HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-11/16/2016 John M.Bredemeyer III,President I SO�j� Town Hall Annex
Michael J.Domino,Vice-President ®� ®l® 54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Glenn Goldsmith
Southold,New York 11971
A.Nicholas Krupski
_ Telephone(631) 765-1892
Charles J.Sanders a® Fax(631) 765-6641
RECEIVED I
v P�
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES D EC 1 5 2016
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD '
Minutes
Wednesday, November-16, 2016
5:30 PM
Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President
Michael Domino, Vice-President
A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee
Charles Sanders, Trustee
Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist
Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney T ,
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 8:00 AM
NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:00 PM
WORK SESSIONS: Monday, December,12, 2016 at 4:30 PM at Downs Farm,
and on Wednesday, December 14, 2016 at 5:00 PM at the
Main Meeting Hall
MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 19, 2016.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to the Trustees
regular monthly meeting, November 16th, 2016. This evening we
have a very goodly number of postponements, most all being
postponed because the Board needed additional information to
complete the files for review. I'll just run through -- if you
don't have an agenda, they are on the lecterns, but I'll just
run through the postponements, in case you are here and you
don't sit through a majority of the meeting expecting to have a
matter heaed that we have to hold off.
On page four, at the bottom of the page, item two, Michael
Kimack on behalf of SOUNDFRONT HOLDINGS, LLC request an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#8047 and Coastal Erosion Permit
#8047C for the existing collapsed steel bulkhead behind concrete
seawall and existing damaged concrete seawall to remain; remove
the collapsed bluff stairs and steel sheet piling retaining wall
Board of Trustees 2 November 16, 2016
from face of bluff; the originally proposed bulkhead with 10'
and 20' returns, proposed 47' vinyl retaining wall with 9' and
10' returns, and proposed timber terracing walls on face of
bluff were not constructed; for the as-built stabilizing of the
concrete bulkhead by placing approximately 1,000 tons of large
stones in between the steel bulkhead and concrete bulkhead and
top off with 4-6+ stones; as-built gabion return wall along the
westerly adjoining property line; cut collapsed steel bulkhead
down below finish grade; as-built six-tiered retaining wall
system, completely integrated, to stabilize slope and protect
westerly property line; redesigned bluff stairs to attach to
retaining walls; bluff stairs were constructed 4'wide and 45.2'
long in lieu of 50'with a 23sq.ft. top landing and a 24.5sq.ft.
bottom landing; replaced collapsed brick patio with as-built 176sq.ft.
natural irregular shaped bluestone patio between dwelling and top
retaining wall; as-built 73sq.ft. lower tier bluestone patio; as-built wire
fencing along top retaining wall; added fill to terraced areas; a ±450sq.ft.
sandy beach area landward of stone bulkhead; revegetated void areas
with American beach grass and rosa rugosa.
Located: 20275 Soundview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-51-4-8,
has been postponed.
Page five, number two, L.K. Mclean Associates on behalf of
MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal
Erosion Permit to install a 25' wide by 40' long steel shade
shelter supported by six (6)foundation columns over a proposed
4" (25'x40') concrete slab; and to install an approximately
12'x24' timber deck fastened onto the existing concrete slab
that is attached to the existing lifeguard building.
Located: 5155 Breakwater Road, Breakwater Beach, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-99-2-19.1, has been postponed.
Item number three, on page five, Docko, Inc., on behalf of
BRIM FISHERS ISLAND TRUST, c/o JOHN BRIM requests a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 4'wide by
+/-181 linear foot long fixed wood pile and timber pier; a
3.5'x20' ramp; an 8'x20'floating dock with four(4) restraint
piles; install four(4)tie-off piles; relocate boulders within
the vicinity of the proposed float and berthing areas under the
new pier; and on top of existing concrete foundation pier
located in beach area construct a proposed +/-18'x28' wood platform.
Located: 3206 Brooks Point Road, Fishers Island.
SCTM# 1000-4-3-3 has been postponed.
On page nine, at the bottom of the page, item number 17,
Richard Boyd, R.A. on behalf of CHRISTINE HOWLEY requests a
Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story dwelling;
construct new two-story, single family 5,577.20sq.ft. total
footprint dwelling which includes a 680.4sq.ft. attached garage,
a 107sq.ft. front roofed-over porch, 1 ,299.9sq.ft. of seaward
side first floor decks, and 1,123.3sq.ft. seaward side
second-floor decks.
Located: 320 Sailor's Needle Road, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3,
has been postponed.
Board of Trustees 3 November 16, 2016
And on page ten and eleven, in the entirety have been
postponed. They are listed as follows:
Number 18, Michael Kimack on behalf of GIOIA TURITTO &
NABIL EL-SHERIF request a Wetland Permit to re-install in-kind a
Bio-Log system with fill and native plantings within two (2)
separate areas along the southern shoreline of subject property
due to the storm damage of the existing systems.
