both for education and also to discuss areas such as protecting existing navigation and degree of coverage over Town lands as parts of the discussion. Accordingly, I move to table this application subject to additional review. Board of Trustees 6 December 16, 2015 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next three applications the Board reviewed are straightforward requests for transfers and simple administrative amendments to a permit. The transfers resulted in field inspections to confirm that the existing structures conform with the permit requirements at the time of original construction, and therefore are approvable for transfer to new owners of the property. Accordingly I would move to approve under Item V of the agenda items one, two and three as a group. They are listed as follows: Number one, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOSEPH SCHUPLER requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#1565 from Lura Krueger to Joseph Schupler, as issued on September 8, 1982. Located: 3475 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-9 Number two, AMY & RICHARD BRAUNSTEIN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5162 from James & Linda Pape to Amy & Richard Braunstein, as issued on February 28, 2000, and Amended on December 17, 2014; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#5162 for the as-built reconstruction of a 4'x15'fixed ramp on the landward side of the existing 4'x71' fixed dock; and to modify the floating dock from an "L"to a "T" configuration. Located: 1885 Home Pike, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-114-1-7.2 And number three, MARY HOVEY requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#8596A for the removal of the existing gazebo and 8'x13' platform that is attached to the shed which will not to be replaced; and to relocate an existing second shed to outside Trustee jurisdiction. Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-122-4-32. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Jay, we should go through the postponements. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Trustee Bergen informed me, I neglected to inform you, there are certain items that are postponed. So for those of you who are here to speak to items or hear any information, I would be remiss if I didn't let you know what they are and have you here through the whole meeting. Postponements appear on page three of the agenda, item number one; also on page six, item eleven and item 12. They are listed as follows: 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 Board of Trustees 7 December 16, 2015 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. Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KONSTANTINOS ZOITAS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x52' set of bluff stairs to beach with 6 landings consisting of a 4'x4'top landing, one 4'x4' upper mid landing, one 4'x6' upper mid landing, two 4'x4' lower mid landings, and one 4'x8' bottom landing with 4'wide steps to grade. Located: 980 The Strand, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-30-2-78. 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 And those are items which have either been.a requested postponement by the applicant or the Board at a prior meeting or during the course of field inspection it's found we need additional information to complete the file before we have a public hearing or determination. Thank you, Dave.. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I'll make a resolution to go off the meeting agenda into our public hearing agenda. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. ' TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). - VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, MARK KING requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8585 for a full demolition of existing dwelling and foundation, and construction of new as per originally approved; and to install a new sanitary system. Located: 200 East Mill Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-4-5 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council on December 10th resolved to support the application without any conditions. The Trustees did a field inspection on December 9th and noted that the proposal was okay with the new sanitary system. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments-from the Board? Board of Trustees 8 December 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The addition of a new sanitary system on a site that is already close to the water will mean there will be an upgrade and a potential reduction in contamination of surface waters, because historic systems on Mattituck Creek did potentially impact water quality. So that this current standard system that will be subject to county health approval will go a great ways into reducing potential chloroform pollution. We do understand the County Health Department is contemplating new standards for nitrogen in the county and so in the future not only will there be benefits to reduction of bacterial, potential bacterial problems, it will also have a situation where we might reduce the amount of nitrogen in our creeks. This is a positive step for a pre-existing building. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. . TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing, number one, 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. This project has been deemed consistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BLANCHARD: Yes. Colin Blanchard, Board of Directors, Willow Point Association. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Please go ahead. MR. BLANCHARD: We wanted to change the spoil area for the dredging. You guys came and looked at it. We put an application into the DEC. This was covered. And we got an adjustment to the permit. The permit was then given to you guys. And we are just waiting for your finalization. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Yes, for point of clarity, to provide some additional information for those not familiar. This is an application where largely sand had occluded the entranceway to a community marina, and the original plan called for putting the material on the current parking lot, and the Board of Trustees during the course of field inspections felt that it might create issues with parking and vehicles getting stuck on the lot, and we were able to establish another location on the property that was not wetland, and suggested that if the Department of Environmental Conservation would agree with the Board, we felt it was an area that not only would be suitable for the dredge spoil, it would have a secondary use Board of Trustees 9 December 16, 2015 that would include the possibility of putting up some picnic benches for the residents as well as kayak racks to increase access for community members. And the DEC appears to have accepted our initial thoughts in the matter. So it looks like a very positive win/win project. And we are pleased when the Department of Environmental Conservation agrees with things that we say. MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: So in your resolution you'll include those two additions? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, great. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). The CAC had voted to support this application, and accordingly since it has been deemed consistent under the LWRP, we have enough information, we can close the hearing. I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whereas this application has been deemed approved by the Department of Environmental Conservation; whereas the Trustees had requested a modified plan that was received and amended dated survey of 10/17/15 and with the DEC permit dated 11/10/15 on the plans, I would move to approve the application as so amended. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could amend your resolution, because I believe the picnic area is going to be within our jurisdiction. So just to approve the addition of picnic tables and kayak racks in that area. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. If you will, I'll amend my resolution --withdraw and amend to the extent to include picnic tables and kayak racks accordingly. Is there a second to my amendment? MR. BLANCHARD: We appreciate that. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Dave. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. BLANCHARD: Thank you for your time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Joel Daly General Contracting on behalf of PETER SAKAS requests a Wetland Permit to repair the foundation on the existing +/-12.6'x33.6' cottage with attached +/-7.6'x19' porch by removing and replacing four(4) courses of r Board of Trustees 10 December 16, 2015 ' 8"x16" blocks onto existing footing in an approximately 12' area. Located: 65490 Route 25, Breezy Shores Cottage#16, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-5-12.6 This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC supported the application with adequate waste water treatment plan. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DALY: Joel Daly, general contractor, out of Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we wanted to make sure with this, is our understanding is you are just raising this structure up. MR. DALY: We are not raising it at all. Just temporarily to support it, remove the four blocks and reinstall the blocks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. All right. Then what we would like to do is make sure that the structure when done complies with Chapter 236, the storm water runoff code, which means gutters to leaders to drywells on the house. MR. DALY: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Was there anybody else who 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 BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application, as it was found exempt under the LWRP, with the condition that gutters, leaders leading to drywells are included so it conforms with Chapter 236. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Stromski Architecture, P.C. on behalf of JACOB &JILL KUBETZ request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing dwelling and construct new one-story dwelling with a 1,940 sq.ft. footprint that includes a 52 sq.ft. front covered porch, a 170 sq.ft. rear covered screened-in porch, and an access area to basement; for basement access area install two landscape block retaining walls, one being 80 linear feet ranging in height from 5.4' to 1.4' and the second being 43.1' linear feet ranging in height from 5.4' to 1'; install a 328 sq.ft. paved patio adjacent to screened-in porch; install a 2.10'x38.7' paved walkway from the rear patio to existing 20.3'x30.4' detached garage; existing detached garage framing to • be repaired as needed; install a 2,029 sq.ft. gravel driveway; for the existing 3.3'x47.3' brick walkway to dock; reconstruct existing dilapidated dock by repairing existing 4.1'x11'fixed dock supported by(4) 8" diameter piles underneath the framed . Board of Trustees 11 December 16, 2015 platform and surrounded by(6) 6" diameter piles that extend higher than the platform by some 36%48"; construct a 4.1'x10' seaward extension to fixed dock supported by(4) 8" diameter piles underneath the framed platform and surrounded by(6) 6" diameter piles that extend higher than the platform by some 36"-48"; and install an 8'x10'floating platform anchored by 6" diameter piles. Located: 1600 North Oakwood Drive, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-10 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and exempt. The CAC resolved not to support the application, and to restore the existing dock and platform to its original size and location. The CAC does not support the application because the application lacks a site plan depicting the proposed structures and improvements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you have another set of plans, Mike? TRUSTEE DOMINO: (Handing). Is there anyone here to speak to this application. MR. STROMSKI: Robert Stromski, Architect, for the client. I'm kind of baffled as to the comment that there was no site plan submitted. We submitted site plans and then actually revised site plans, due comments from the Building Department, to avoid a ' variance situation. We had also,just to bring light to the application, we have submitted the project to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. I was able to.obtain a copy of a letter that they had dated December 15th. If the Board would like, I could just read it. Basically it kind of gives their determination of the project, being mostly out of their jurisdiction, and they had made some comments to the actual catwalk. We also have a copy to submit. Basically the DEC has determined the portion of the parcel that is landward of the ten-foot elevation contour as shown on the survey prepared by Nathan Corwin, last revised June 23rd, 2015, is beyond Article 25 jurisdiction. Therefore, in accordance with the current tidal wetlands use regulation, no permit is required under the Tidal Wetlands Act for the majority of the proposed work to the dwelling. A portion of the proposed grading and retaining walls are located seaward of the contour line within tidal wetlands jurisdiction, but are not objectionable. Regarding the reconstruction of the dock and float, the DEC objects to the new float as proposed. Staff has determined that there is not enough water at low tide to support a float. A float in this area would disturb the tidal wetland vegetation. However, DEC will consider a fixed platform allowing for kayak and canoe access, but not intended for motorized boat mooring. The catwalk portion of the dock should either be four feet above grade or made of open-grate material to allow light to penetrate, since there is a vegetated wetland area. The fixed over-portion of the dock may be 8x10 or may be larger t-shaped platform if desired 4x20 or 6x12. If your client agrees to these modifications of the proposed project please submit the revised plans to my attention. Board of Trustees 12 December 16, 2015 I have expressed this letter to the applicant and the owners. They have no problem with DEC's comments and recommendations at this point. I would ask that the Board consider these recommendations and make a determination if they would go along with the DEC's recommendation to the modifications of the restoration of the dock and the elimination of the float, but submitting a fixed platform in its place. TRUSTEE DOMINO: On, December 9th, the Trustees did the field inspection, and in our notes we noted that we might want to amend the dock plan to get to deeper water, or as an alternative, a fixed dock with steps for a kayak. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We were thinking --there was some parallel thinking there with our Board independently looked at that option for more access in this location. MR. STROMSKI: Just so that the Board understands, our initial intent with the proposed design was basically to, we went back to the previous owners and they explained what was there prior to the storm damage, and we were trying to propose what was revised. We do feel the DEC comments and your comments are in line and my client has no reservations against those recommendations. So we are in the midst of preparing modified drawings to show those changes. I also have Jake Kubetz here, if there are any questions to the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What type of vessel are you looking to use? Is this just going to be kayaks, canoes, et cetera? MR. KUBETZ: I'm Jake Kubetz, the applicant. Kayaks, paddle boards,just things like that. Canoes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because I know we have in the past, again, used fixed docks with stairs for kayaks, canoes and sometimes even, it's up to the applicant, even a shoot to slide a kayak down. So it's something to think about if you are going to redesign this dock as per the DEC recommendations and as you have already heard the Trustees also had the same thoughts out there. It's just something to consider. It's not something you have to do. It's something to consider. Depends if the applicant likes it or not. MR. KUBETZ: The fixed platform is something we agree with and the DEC recommended it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just easier for the user if you have a slide to slide the kayak down. That's all. MS. HULSE: I think the Board acknowledges receipt of your plans as well. The issue is, I think the DEC didn't have the . opportunity to review the plans, but this Board does acknowledge receipt of that. MR. KUBETZ: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the original description, was the barn included in the original description? Board of Trustees 13 December 16, 2015 MR. STROMSKI: I believe there was some questions. The description has been revised. The barn structure, again, we are not looking to do any work to it other than basically re-roof it and patch siding. At this point there is no intention for anything beyond that sort of repair to happen to that structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the description it has "existing detached garage." Is that what the barn is? MR. STROMSKI: You can explain as far as the use. The problem is I believe the site plan may have called it a barn whereas I was writing the description I just called it a detached garage. There is no premise as to trying to do that. But I would like Jake to clarify. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I bring it up, I just want to make it clean for the record. In the description it's described as a detached garage. On the plan described as an existing barn. I want to make sure on the record we talking about the very same structure. MR. KUBETZ: It's the same structure. I think the survey described it one way. It's actually a barn. You couldn't fit a car in there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just trying to protect your client here. MR. STROMSKI: I appreciate that. MS. HULSE: So could you clarify,just to amend the description, I think you should amend that to describe it as a barn as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's what I want like to do. MS. HULSE: Why don't we do that now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You understand why we are doing this. MR. KUBETZ: I do. MS. HULSE: Amend the garage to be a barn. Amending those two things. And motion with receipt of new plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the following amendments. That the existing detached garage is further described as an existing barn, and modifications to the dock suggested by the Department of Environmental Conservation be incorporated into the new plans to be submitted to the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, V.R. WEILE REVOCABLE TRUST, do V. REGI WEILE requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'wide bluff stairs with associated 12.5'x4'top landing, an 11.7'x3' upper landing, a 18.2'x3' middle landing, a 4'x3' lower landing, and 8.2'x12' deck with 3' wide steps to beach at bottom of bluff stairs; and for the existing 9.4'x14.4' shed on beach. Located: 905 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-2-11 Board of Trustees 14 December 16, 2015 This project has been deemed to be inconsistent under the LWRP for the following reasons: The cottage is located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The unpermitted shed is not permitted within Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The shed does not require a location on the coast, is not water dependent or a public facilities; recommended the cottage be relocated off the beach and out of Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The shed is located with FEMA Flood Zone VE, which is a velocity hazard area. It is recommended the shed be relocated outside the VE zone. The structures were constructed without proper permits. The CAC supports the application with the condition there is no toilet facility or plumbing on the shed at the beach. And the Trustees in performing their field inspection noted there was an abandoned pump house that was midway up the bluff, which we might include in the description simply because it predates permitting and was used before the house was serviced with a public water supply. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. WEILE: Hi. My name is Regi Weile, and I'm the applicant. And I'm applying for a Wetland Permit for an existing situation. We are not making any changes and we appreciate your approval. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. It is my understanding that existing structures that predate the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, which would be the pump house and that shed, may be maintained. But they can't be replaced and they may not be able to be permitted in. As opposed to stairs which conform to the general requirements of both the Town Wetland ordinance and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance. Do you understand what I'm saying? In other words, because some structures were built before the local adoption of the Coastal Erosion Act, they have standing for minor repairs but there can't be major renovations and there can't be expansions and they can't be replaced for the reasons that were outlined in the inconsistency document. The LWRP reviews all our applications for consistency with coastal policy, and in this case it also included a legal review of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance. So I think what I'm hearing from the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program coordinator is that we cannot permit in the pump house or the shed, if you will, beach house, whatever you want to call it, because it's in nonconformity with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. Just so you understand. The Board is compelled by law. We can't approve that. Very simple repairs can be made to maintain it, but major repairs, expansion or replacement, would not be possible. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak with respect to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close Board of Trustees 15 December 16, 2015 the hearing in this matter. MS. HULSE: The application was not applied for under Coastal Erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was only Wetland. Thank you. All right. I stand corrected. The application was strictly for the Wetland. So the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance, since you didn't apply for it,just so you understand, that we can't permit it in, and it will not be able to be expanded or modified. Sorry. I would make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve the application of the Weile Revocable Trust for the existing bluff stairs with associated landings as described in the meeting notice in the application, noting that the application as a Wetland application is approvable under the standards for the town for wetland permitting under Chapter 275, and that since there is absent a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area application,just be noted for the record that the project is not, at this time, able to be approved for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permit. By so doing, and conforming with the requirements of the Town Wetlands ordinance Chapter 275, it is in compliance with the coastal regulations and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. So that's my motion. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Discussion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: First, this is just a Wetland permit, so I'm not comfortable making any reference in the resolution to the Coastal Erosion Hazard situation. That's a separate situation. That is a separate code and I think that can be addressed during a subsequent application, if there even is one. I think the applicant understands fully what you talked about here. I just would not want to have that language in the resolution. Second, I just want to make sure that we are including in the Wetland permit, I thought we were going to add the second structure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure we can add a second structure ' within the Coastal Erosion Hazard area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But this is under Wetland permits. It's not applied for under Coastal Erosion. I guess I need help from legal on this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, because again, the structure has a foundation. Open-constructed structures within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act are generally approvable. So if we try to permit in something that would not ordinarily be approved under Coastal Erosion, I think we are establishing a property right in a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Question to counsel. Lori, is it advisable not to make any reference to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act? Board of Trustees 16 December 16, 2015 MS. HULSE: I'll ask for a recess for executive session. We can either recess now or just table this and come back at the end. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. It has been requested that the Board recess this matter for possible executive session discussion at the end of the meeting. I would move to, at this time, to move to table the application at this time to have an executive session discussion with respect to this matter at the end of the meeting. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DENNIS DONLIN requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 1,750 sq.ft. one-story dwelling with existing 612 sq.ft. attached wood deck; construct a 10'x10'wood deck at the landward side of existing dock; install a 4'x38'wood walkway from new deck to new stone terrace; install a 10'x10' stone paving on concrete slab terrace at the 10' contour with a 7'x14'x5'x2' wide retaining wall; install a ±4'wide, 754 sq.ft. stone paving on concrete slab walkway from terrace to dwelling and driveway; re-grade land above the 7' contour in the area of the new stone walkway and terrace; demolish and remove existing wood stairs landward of dock; install 11.2' diameter(100sq.ft.)stone paving on concrete slab terrace at the 12' contour seaward of dwelling; install stepping stone walkway between stone terrace and existing deck attached to dwelling; install a 9.2'x10.8' stone paving on concrete slab terrace against the seaward side of dwelling; install drywells for rainwater containment; re-grading of land in the area of proposed pool; construct new 18'x25' swimming pool; install an 8' sq. hot tub; install an irregular shaped (14', 24'x38.6', 635 sq.ft.) stone paving on concrete slab pool terrace; install 70 linear feet of retaining walls south of the residence; install pool enclosure fencing; removal of existing trees and plants and planting of new landscape plants between the 4' and 12' contour; and install a line of staked hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and during'construction. Located: 8417 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-12 This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC supported the application, however there is a concern for a number of mature trees being removed. The CAC recommended gutters, leaders drywells installed to contain all runoff and adequate buffers in place to protect the wetlands. This was actually a holdover from last month. The Board opened this hearing last month. We tabled it to go back out in the field to see some additional areas we were requesting to be staked off a little better. So the Board did go out at our most recent field inspections, did review what was staked, and so that brings us to tonight. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak for this application? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels, the agent for the applicant Dennis Donlin, who is also here, as is my associate Ural Talgat who prepared this. And basically I'm here to answer questions. heard something about leaders and gutters, which I'm not sure Board of Trustees 17 December 16, 2015 how they fit into this exactly, it's not a building. It's a series of walkways that are going from the top of the property down to the waterline, attempting to eliminate a surface installed stairway and take the property in a more natural fashion landscaping that bank. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not speaking for the CAC but I believe, and • you can correct me, we have a representative from the CAC, if I'm wrong. I think they were referring to the house, and that included in this project they were recommending that the house include gutters, leaders and drywells. Is that correct, sir? MR. STEIN: That's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And probably the garage also. Thank you. MR. SAMUELS: The house and garage are not part of the application. I would make that point. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. At this point it's a recommendation. That's all. MR. SAMUELS: I understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did have a question regarding what I'll describe, I know there are various stone terraces on here. I know the most southern one, the square one, and what we are concerned about, is there going to be any fill brought into this area. MR. SAMUELS: We don't need any additional fill on the property. There is a subtle cutting and filling going on. We'll be moving some material down there to level it off, but that fill is coming from further up the slope. And it's basically a cutting and filling process, as I say, so no additional fill will be required on this property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And we know that there was included here a hay bale line and silt fence line. Given the fact that this has a fairly precipitous slope down to the water edge, we would like to have an inspection done, have a Trustee come out and do a hay bale and silt fence inspection prior to any other work being done on site. MR. SAMUELS: Of course. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Those are the only questions we had. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? (Negative response). Seeing no comments, are there any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Seeing no comments from the Board, again just for consideration, for the client to consider gutters, leaders and drywells on both the existing residence and the garage. MR. SAMUELS: Absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With that I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Dennis Donlin with the only stipulation being that there be a Board of Trustees 18 December 16, 2015 pre-construction inspection done of the hay bale and silt fence line. And it was found to be consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, very much, Dave, for your service, and nice holidays, everybody. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just for the record, the plans that were submitted on the dais were submitted last week, but this is an enlargement for the Board to better discern, and they have been in the file for review prior to the Board's field inspection and the work session that we had. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. Number six, 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 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC resolved to support this application. The Trustees did a field inspection, in fact they were there more than once, but the most recent field inspection was on December 9th, and the conditions noted that this was a suitable location for a low sill bulkhead and should make every effort to save the trees near the shoreline. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And at the site visit we concluded that we were all in agreeance to put in a low sill bulkhead at the mean low water line, and the revised plans I submitted earlier this week had shown that on the proposed typical section of the plan. So we would like to amend the project description to include 100 linear foot long low sill bulkhead to be placed at the mean low water line. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Very good. Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess for those that are not familiar with it, a low sill bulkhead enables the benefit of maintaining a wetland fringe while also providing some depth for a vessel that might be tied next to it. And it allows for a functional wetland fringe. And in the instance that this inspection brought about concerns of the Trustees that the initial retaining wall would possibly lead to a sloughing off or loss of marsh, and the applicant's cooperation to put in a low sill bulkhead will actually lead to, we believe, based on our experience with these structures, will lead to a stabilization of the upland portion of the property as well as protect the water body, Wunneweta Pond, as well as provide a functional marsh fringe. So it actually provides more utility for the owner and provides more benefits for the public waters which front the Board of Trustees 19 December 16, 2015 property. So this is, I guess what we call technology. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (All ayes). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the addition to the resolution of a proposed 100 linear foot vinyl low sill bulkhead to be placed at the mean low water line as reflected in plans received on December 14th, 2015, and December 16th, 2015. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second? MS. HULSE: As amended. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As amended. Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of EILEEN T. McGUIRE REVOCABLE TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct an elevated fixed timber dock, using open-grate decking consisting of a 4'x100'fixed timber catwalk that includes a 4'x12' fixed ramp at landward end, and a 4'x12'fixed "T" section with a ladder attached to seaward end of catwalk for an overall length of 104'; and to clear and maintain a 4' wide access path from road to proposed dock. Located: 1675 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-1.4 This application has been deemed to be inconsistent with _the Town's LWRP, with a number of standards and were questions that have been forwarded to us by the LWRP. And I'll address those individually and some of the discussion the Board members had with respect to those concerns that as we discussed them at our worksession. And the project has been, is supported by the CAC subject to the recommendation that the docking facility does not impede navigation and that the derelict dock is completely removed. In addition there was a serious storm water problem noted to the north of the north boundary of the property. The Board of Town Trustees in performing field inspection on December 9th, and had reviewed a proposed project plan which was in keeping with a prior discussion, we had a pre-submission inspection, and there was a notion that because of the depth limitations that we might entertain possibly limiting the size of vessel in this location, because of the shallowness of depth and access, as point of discussion in the public hearing. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this matter? MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on Board of Trustees 20 December 16, 2015 behalf of applicants who are also here in the second row this evening. You have met with John McLain who is here and myself during the pre-application meeting that we had last month, actually. And at that time we had the proposed structure staked out and had submitted a conceptual plan with our letter requesting our pre-ap conference. This is identical:to what we have submitted to the Board as part of our wetland application to what we presented to you at that pre-ap meeting. Nothing has changed except I think at the Board's recommendation you had suggested that we also include in the permit application the approximate location of a four-foot wide pathway that would meander from where we entered on Wells Road down to the proposed dock, and we did include that both on the updated plan and in the project description. As Jay just alluded to, this is a typical situation that we have come in contact with the Board before on Richmond Creek where there is a depth limitation. We've got about a foot-and-a-half at mean low or low water. Again, as a reminder, this is going with the most recent guidance from the DEC with respect to using mean low or low as a bench-line. So the depths at typical low water are probably a little bit better than a foot-and-a-half. But again, that is why we did not propose a float. There is a floating dock which we had observed during the pre-ap meeting to the north. I don't know if it's a legal structure or not. But we designed this consistently with other similar structures that the Board has approved, not only in general with this sort of water depth but specifically on Richmond Creek. If you have any questions, we are certainly happy to answer them. And if there is any questions about the likely vessel use or whatever, I would certainly defer to the owners to answer that directly. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to address some of the issues that were in the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program document, and in general, and possibly to, this and similar applications that are located on very sensitive creeks. The first issue is to protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and in approving the application, whether the dock would impair navigation or be located in areas of high vessel traffic or vessel congestion. Well, the creek is known to be one of limited traffic. And the extension of the dock does not extend more than the current and pre-existing longtime standard going out into the creek. So there is nowhere near the one-third extension; in fact it's nested fairly close to and conforms with the natural lay of the creek in that location. MR. HERRMANN: Right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So in that case it is consistent with the current practice in the Town, and also consistent with the requirements of the Army Corps of Engineers. Whether the dock will unduly interfere with the public use Board of Trustees _ 21 December 16, 2015 of waterways for swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing, water skiing or other water-dependent activities. While the shallowness of this end of the creek is not appropriate for water skiing, and would be in fact hazardous, the placement of a dock doesn't inhibit in any way fishing. In some thoughts it might actually increase it. Shellfishing is permitted under a dock. It's Town waters and anyone who wants to can shellfish under this new dock when it's constructed. And in fact as a dock over a public waterway it will provide access to the homeowners and to their friends and guests, so actually net helps improve public access through responsible private ownership. And it certainly won't reduce swimming any because it's a great place to throw kids off. It's a great place to learn how to swim. It's a shallow creek. That was the old fashioned way. MS. HULSE: For the record, he's not recommending that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Whether the dock will cause degradation of water quality and natural resources. In most case, both the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Trustees consider docks as promoting suitable or environmental access to waterways because you are not repeatedly beating down tender and sensitive wetlands. And as far as degradation of waters, insofar as we now have open-grating as a standard to let light in so that it promotes the growth of beneficial aquatic vegetation, and we limited the size of pilings, and we also have put restrictions and request the cooperation of owners that they don't extend the docks beyond what is necessary for the depth encountered, and in this case the applicant has voluntarily restricted the depth and to have smaller vessels. It also addresses environmental concerns and coastal policy. Now, whether the cumulative impacts of residential and commercial dock will change the waterway or the environment or whether alternate design or constructural location of the dock will minimize cumulative impacts -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You need to slow it down a little for the reporter. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Whether the cumulative impacts of this or at a commercial site would change the waterway or the environment, and whether an alternate design of construction or location of the dock would minimize cumulative impacts, I believe the Board when they reviewed this on field inspection and also during the course of our worksession, we do entertain downsizing and reducing the extent into the waterway or the size and scope of docks to accommodate thewaterway, and I believe that was part of the discussion we had. But we did enter into discussion the possibility of vessel limitation as far as size of vessel. So it would be on the order of rowboats, you know, kayaks, and that. We can take that up further in the discussion. Any activity that would substantially degrade water quality of Richmond Creek would adversely affect the biological productivity of the area. All species of fish including food chain affects as a result of bio-accumulation, oil spills, Board of Trustees 22 December 16, 2015 sedimentation, excess turbidity, storm water runoff and waste disposal, including boat waste, the vessel type and whether there is a head located on the vessel is unknown. This I think would go to a vessel discussion we can have subsequently to see if we need to address those issues concerning the LWRP that relate to the cumulative impacts from a vessel. And additionally, the comment is to preserve the public interest in use of land and waters held in public trust by the State and the Town of Southold. These are public trust lands that this Board owns beneficially for all of us in the town. So it's certainly a pertinent discussion. The dock structure will extend further into public waters resulting in a net decrease in public access to public underwater lands in the nearshore area. I believe this is more of an opinion of the LWRP coordinator than a proven fact. Because an open constructed dock with decking is still accessible to the public, and they cannot be denied access underneath a dock, and anyone complaining about someone ' trying to bar them from clamming under a dock, they should be, anyone witnessing this, they should call the constable. So at least as far as the thinking of a number of the Board of Trustees is that the docks provide suitable environmental access to our waterways, they promote environmental stewardship through protecting the waters while providing more access. So that is a discussion for the LWRP coordinator. Is there any discussion, we can discuss vessel limitations. We don't want to see a boat with a head, certainly. And we want to see some discussion concerning vessel limitation. MR. MCLAIN: John McLain, I'm the husband of the applicant. Right now the plan is to use kayak and canoes only. No motorized vessels. The depth of the water at the end of the dock is I guess a minimum depth is about 18 inches. Occasionally we see motorboats out in the water but I don't really anticipate there will be anything large enough to have any head or any kind of sanitation facilities on it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Any additional comments or questions? MR. HERRMANN: My only question, Jay, was if you are in fact relating that potential restriction to the size of the vessel versus whether it's motorized or not. I don't know that we are in so shallow a situation that we would want to put in a restriction that would preclude them from ever legally using a small, motorized craft. But it certainly seems like a size limitation is probably what you are after, which is, I think is more similar to what you have occasionally required in the past. I was not clear what direction you are going in there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The direction is of course the direction of the whole Board of Trustees and not as chairman. You heard that bit of a pause, I'm sorry, I must apologize. I was just quietly questioning Dave Bergen with respect to prior activity of the Board of Trustees 23 December 16, 2015 Board. Although I'm a longstanding member of the Board, I had a little hiatus there and I'm concerned what policy was. So I guess I would open it up to some questions or comments from the Trustees, if there is no one else to speak to this application at this time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think our challenge has been over the last few years, we had been working with different water depths from the DEC. And I know I have been ten years on this Board. And when I first got on the Board it was three foot. Someplace along the way it changed to two-and-a-half feet. Now the DEC seems to be entertaining applications for even less than two-and-a-half feet. And our concern always is as you get into shallower and shallower depths, a type of vessel that goes on there, particularly a vessel with engine propellers, is the damage, the environmental damage to the bottom is caused by propellers. It seems as though there has been different things done with floating docks, from an engineering or construction standards, to address depth. I know that is not what you are applying for here. You are applying for a fixed dock, which is great. We certainly have had plenty of fixed docks that we have approved over the last ten years in two-foot, around two-foot depths. So that's the long version of getting to the concern is the environmental damage the propellers might cause. I certainly, hear you, and I'm not sure that I want to place many limitations with regards to a vessel that could be allowed at this dock. But our concern is, again, with the prop wash. I know there is a dock, I believe to the north of yours, I have no idea if there was any conditions put on it by a former Board with regard to a vessel. I know there is a dock to the south of this. It's pretty far to the south. It was what was the Henry Pierce property. And I can't remember the name of the new residents now. But we did not place any