Located: 40 Beachwood Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-62.1
Number 19, Michael Kimack on behalf of MARC & DEIRDRE SOKOL
requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 1,714 sq.ft. wood
deck attached to seaward side of dwelling; as-built 61.9sq.ft.
hot tub on a 345.8sq.ft. patio, and 3'wide stone walkway from
deck to bulkhead; install a proposed 16'x32' in-ground swimming
pool; install a proposed 1,454.5sq.ft. bluestone patio with 215sq.ft. pergola;
install approximately 730 linear feet of 8' high deer fencing and 252 linear
feet of 4' high wood picket fencing with gate; and for a proposed bluestone
fire-pit area landward of top of bluff.
Located: 308 Park Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-7-7.3
Number 20, GAYLE B. WALLACE requests a Wetland Permit to
reconstruct the existing 3'x35' catwalk using Thru-Flow decking
and raised 18" above grade; a 3'x1 9'8" aluminum ramp; and a
6'x20'floating dock situated in an "I" configuration with two
piles to secure the float. Located: 150 Briarwood Lane
(Dominant); 425 & 350 Briarwood Lane, at End of 20'Wide
Right-of-Way, Cutchogue (Servient). SCTM# 1000-136-1-3
(Dominant); 1000-136-1-1 & 1000-136-1-5 (Servient)
Number 21, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOAN
SHANNON requests a Wetland Permit for the existing ±22'x25.5'
cantilevered upper deck and to resurface the deck; extend
existing 54' long retaining wall an additional 12'to easterly
property line; extend existing 75' long retaining wall an
additional ±35'to easterly property line and add a 10' long
return; extend an existing 50' long retaining wall up to the
existing deck; extend existing lower retaining wall an
additional 75' to easterly property line; replace existing 75'
long-bottom retaining wall in-place; remove damaged 11 'x75'
wood deck between lower retaining wails; replace only 19'x25'
part of existing deck located under upper wood deck, and replace
existing outdoor shower on lower deck; backfill area with 120
cubic yards of clean sand and top with beach stones; replace 4'
wide stairs to beach off of bottom retaining wall; replace
existing 4'x22' stairs that extend from top deck to lower deck;
replace/repair existing 75' long bulkhead; install steps to
beach off bulkhead; revegetate disturbed areas with mulch and
native vegetation.
Located: 7080 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel.
SCTM# 1000-126-1 1-7
Number 22, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of MICHAEL
JOEL COLODNER& SARA WINSOR COLODNER requests a Wetland
Permit for the existing two-story dwelling with attached garage,
existing storage building and outdoor shower along rear of
Board of Trustees 4 November 16, 2016
dwelling; demolish existing stone patio and construct a 25'x30'
upper patio with outdoor grill and counter top; construct a
lower 1,244sq.ft. patio around proposed 16'x36' in-ground
swimming pool; install a pool drywell; install an 8'x8' hot tub;
install pool enclosure fencing, and the installation of hay
bales and/or silt fencing to be installed prior to and during
construction. Located: 130 Willis Creek Drive, Mattituck.
SCTM#1000-115-17-17.8
Number 23, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of FOR THE LOVE OF
FAMILY LLC, clo ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit for
a Ten (10)Year Maintenance Permit to dredge 250 cubic yards of
course sand from existing inlet; dredged material to be spread
on a beach to a maximum depth of 12"; all work to be above the
mean high water line and avoiding disruption of existing
vegetated wetlands in the area; the maintenance permit would
include five (5) additional dredging events consisting of 50
cubic yards of sand for each event. Located: 9205 Skunk Lane,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-104-3-16.1
At this time, I'll make a motion that the Board will hold
its next field inspection on Tuesday, December 6th at 8:00 AM.
Do we have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And different than what you're meeting
agenda says, we'll vote to change the meeting time for the next
regular meeting. I would move to resolve that the Board will
hold its next regular monthly meeting Wednesday, December 14th,
2016, at 5:00 PM.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And work sessions, I move that we have our
work session for Downs Farms, Monday, December 12th, 2016, at
4:30 PM at Downs Farms. And in the main meeting hall on
Wednesday, December 14th, 2016, at 4:30 PM. That's immediately
before the meeting on that night. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve the Minutes of October
19th, 2016.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
I. MONTHLY REPORT:
The Trustees monthly report for October 2016. A check for
$5,050.21 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the
Board of Trustees 5 November 16, 2016
General Fund.
II. PUBLIC NOTICES:
Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review.
III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS:
RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the
following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, November 16, 2016, are classified as Type II
Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review
under SEQRA:
They are listed as follows:
Vishnudat Seodat- SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.2
Tangent, LLC, c/o Abigail Wickham - SCTM# 1000-117-5-16
Francine Luque - SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.30
Gioia Turitto & Nabil EI-Sherif- SCTM# 1000-70-10-62.1
Marc & Deirdre Sokol - SCTM# 1000-123-7-7.3
Rahul & Yana Kakar- SCTM# 1000-112-1-14
Max & Jimena Faerber- SCTM# 1000-24-2-27
Christine Howley- SCTM# 1000-144-5-29.3
Joan Shannon - SCTM# 1000-126-11-7
Joseph & Dolores Magagnin -SCTM# 1000-56-5-23
Richard & Janet Downing - SCTM# 1000-123-10-2
Harold J. Baer-SCTM# 1000-116-7-6
Gloria Nixon - SCTM# 1000-138-2-13
Paul & Patricia Ahiers - SCTM# 1000-35-4-16
Susan & Ira Akselrad - SCTM# 1000-111-9-6.4
Robert J. Guarriello &Anna T. Guarriello Irrevocable Trusts - SCTM# 1000-56-5-19
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: These are all Type II actions.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In order to keep the meeting moving a pace
and being a little more efficient, for Administrative actions
and for Applications for Extensions or Transfers or
Administrative Amendments, the Board will group together
projects that are of a minor administrative nature for which the
Board has already conducted inspections and for which are not
subject to a public hearing.
Accordingly, I would move that we approve under Resolutions
for Administrative Permits, I move that we approve item one,
number two and number four as a groups They are listed as
follows:
Number one, STEVEN & LAUREN BECK request an Administrative
Permit to construct a +/- 10'x12.4' addition onto the southerly
side of the existing dwelling. Located: 250 Pine Tree Court,
Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-98-1-7.1 1
Board of Trustees 6 November 16, 2016
Number two, PAUL & MARGARET KOBALKA request an
Administrative Permit to install an 8'x12' storage shed onto the
property in the rear yard and 10' away from side yard lot line.
Located: 695 Petty's Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-23
Number four, LILLIAN BALL requests an Administrative Permit
for a Ten-year Maintenance Permit to hand-cut Common Reed
(Phragmites australis)to not less than 12" in height by hand,
and to remove other invasive species of vegetation by hand on an
as needed basis. Located: 2045 Lake Drive, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-59-5-4
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: For item number three, the application of
Robert Brown Architect, P.C. on behalf of LOUIS & BETTE WEISKOPF
request an Administrative Permit to replace the existing
+/-516sq.ft deck with a +1-241 sq.ft. Deck with stairs on
easterly side of dwelling. Located: 400 Long Creek Drive,
Southold. SCTM# 1000-55-4-23.3
The project has been reviewed by the LWRP coordinator and
it was found to be inconsistent with the goals of the LWRP in
that the structure did not have --was constructed without a
Trustee permit. It is a reduction, actually, in the size of the
deck for which the Board did perform an inspection, and by
virtue of reducing the size and applying for a permit, it would
bring this structure into compliance with the LWRP.
Accordingly, I would move to approve this application as
being consistent by acquiring a permit and reducing the
environmental impact.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next is the application of Frank
Uellendahl, R.A. on behalf of KUHL FAMILY TRUST, clo WILLIAM
KUHL requests an Administrative Permit to construct a proposed
15'x15' two-story addition onto the landward side of existing
two-story dwelling; for the existing 3'x62'wood walk to be
removed and replaced with pavers; and for the existing
13.3'x21.6' wood deck with pergola to remain. Located: 1729
North Bayview Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-1238.1
This was deemed to be inconsistent. A portion of it was
deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP coordinator. It consists
with an as-built deck section of 13-feet three-inches by 21-feet
six-inches, and the deck with the pergola was inconsistent
because it, too, did not have a wetland permit.
The Board reviewed the project. The project was fully
staked, it was very straightforward, the Board viewed that there
was little or no environmental impact from the project, and by
virtue of seeking a permit it would bring this project into
Board of Trustees 7 November 16, 2016
compliance with the LWRP and in consistency, and accordingly I
move to approve this application as being consistent by virtue
of seeking a permit and having little or no environmental impact.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, item number six,
Michael Kimack on behalf of SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, LLC requests an
Administrative Permit to install a 64' long post-and-rail fence
along the south-westerly side-yard property line beginning at a
point adjacent to the concrete walk seaward to the southwesterly
property corner. Located: 4200 Kenneys Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-54-4-3
The owner is trying to control errant beachgoers at Kenneys
Beach who apparently had a history of going on the property of
the owner and actually going up on the deck. The Board feels
this is reasonable, but we wanted to also include the
stipulation that with this permit we would allow the placement
of a code-compliant 12x12" sign on the fence that would allow
for letting beachgoers know that it is private property of the
owner. I move to approve this with the allowance for a 12x12"
sign on the fence.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number seven,
JENNIFER LEUBA&VICTOR HOU request an Administrative
Permit for the removal of existing lawn area and top-soil; and to
add approximately 20 cubic yards of new top-soil in area of removed
top-soil; install underground sprinkler system to be located no closer
than 30'from top crest of the bluff; and to re-seed the new top soil to
establish a lawn area. Located: 950 Red Fox Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-106-1-23.1
The Board reviewed this application and appreciate the fact
by keeping the sprinkler system from the crest of the bluff it
reduces greatly the potential of having a bluff blowout due to
failure of the sprinkler or the sprinkler heads. But the Board
did want to maintain the area between the sprinklers and the
bluff with no fertilizers, no chemical fertilizers.
Accordingly, to honor what the Board feels would be
important to protect this site, I would move to approve this
application as submitted with the stipulation that there shall
be no fertilizer applications within the 30 feet that is not
covered by the sprinkler system.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 8 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Application number eight, NEW SUFFOLK
WATERFRONT FUND, INC. requests an Administrative Permit for the
existing +/-30.5'x48' marina accessory building; to repair the
northeast corner of the building by replacing the existing
support posts as well as one midway on the north side; and to
remove some of the shingles in order to install plywood to cover
any existing holes in the exterior walls. Located: 650 First
Street, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-1 17-18-18.1
This is a very straightforward application for a minimalist
repair of the existing structure. The Board reviewed the
proposal and it fully feels this is appropriate for a minor
action, but wants to stipulate that further work on this project
should come in for a more formal wetland application.
Accordingly, I move to approve this application as
submitted with the stipulation that further work on the building
should require a full wetland permit.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONSITRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Item V on the agenda, on page three,
again, we can group groups of applications together for which
were found by the Board on field inspection and review of the
files to be consistent with our policies, and I would
accordingly move that we approve as a group numbers one, two,
three and number five. They are listed as follows:
Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of JANE &VINCENT
MARTORANA request a One-year Extension to Wetland Permit#8541
and Coastal Erosion Permit#8541 C, as issued on December 17,
2014. Located: 700 Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-33-4-32
Number two, William Goggins, Esq. on behalf of ANALISSE
TAFT requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4851 from Joseph &
Nicole Aretz to Analisse Taft, as issued on January 28,
1998. Located: 853 Knollwood Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-6-5
Number three, MAUREEN &JAMES LEVELIS request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#5378 from Jami Friedman to Maureen & Jim
Levelis, as issued on July 25, 2001.
Located: 830 Cleat-view Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-89-3-11.5
And number five, JACOB &JILL KUBETZ requests an
Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8717 to no longer
construct the proposed 328sq.ft. paved patio adjacent to the
screened-in porch, or the proposed 2.10'x38.7' paved walkway
from the rear patio to the barn. Located: 1600 North Oakwood
Road, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-127-6-10
Do I have a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Board of Trustees 9 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number four, David Jude Jannuzzi, Esq. on
behalf of PAUL KATZ& LOUISE CHASEN request a Transfer of
Wetland Permit#2083 from Rudolph H. Bruer on Behalf of B.D.B.
Properties to Paul Katz& Louise Chasen, as issued on October
30, 1985. Located: 100 West Mill Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-4-2
The Board found that the current dock is nonconforming, the
dock predating Trustee permits, but where the permit had been
granted under the grandfather clause, the structure that exists
in the field at this time is not the same size as was permitted
by this Board on October 30th, 1985. It is such a great variance
from the prior permit that the Board after reviewing the file
and measuring it in the field believes that this structure
should come in for a new permit and possibly a modification.
Accordingly, I would move that we deny this application
without prejudice, in favor of submitting a new application.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number six is the application of
DAVID SCHAB requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland
Permit#8570 to install underground water and electric to the
dock. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
The Board has no problem whatsoever with the extension of
water and electric to a dock as an administrative item, provided
we do want to stipulate though, that the lighting must be code
compliant Dark Skies lighting, and because the Board has
determined now that extension of power to docks is potentially
hazardous with extending electric to docks, that we'll require
that the applicant seek the approval of the Building Department
and submit an underwriters certificate to the Building
Department for their approval before we actually issue the
permit.
Accordingly I move we approve the request of David Schab
for an Administrative Permit subject to stipulations I just
stated: Dark Skies compliant and they secure Building
Department approval and underwriters certificate.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time, I would like to take an
off-agenda item vote. The Board this evening at work session and
at two previous work sessions is developing a new mooring policy
which is designed to have greater boater participation in our
creeks. We have some creeks in the town which are presently
under-utilized, where we may have waiting lists of tens of
people and in some cases lists of 20, 25 people, and the creek
may have anywhere from ten to 15 permits for a mooring on it,
but there is actually no moorings in place on these creeks. So
Board of Trustees 10 November 16, 2016
that we actually have a case where people are on a waiting list
dying to get into a creek, and there is, the new policy
essentially will be developing a fairly generous use-it-or-lose-it
procedure for the boaters, will have to make sure their
mooring gear is properly identified as we currently have our
numbering and we have our stickers, and that they'll have to
have their boats out for in excess of a two-year period, and there
will be inspection by Town representatives.
Accordingly, I move the Board approves its new policy
which is bound to the letter of, the mooring renewal letter that
will go out to all the current mooring permit holders.
Anyone here who is interested in it, we can provide a copy
of that letter if you happen to be here and happen to be a
mooring permit holder.
That's my motion to approve the new mooring policy.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time, we'll go off the regular
meeting agenda. I move to go off the regular agenda to enter
into our public hearings. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
AMENDMENTS:
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, HAROLD J. BAER requests an
Amendment to Wetland Permit#6170 to construct a 4'X40' seaward
extension onto existing 4'x65'fixed dock for a total of a 4'x105'fixed
dock; and to relocate existing steps to grade to seaward end of
new extension. Located: 1425 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-1 16-7-6
The Trustees did a review of this application on 11/9 of
this year. November 9th.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
And we have in our file a letter from the LWRP coordinator
in response to a request from our able senior clerk typist Liz
Cantrell, and the letter reads that we need more time with this
application. The application affects a structure with a long
history.
Hearing that, considering that, I make a motion to table
this application until we receive LWRP coordinator response.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS:
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number one, under
Board of Trustees 11 November 16, 2016
Wetland & Coastal Erosion Permits, En-Consultants on behalf of
VISHNUDAT SEODAT requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion
Permit to revegetate the existing,35'wide non-turf buffer
adjacent to and along the landward edge of the top of the bluff.
Located: 580 Lloyds Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-99-3-4.2
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
Okay, seeing no one here, the Board is familiar with this
application to the extent that we discovered there was a
violation on the property where the--there was a non-turf
buffer specifically designed and designated for this property to
protect the bluff. The bluff had had a prior history of a bluff
blowout, and in this case there was both irrigation and a lawn
put in on the bluff which would directly endanger the bluff
again and the adjacent properties. A violation was issued and
this is a return on the violation. And the applicant has, is
restoring the property to the state it was before at the request
of the Trustees, so that the Board is now considering the
approval of a 35'wide non-turf buffer which it heretofore was
not put in a restrictive covenant, should be. And we have a
vegetated planting plan that the Board has reviewed which will
be using native plants that we reviewed in the field.
Is there anyone here who has additional comments or
questions?
(Negative response).
The return was pretty straightforward. It basically restores
everything we asked for. Any questions?
(Negative response).
Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the
hearing in this matter.
MR. BAER: Are we permitted to ask questions as we go along or
do we have a to wait until the end?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: During the course of the hearing, if you
heard me, I did indicate was there anyone here to speak on
behalf of the application, that would ordinarily be the time if
you wanted to speak specifically to an application, you could.
Are you here to speak with respect to --
MR. BAER: Yes, my application, Harold Baer. You people were
out here a couple months ago, and now you are saying its
tabled. What does that mean?
THE SECRETARY: If you could come up to the podium first.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, why don't you come up. We'll go off
agenda just for a minute and we'll have to go back and deal with
this.
As a point of information, Mr. Baer, we were not able to
conclude, the Board`was not able to move forward with your
application because a required report from the LWRP coordinator
is not in the file. And the program coordinator felt he needed
more time and needed more information to render his opinion.
The Trustees in making approvals for wetland permits, we
Board of Trustees 12 November 16, 2016
have to incorporate the review of the LWRP coordinator as well
as the recommendations of the CAC. So if we are minus those
reports, we can't act on an application when it comes in.
In this case we are awaiting the report from Mr. Mark Terry
who is the LWRP coordinator, so we had to table the application.
MR. BAER: Do I have to give this coordinator anymore
information? Doesn't he have enough though make a determination?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe if the coordinator needed more
information from you he would contact you. I believe he's doing
a file research and research of prior Board minutes he believes
he needs to review to make his report.
MR. BAER: What's the name of this person?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Mark Terry.
MR. BAER: Okay, so my case I just have to sit back and wait?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would on December's meeting in any case
because the LWRP coordinator has a timeframe that he has to
return his report by.
MR. BAER: Okay, so it will show up again on December 16th?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes.
MR. BAER: I'm not going to be here. Is that a problem?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, December 14th.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: December 14th, will you be around that time,
sir?
MR. BAER: No.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You don't necessarily have to be here to be
present for the meeting. It's sometimes helpful. Or if you
want to have a representative with signed authorization from
you, someone to speak for you.
MR. BAER: I'll be in North Carolina, I don't think I can do it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's for you to determine.
MR. BAER: All right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Going back on the agenda, before I move to
close the hearing on the Vishnudat Seodat matter, I would just
like to say also this application was approved by the CAC. Our
two representatives here for the CAC, John and Greg, are in the
back.
So I would move that Vishnudat Seodat being uncomplicated
and a return as a request to satisfy the violation, I would move
we close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve the application of
Vishnudat Seodat as submitted.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
WETLAND PERMITS:
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number one under wetland permits, TANGENT, LLC,
Board of Trustees 13 November 16, 2016
c/o ABIGAIL WICKHAM requests a Wetland Permit to construct
approximately 80 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of and
12" higher than existing timber bulkhead; backfill bulkhead with
approximately 30 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in
from an approved upland source; install a light pole at corner
of bulkhead, to be in compliance with Town Code section 172-5;
install buried electric and water lines from right-of-way.
Located: 908 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk. SCTM# 1000-1 17-5-16
The Trustees on, actually Nick Krupski, the Trustee on
11/14, went out to the property, and his comments are
straightforward. Building to match bulkhead next door.
The LWRP has found this to be consistent. They make one
note, the proposed non-turf buffer is vegetated with native
drought-tolerant beneficial plants to further Policy Six.
And then the CAC resolved to support this application as
well.
Is there anyone on behalf of the applicant who would like
to speak?
MS. WICKHAM: Good evening, Abigail Wickham on behalf of the
applicant, Mattituck, New York. I'm just here if you have any
questions.
If I can't answer them, I'll ask Rob Herrmann because he's
doing the two on either side.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We have a ten-foot--
MS. WICKHAM: Yes, and I'm proposing the same.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Good. Okay. Is there anybody else who would
like to speak on behalf of this application?
(No response).
Thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as long as it goes to the Building Department and gets an
underwriters certificate for the electric as well as a ten-foot
non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
MS. CANTRELL: The buffer is not on the plans.
MS. WICKHAM: Yes, it is.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Thank you. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of
FRANCINE LUQUE requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
176 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead, a 30 linear foot
return and an 8 linear foot return with new vinyl bulkhead and
returns in-place and 18" higher than existing.
Located: 580 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-28.30
Board of Trustees 14 November 16, 2016
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent, provided
that a non-turf buffer is vegetated with native drought-tolerant
beneficial plants to further Policy Six.
The CAC resolved to support this application as long as it
is no higher than neighboring bulkheads, and a ten-foot non-turf
buffer.
On November 9th the Trustees went out, we had some comments
about the patio that went directly up to the bulkhead. And also
would like a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We have no
objections to providing a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would it be a possibility with that patio that
goes the whole way, to either convert that to a permeable patio;
within the ten-foot? Or gravel?
MR. PATANJO: Within the first ten feet, yes, that's no problem.
It will be removed for the bulkhead anyway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Figured as much. Okay, is there anyone else
here that wishes to speak regarding this application? Or any
comments from the Board?
MR. PATANJO: Revised plans, or will you put that as a notation?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, with respect to --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: To the patio. Just adjust it the first ten
feet from the bulkhead will be a permeable patio.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We should probably get a separate plan
showing the structure, because there is a new standard for the
permeable. So we should probably get a set of plans for the
permeable structure.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We may have to send that over--there is a
new town standard for dealing with permeable driveways and
structures with drainage. I mean if its all sand it's probably
a non-issue, but if it's a question of construction standards,
we sometimes have to rely on the town engineer to take a look at
it. So if you give us --
MR. PATANJO: Maybe the option will be if she does want that size
of a patio, maybe move it closer landward from where it is now,
the entire patio, and just move the one walkway up to the
bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm fine with that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. You could do that with revised plans if
you want.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: With the stipulation. Okay.
All right, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application
with the stipulation that new plans depicting the new patio
Board of Trustees 15 November 16, 2016
design that does not,encroach the ten-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Motion has been made.
Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Cole Environmental Services, Inc.
on behalf of GLORIA NIXON request a Wetland Permit to replace
existing timber bulkhead in-place consisting of a 57' long
bulkhead and a 6' return using vinyl sheathing; and to replace
existing "L" shaped fixed timber dock in-place consisting of a
3'x10'fixed dock off of bulkhead to a 4'x16' fixed dock.
Located: 5170 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-13
The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The
inconsistency rises from the fact that the structure was
constructed without a Trustee permit.
The CAC resolved to support this application with the
condition that no CCA treated wood is used in the new
construction; that the decking is constructed with flow-through
decking; and the thriving underwater vegetation is addressed.
The Trustees did, more correctly, the Trustees did an
inspection on November 9th, and the notes included a suggestion
of flow-through decking, again, that all the piles be 4x4s, and
that the bulkhead be blended to match the property without a
bulkhead to the north, that is to naturalize the way they flow
together.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. COLE: Good evening, members of the Board, I'm Chris Cole,
Cole Environmental Services, and I'm here to answer any of your
questions and take your comments.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are you amenable to the suggestions of--
MR. COLE: My client is not here tonight but I would imagine that
they would be. I would have to present that to them and just get
them to confirm.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm just wondering, did the plans include
through-flow material? Before we, because there were concerns
about that. (Perusing). It doesn't look like through-flow.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: There is no note on the plans regarding the
through-flow.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so the project,just as a point of
information, because I understand you are doing this sort of for
the first time, the LWRP coordinator, when he deems that a
project is inconsistent with the Town's waterfront policy,
particularly where it deals with wetland vegetation, submerged
aquatic vegetation. Ordinarily, to bring a project into
compliance we stipulate you have to use open-grate through-flow
decking to allow sunlight penetration. So that is typically
what we would see in this application. Unfortunately, because of
the monthly schedule, with two holidays last week, our surveys
ran later in the week and we had hoped to communicate more
Board of Trustees 16 November 16, 2016
directly with I believe it's your father also that runs the
business. And during the course of the field inspection, the
Trustees felt that the return in the bulkhead on the northern
side should be reduced and softened to possibly 45 degree angle
or oblique angle, and then use some small coir stone or even
coir logs. The reason being is there is the owner to the north,
immediately to the north, has come in requesting a retaining
structure for which the Board will not allow new, there is a
prohibition against new bulkheads in the bays. And so your
project would be terminating', basically it will be terminating
where there will not be future structure there. So we'll want
to have a soft return so it won't be reflecting wave energy and
scouring out. So I think the feeling of the Board is we would
probably want to have a project plan.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Trustee Domino thanks you.
Any other comments or questions from the Board?
(Negative response).
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Should we table this so he can actually talk to
his client?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think so. Then come in with new plans.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: All right. With respect to Trustee Sanders'
comment, I make a motion to table this pending new plans.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number four, Joan
Chambers on behalf of RAHUL &YANA KAKAR request a Wetland
Permit to construct bluff stairs consisting of a 37"x7'6"
landing at the top of bluff leading to a 3'7"x10'9" set of
stairs down to a 9'x11' upper landing to 37"x5'4" stairs to a
3'7"x9' platform; from that platform there will be five (5)sets
of 37"x13'5" stairs and five (5) 3'7"x7'2" middle platforms
descending to a 3'7"x9'9" set of stairs to a 9'x11 ' bottom
landing leading to a removable set of approximately 37"x514"
stairs to beach; and all stairs and platforms to have railings.
Located: 4625 Aldrich Lane Extension, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-112-1-14
This project was inspected by the Board of Trustees and
also has been deemed to be consistent under the LWRP.
And the.CAC has voted to support the application with
properly engineered erosion control in place in a sensitive
area. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this
application?
MS. CHAMBERS: I'm Joan Chambers, I designed it and I'm here to
answer any questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board visited, actually, we visited on
field inspection on the 9th of November. The landings are
code-compliant under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area of the
Wetlands Ordinance. The Board felt it was a straight-up beach
Board of Trustees 17 November 16, 2016
access stairs. I don't believe we had any concerns during the
field inspection. Any additional questions or concerns of the
Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Long set of stairs.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Very lucky to have it so well
vegetated. A great effort was put in to keep it that way. The
project does include using a silt fence.
MS. CHAMBERS: Yes, it does. And also, that's why the stairs
zigzag so much, because we are really trying to avoid taking up
anything that is any kind of.large planting. And I'm sorry it
was not better staked but quite frankly I couldn't stake it.
And beach access is really limited there. You have so sort of go
over the tip of the bluff there. So if there are no more
questions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's very straightforward. I'll make a
motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this
application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number five, Studio NB
Architects on behalf of MAX &JIMENA FAERBER request a Wetland
Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing ±1,447.4sq.ft. two-story
dwelling with attached ±435sq.ft. deck on seaward side, and 88sq.ft. covered
entry porch on landward side; construct an approximate 6'x8.7'first story
addition under existing covered porch on seaward side; convert northerly
section of first floor roof into a 2"d story deck; add drainage
improvements for existing and proposed 2nd story decks; replace
existing windows, deck railings, deck columns, and entry porch
side lattice screening. Located: 2072 Village Lane, Orient.
SCTM# 1000-24-2-27
This application has been deemed to be consistent with the
LW RP.
It has been supported by the CAC.
I performed the inspection as the area Trustee, and I must
say this is about the minimalist application I have seen.
Unfortunately, it comes under the jurisdiction of both the
Coastal Erosion and the Wetland ordinance. Ordinarily a project
of this scope or scale elsewhere in the town, if not in the
coastal erosion area would be an Administrative Permit. But for
the very restrictive coastal erosion zone, which cuts through a
portion of the Town including the Orient Harbor area, it may come
under greater scrutiny for what is a very minor project. I guess
its unfortunate you have to kill a couple trees, in this case,
to seek approval from this Board.
Board of Trustees 18 November 16, 2016
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
(Negative response).
And I meant killing trees by virtue of the amount of paper.
don't want you to think we are taking trees down.
MS. FAERBER: Good evening, My name is Jimena Faerber and my
husband Max. So we are here to answer questions as well, and
just I received another receipt.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You can bring it up to the dais and leave
that with the clerk.
This is very straightforward, the Board had no problem on
field inspection. Any additional questions?
(Negative response).
Accordingly, I move to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I move to approve the application as submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. ,
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of
JOSEPH & DOLORES MAGAGNIN requests a Wetland Permit to install
new vinyl sheathing on the landward side of approximately 73
linear feet of existing timber bulkhead and ±18' timber return.
Located: 535 Bay Home Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-23
This is deemed to be exempt under the LWRP.
And the CAC supports the application with the condition of
a ten-foot non-turf buffer, and the drainage for the pool is
depicted on the survey. At this time -- I'll wait one second. We
have the permit expeditor speaking to the applicant.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
The CAC voted to support it with a ten-foot non-turf buffer.
The Board is familiar with the project. There was also some additional
discussion between Town Engineer and myself. I'm not sure if the Board
got to you concerning the Need for the --we'll go into that. Go ahead.
MR. HERRMANN:. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants here on behalf of
the applicant. Mr. Magagnin is also here, Angelo Stepnoski of
Greenport Dock Building is also here. He'll be the contractor.
It's a very straightforward application with respect to what is
proposed in terms of the landward re-sheathing of an existing
bulkhead, but as the Chairman just alluded to, there is a Town
drain pipe that runs through a drainage easement on the property
and has an opening toward the, I guess you want to call it the
northwest side of the bulkhead. And I did get a call, I spoke to
Michael Collins of the Engineering Department earlier today. And
what he asked of us in connection with this permit is that when
the contractor does the work for the re-sheathing, that the Town
would supply the contractor with a 20-foot long piece of pipe,
Board of Trustees 19 November 16, 2016
because what they would like to see happen is in conjunction
with the bulkhead re-sheathing being done that that pipe actually
be replaced, because they are going to upgrade the pipe. I think
it's an old, some sort of metal pipe now. This will be, from my
understanding from Michael, is it will be a PVC pipe now. And
basically the long and short of it is they would Iike'Angelo to
basically install the first section so it's tied into the
bulkhead, finished off, so when they come to tie in, they don't
have to go down through Mr. Magagnin's property and tear up the
whole yard and all the work that would have just been completed
by Greenport Dock. So I spoke to Mr. Magagnin earlier, he seems
to be understanding and accepting of that. He is here and can
correct me if I'm wrong. But that seems to be the only hiccup
with the application. So what we could do is I could give you a
revised plan that would notate the approximate location of the
pipe and add some sort of note to the side of the plan view
indicating that the pipe would be maintained and so forth and so
on: However you want us to present it. .
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That sounds very reasonable. Thank you,
very much. And with any luck, I think subject to final engineering
design, another pipe replacement, I think it might have been
Willow Point Road, they actually reduced it from the historic
18-inch diameter corrugated galvanized pipe down to a 12-inch
PVC, so it's a little less intrusive, at least as far as eye
view. And that was one of the reasons we tried to work with you,
and we appreciate that, because we would not want to necessarily
have a new penetration cut to the 18-inch size and come to find
out they are trying to engineer with modern materials and we
have gapping there. So it's pretty straightforward, the
application. Did I mention, I think we have the LWRP, it's
exempt. We had the approval of the CAC. Any questions from the
Board?
(No response).
It's very straightforward. Accordingly, I make a motion to close
the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application
subject to a revised plan noting the 20-foot length of pipe to
be supplied by the Town and the appropriate diameter material to
be provided,by the Town as the penetration for the road
drainage. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number seven, En-consultants on behalf of
RICHARD &JANET DOWNING request a Wetland Permit to remove
existing 503sq.ft. attached raised waterside deck and construct
in its place a 1,868sq.ft. attached raised deck addition with
Board of Trustees 20 November 16, 2016
steps to grade around a proposed 16'x32' raised swimming pool;
remove approximately 100sq.ft. portion of existing stone
driveway; and install pool enclosure fencing, pool equipment.
area, pool drywell, and a generator. Located: 995 Willis Creek
Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-123-10-2
The LWRP has found this application to be consistent.
And the CAC has resolved to support the application.
All Trustees on the 9th of November examined this property
and found the pool application was quite straightforward.
Is there anybody here on behalf of the applicant to speak?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the Downing's. It is a very straightforward application. It is
similar to the swimming pool that the Board approved on the
property to the east, I think it was just last month. It is a
raised deck around a proposed swimming pool that will go into
that corner of the house,just past where Glenn is standing
there, in-place, partially in-place of that existing deck that is
there that will come out.
If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Otherwise I don't have anything else.
TRUSTEE SANDERS:,Would anybody else like to speak on behalf of the
applicant?
(Negative response).
Crickets.
Is there anybody from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve the application
as submitted.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of PAUL &
PATRICIA AHLERS request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace
in-place approximately 20 linear feet of existing timber
bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove "L" shaped section of
existing timber bulkhead, consisting of a ±48' shore-parallel
section and ±7' return, and construct new±48' shote-parallel
vinyl bulkhead up to 7 feet landward'of±48' section to be
removed; remove most northerly 14 linear feet of existing
bulkhead and construct new±29' vinyl bulkhead landward of MHW
between northerly end of new±48' vinyl bulkhead and neighboring
bulkhead to north; raise existing 3'x9' ramp to dock to meet top
of proposed ±29' vinyl bulkhead; construct±10' vinyl return
along northerly property line; reuse.approximately 10 cubic
yards of upland soil material excavated from landward side of
existing ±48' bulkhead to be removed as backfill together with
Board of Trustees 21 November 16, 2016
approximately 60 cubic yards of clean sand/loam to be trucked in
from an approved upland source; remove concrete and other debris
from unbulkheaded shoreline at southerly end of property and
place approximately 28 linear feet of 12"18" diameter stone
rip-rap along toe of eroding embankment. Located: 1905 Gull Pond
Lane, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-4-16
The Trustees did a field inspection on November 9th, and we
met with En-Consultants Rob Herrmann and noted it was
straightforward application.
The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and
inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact the
structure was constructed without a Board of Trustee permit.
The CAC did an inspection also on November 9th and resolved
to support the application with the condition of a ten-foot
non-turf buffer along the landward side.
Is there anyone here to speak to this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
the applicants, Mr. Ahlers. And Meade Construction, the
contractors for the project, are also here. We have now met with
the Board a couple of times both on a pre-application basis and
then ultimately on the 9th after the application had been filed.
As we originally discussed, the application proposes a few
things in the northerly corner of the property, there is a
proposed section of bulkhead that will tie the existing bulkhead
into the neighbor's bulkhead. And that ramp you see in your
photograph there on the screen would be raised in elevation to
meet the top of the new section of bulkhead.
There is going to be a landward retreat of a section of
bulkhead almost 50-feet long where approximately 167 feet of
existing upland is going to be returned to the waterway of Gull
Pond, which is I think something the Trustees had looked fondly
upon when we discussed it.
There is going to be one section of wall that is going to
be removed and replaced, and that is the section of bulkhead
farthest to the south that is in the lowest part of your
photograph on the screen there. I did see, I don't know if I'm
missing a page from the LWRP recommendation, but the in-place
replacement of the 20-linear