limitations on the vessel on that property. So given that, I would like to hear from the owner what his intent is. Because, please understand, if something goes into this permit that limits the size and scope of a vessel, that is like a restriction that you have, that goes with the dock, you have for as long as you have that dock, and carries on if you decide to sell the house to the next owner. So it's a very important decision for you to make. MR. HERRMANN: Again, I'm not sure I'm going to say something different from what I just said to Jay, but, again, it's a situation where obviously this site does not support bringing in huge boats. Obviously the intent is not by the owner to bring in a giant boat and prop dredge himself out a new navigational channel into Richmond Creek. I also understand from the Board's perspective no matter how wonderful these people are, they may sell the property. On the other hand, I don't want to encourage them to find themselves agreeing to something where if they had a friend who Board of Trustees 24 December 16, 2015 lived somewhere else on the creek and who wanted to pull up and dock a small 12-foot motorboat, that a bay constable can come by and issue a summons because a boat was docked there. I think I'm losing you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm sorry, no, you got me. You got me. We're listening to what you're saying. MR. HERRMANN: So what I'm saying is, I don't want a situation where they can find themselves where if they have a friend with small motorboat who wanted to come and dock for the day or the weekend that the bay constable can come and issue a violation. It's just interesting because this is the second month in a row we have been here for a similar type structure, and in the case of more than a month ago where that was up in the north head of Town Creek, we were talking about ten to 12 inches of water, in an area that was not really a navigational throughway. There were not any docks on the inside. There could not be any docks on the inside. But there were plenty of docks on the outside. So I'm a little bit concerned only because these are not newfangled proposals to the Board. For as long as I have been doing this, the Board has in shallow water depth environments allowed these types of either fixed catwalk with a set of steps to the bottom, you know, where it's real, real shallow, or where it is still below the two-and-a-half feet of water that the DEC requires to get a floating dock, has allowed something like this, with just a little T-section on the end. And to my recollection, it has not been the Board's practice to start dabbling in the idea of regulating the behavior of the homeowner to the extent of saying, well, you can only put a boat that is this big. You can only put a boat, you know, with an engine or not, or a boat without an engine. MS. HULSE: Rob, if I can just jump in for a minute. They have done that in the past and it's within their purview to do so if they think it will create an environmental concern, if it's a motorized vessel and they do have the right to restrict a permit, and they have done so in the past. With respect to any comparison from outside this particular Location, I don't really think it's valid. The Board takes each individual application on a case-by-case basis. So that's really neither here nor there. But they certainly have done so in the past. MR. HERRMANN: Okay. Well, I was responding because Jay had raised the issue whether it had been part of the practice. So what we would just say is, obviously we would want to have as little limitation as the Board is comfortable with based on this site and the potential impacts. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of clarification, I had recalled it, but it had not happened in the near-term with respect to limitations. And there are already limitations with respect to length of vessel at town launching ramps also to take into account. We don't want damage from prop wash. MR. HERRMANN: And we understand that. Board of Trustees 25 December 16, 2015 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So just a notion, because shallow-drafted vessels less than 20 feet can navigate such waters easily, particularly with vessels -- does that sound like it's something you can live with? It allows, without any restriction to motor type, but typically shallow drive in a small outboard or such can get you out and not chew up the bottom, and it would also allow for some small dagger-board type of sailboats and such. And typically vessels of that size have carry on, you know, portable sewage containment. So we are not dealing with a marine head. So we tend to eliminate the sanitary water quality issue and we tend to protect the bottom of the bay by having a vessel limitation of that size. MR. MCLAIN: Would the vessel limitation then be -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be in your permit. It's a permitted feature of the permit. So you can't have any vessels larger than 20 feet at this dock. MR. HERRMANN: I think that's not only consistent with the current owner's intent, but it is also consistent with our design. Just for a point of reference, as Dave was talking about with the DEC, the reason there is no float and the reason that the fixed platform at the end is only 12-feet long, those were sort of policy criteria developed by the DEC for the specific purpose of accomplishing exactly what you are trying to accomplish, which is to limit the practical or practicable use of the dock. You can't bring a 36-foot inboard boat to a 4x12 platform that's on 4x12 posts without ending up with a lot of damage to the boat or to your dock. So I think what you are suggesting is totally consistent with what we have proposed here and it would be fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the stipulation that a vessel limitation of a vessel no longer than 20 feet be permitted at this dock, thereby addressing concerns of the LWRP and bringing it into consistency because it reduces the likelihood of a vessel with a head, reduces the likelihood that the submerged aquatic lands owned by Trustees on behalf of Town would not be damaged, and as the dock meets the requirements of the Trustees and the Army Corps of Engineers and does not exceed the one-third rule across the creek, it is consistent with navigation policy. That is my resolution. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 26 December 16, 2015 MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number eight, 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. 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 This is an application that actually came to the Trustees several months ago. Upon the review it was determined that this would have to go back to ZBA. It had been to ZBA originally. The Trustees reviewed it and sent it back to ZBA. It's been back to ZBA and a meeting of November 19th, they made an amended determination granting the relief asked for by the applicant. So I just wanted to make sure that was entered into the record. That brings us up to now. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC resolved to support the application back in October, 2015. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack for the applicant, who is also present this evening. I would like to formally hand in a letter from the contractor who was onsite that basically found that the walls were unacceptable for structural integrity for the second floor. A little history on this. It was before you before. It was intended to be a takedown of the roof structure, building a second floor on top of then the existing exterior walls, taking down the interior of the first floor, et cetera, and going up from there. If I remember correctly, I think the limitation was not more than 50% of the exterior wall that was supposed to be taken down. When the contractor was onsite, they discovered that the southwest and east walls were extensively termite and water damaged and were structurally unsound to support the second floor. I apologize for the small print of the letter I gave you. But that's essentially the contractor's letter which was submitted to the ZBA. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I have seen that referenced in the ZBA determination, the information that is in this letter. MR. KIMACK: And essentially, other than that, it's exactly the same structure that was originally proposed to you, exactly same location. Nothing has changed. With the exception that the entire first floor was constructed anew. So it really fell back to being a demolition as opposed to a partial takedown. And that is why we are before you and asking that you approve this application tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against Board of Trustees 27 December 16, 2015 this application? (Negative response). Any other comments from the Board? (Negative response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as described at 5210 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, noting it was found exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motionhas been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. KIMACK: Thank you. On a'personal note, Lori, Dave,job well done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Michael. MS. HULSE: Thank you, Michael. Appreciate it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of TOM & PAULETTE GIESE request a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32' in-ground swimming pool; install a pool equipment area and a drywell for the pool; install an 850 sq.ft. bluestone patio around pool located a minimum of 4' away from property line; install 4.5' high pool enclosure fencing around patio; for the existing 50.3'x34.3' two-story dwelling with existing 14.2'x14.2' attached deck on side of dwelling; and install a line of staked hay bales and/or silt fencing prior to and during construction. Located: 2195 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-13-4 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC on November 10th resolved to support the application with the condition that it include a ten-foot non-turf buffer and a drywell to contain the pool backwash. And gutters and leaders to drywells from the structures. I'm assuming that means the house. The Trustees made an inspection on November 10th and noticed there might be some trees impacted, and returned on December 9th to complete our field inspection. No conditions were noted. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. Giese and Mrs. Garofalo. I had an opportunity to speak with my clients. There are some oak trees that were in the area close to where the pool might go. They are hopeful that they won't have to take down trees. It's kind of close. But if they do have to be cut down, they will be replaced, and I said suitable location. I sent you a letter on December 4th with that answer. Just because it seemed to me a better, to talk to the landscaper on the best Board of Trustees 28 . December 16, 2015 place for it for keeping it away from the salt and making sure that the trees are salt tolerant. Native and salt tolerant. That was all acceptable with my client. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, the Board received the letter from Patricia Moore on December 4th, 5th, and the client preferred to leave the trees, leave them alone if at all possible. But if the construction required the removal, that he would replace the trees in a suitable location. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). MS. MOORE: Just one clarification. The gutters, I don't think we were putting gutters and leaders on the house. We were adding a drywell for the pool. The only project here is the pool, so. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that it is consistent with LWRP coordinator as is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PETER NATHANSON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x32' in-ground swimming pool; install 3' wide decking around pool; install 4.5' high pool enclosure fencing; install a drywell for pool backwash; and install a line of silt fencing and/or staked hay bales prior to construction. Located: 37900 Route 25, Orient. SCTM# 1000-20-3-9.2 The application has been reviewed by the LWRP coordinator and the comments received specifically relate, from him, relate specifically to the drywell. The water supply to the residence is a private well. Public water in this area is not available. The pool bottom elevation would be located in groundwater found at six feet at 1987. The coordinator suspects groundwater levels are closer to the surface elevation than, closer to the surface elevation presently. And the bottom of the pool drywell could be located within groundwater as there are no specifications for the cross-section of the drywell. The CAC indicated they support the application on the condition of drywells are installed to contain pool backwash. There is in fact a drywell proposed on the set of plans, but it appears absent the cross section and elevations. Trustee Bredemeyer performed the inspection and took the photographs. It is 80 feet to vegetated wetlands from the proposed pool. The area is unfertilized lawn and the applicant Board of Trustees 29 December 16, 2015 has indicated, the owner indicated they have no plans to further improve the lawn that would put nitrates into the wetlands, infringing wetlands of Hallocks Bay. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicants. I do know that he met with the Board, I believe at the field inspection. I was not there. He did not report back that there were any issues, so I'm hoping there are no issues, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I met,just for point of clarification, I met with Mr. Nathanson during the course of the field inspection because of the great distance to the wetland. It is noted that the depth with the drywell depending on how it's constructed, we would not want to have a drywell constructed into groundwater probably for the larger impact possibly mosquito breeding, particularly the nasty ones that cause West Nile. So that was an important comment coming from the coordinator. Any questions or concerns from anyone else? MS. MOORE: I think that will be field conditions at the time the drywells, it will be a shallow drywell, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, anyone else wish to speak to the application? (Negative response). All right, hearing no further comment, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the drywell be constructed so as to provide at least a foot to two feet above groundwater level where it's located. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What we'll do is we'll have some - proclamations for the public on account of celebrating the great service of members of the Board, and so what we'll do is if we could, we'll just go right into proclamations now and then we'll go into executive session at the end. , MS. MOORE: It will just be an adjournment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually, we don't have chase you out of the room. Lori informed us we can just go over it here. We'll just take a brief recess to go into executive session on the application of Regi Weile. (After a Board adjournment into executive session, these proceedings continue as follows). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time we'll go back on the record for the Weile application, for which we tabled. We are still in the public hearing. We suspended discussion on it to get legal opinion. We tabled temporarily. At this time is there any additional comment with respect to this application? Board of Trustees 30 December 16, 2015 MS. WEILE: I would like to postpone this so that I can speak to an attorney because there seems to be a problem somewhere. I was applying for a Wetland Permit. I was told I didn't have to do anything beyond that for the Coastal Erosion by your department. So I don't know, I don't understand what you, what the process is right now. So I think I need some explanation from you or. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You could always seek advice of counsel. That would be the last thing, we would not say we don't want you to do that if you thought that is the case so as to allay some of your concerns and some of the discussion that started the public hearing. The application was made solely for a Wetland Permit, and accordingly for the stairs, the Board can, under the current standards I had mentioned previously, grant the permit. So we could probably-- MS. HULSE: And the thing is, is that if she is requesting an adjournment to confer with her attorney, we should go ahead and table it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So we don't continue additional discussion without you getting legal advice and because there are issues that are complex with respect to pre-existing structures on a bluff, I guess it would be best if we do table the application at your request to allow you to seek counsel, and also--and we'll just move to table. Feel free to contact the office. MS. WEILE: I want to add there has been some irregularities in this process when I was applying for this permit as far as attempt to cancel my hearing and my permit because somebody decided that I needed different kinds of approvals from the Building Department, like a variance. So this has been a very confused process. It has not been linear. And that's why at this point I want to stop and figure out what is happening. I'm not following a lot of your arguments and so -- MS. HULSE: Ma'am, I think they'll make a motion to table this. So you will have time. MS. WEILE: Very good. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Based on the recommendation of counsel I'll move to table this application to allow the applicant also to seek advice of counsel. Feel free to contact our office if we can be of assistance, or have your attorney contact us. Motion to table. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Before we take a motion to adjourn, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the exemplary public service of Jim King, Dave Bergen and Lori Hulse. And with respect to these Individuals' service with distinction to Southold, I would like to say: That sometimes you get what you need. And in the case of Southold it needed some upright and caring public officials. And sometimes you get what you want. And in the case of Jim, Dave Board of Trustees 31 December 16, 2015 and Lori, they wanted to help Southold Town. And the voters of the Town and Town Board put them in place to do their work. And sometimes you get what you don't want. And most of the Trustees are fairly modest, and Jim King who is at a fisheries conference particularly didn't want any recognition. But he's going to get it anyway. And sometimes you get good or better than what you deserve, and I think the residents of the Town certainly got a really good deal in the service of Dave Bergen, Jim King and Lori Hulse. Here to lead our recognition this evening is Suffolk County Leg. Al Krupski, and former Trustee and President of the Board of Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Back where you started, Al. MR. KRUPSKI: Thank you. It is kind of funny, because when started here 30 years ago, I was a young man and there was a Trustee there that helped me along the way and taught me a lot of different things. So I have to thank Trustee Bredemeyer for that. He was here 30 years ago when I started. So it's all kind of ironic. And you kind of look the same, too. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are supposed to say so does he. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Actually he's looking better. I'm telling you. MR. KRUPSKI: And sitting here tonight, listening to the meeting, it's, the issues really never change. You are still talking about water depth and docks and who is going to determine what low tide is. So it's, I can see those topics going on for the future. I won't read the proclamations, but Dave, I have one for Jim, too, but I'll have to deliver that to him in person. Because I did serve with Jim for many years. And, urn, I need to go, and I owe him a visit. I have not seen him in a while. But Dave, I never served with you. You started the year I left the Trustees. And besides the hat, you have done a great job. And I want to thank you for that. You have served the Town very well. I know we've worked together the past few years with the dredging projects within the Town, with the County Department of Public Works and with the DEC. And that certainly made a big difference and it was a great contribution. And I know you worked well with the Board here and I just want to come and thank you for that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, Al. MR. KRUPSKI: And Lori, thank you, for your service. I think you were practicing tonight for your new job. But thank you for your service. We did work together and I'm sure our paths will cross in the future again. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For those of you remaining, we are going to share a little holiday cheer at O'Malley's after this, if you want to join us. And I'll take the opportunity now to read a proclamation for Jim, which we'll be delivering to him. And then Mike Domino has one for Dave. And Dave has one for Lori. And this is for Jim King, for putting in the record of the Trustees. Board of Trustees 32 December 16, 2015 After 20 years of service as a Trustee of the Town of Southold, James F. King will retire on December 31st, 2015. And whereas Jim King is well-known throughout the region as a serious lobster man who long ago recognized that our natural resources come first. And whereas Jim's leadership in this area awarded him with the presidency of the Long Island Lobstermen's Association. And whereas the people of the Town so appreciated Jim's work ethic and environmental leadership that they elected him to Town Trustee on January 1st, 1996. And whereas earning respect of fellow Trustees Jim rose to President of the Board where he applied the watchful eye of the mariner in stewarding the Board into highly productive waters by avoiding precipitous problems. And whereas Jim has decided it's time to retire and head out again on the water, now therefore be it be revolved the Southold Town Trustees express their most sincere gratitude and appreciation for Jim's 20 years of service to the Board of Town Trustees and the Town of Southold. And be it further resolved that this resolution be spread upon the Minutes of the Southold Town Board of Trustees and as such become a part of the permanent record of the Town of Southold. Applause greatly heard in the hall, let the record read. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Proclamation: Whereas Dave Bergen is well-known throughout the Peconic bays as a serious sailor and boatman, who possesses a keen knowledge and appreciation of the environment. And whereas Dave's penchant for exacting detail and administrative acumen was so well-known among friends, associates and people of the Town that they elected him to the position of Town Trustee on January 1st, 2006. And whereas Dave Bergen immediately brought those skills to bear upon the office of the Board of Trustees, where he . administered programs promoting the health of the Peconic estuary and better access to our Town's creeks. And whereas the programs of vessel sanitation and environmentally responsible dredging of our creek mouths that he personally stewarded, will be his legacy, the benefits of which shall be enjoyed for generations to come. And whereas the Board of Trustees will sorely miss Dave's tireless devotion to the Town and public trust lands, now therefore be it resolved that the Southold Town Trustees express their most sincere gratitude and appreciation for Dave's ten years of service to the Board of Trustees and the Town of Southold. And be it further revolved that this resolution be spread upon the Minutes of the Southold Town Board of Trustees and as such become a part of the permanent record of the Town of Southold. Dated December 16th, 2015. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And I've got to say that it has been an honor to serve the residents of this Town. It has been an Board of Trustees 33 December 16, 2015 • honor also to serve with the Trustees, including those not here tonight, Peggy Dickerson, John Holzapfel, Bob Ghosio, Jill Doherty. And certainly last but not least, Jim King. I think when you look in Webster and you see the word "class," his ' picture should show up after that word. I know I have learned so much from Jim King, and he's just a wonderful man. Then of course also Mike and Jay for the last six years, I believe it's been, of sharing this dais. It was kind of amusing for me when I - got a call on Monday that the dredging had started at Downs Creek, because for the last six months I have been assisting Mr. McCall with the bureaucratic red tape of the Army Corps of National Marine Fisheries, New York Fish and Wildlife and New York Department of State to get that permit so that dredging could take place. And I stood on the beach on Monday, and as truthfully sad I am to be leaving this office, it really meant a lot to see one more creek that was environmentally degraded because it had closed up, now being open, and it will be a healthy creek. So that meant a lot to me. It was a good way to close out the ten years. So thank you, everybody, really appreciate it. Now, in the last-but-not-least category, we have a proclamation, the Trustees do, on behalf of Lori Hulse. This proclamation reads: Whereas Lori Hulse has served Southold Town and its elected Board of Trustees with distinction from June 27th, 2003, to present. And, whereas in her capacity as counsel to the Southold Town Trustees, she is esteemed for her legal prowess, knowledge of the Town codes and staunch defense of the Board of Trustees. And whereas Lori has been unwavering in her prosecution of Wetland violations in Town Justice Court, promoting respect for the law and environmental justice. And, whereas Lori Hulse's administrative abilities, public service and community involvement have resulted in her election as Town Justice in Riverhead Town, formerly a part of Southold Town where she is always welcome to return. And whereas Lori Hulse's absence from the meeting dais will leave a vacuum that will be difficult to fill, now therefore be if resolved that the Southold Town Trustees express their most sincere gratitude and appreciation-for Lori's 12 years of service to the Board of Trustees and Southold Town; and be it further resolved this resolution be spread upon the Minutes of the Southold Board of Town Trustees and as such become part of the permanent record of the Town of Southold. DatedDecember 16th, 2015. MS. HULSE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And in recognition of the tireless work of Liz Cantrell and Diane Di Salvo, and you can't believe how hard they work, we want to offer them a good new year, and thank them for all their help. Liz particularly, training Diane. Liz came into this job literally a week to ten days before Tropical Storm Board of Trustees 34 December 16, 2015 Sandy absolutely pummeled us, and we think it's a good thing now that Diane got on board without any tropical storm. This was a big fear we had. And we are really enjoying this weather, and we seem to have gotten pretty much caught up with the post-Sandy difficulties we had. And I do really appreciate their help. Again, I couldn't mirror more Dave's comment. The Board works well together, you find Dave correcting me all the time, I'm missing stuff, and I need that help. So it's a pleasure. So we've got a little holiday cheer to give all our gals, Lori, Liz and Diane. With that I'll make a motion to adjourn this meeting. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees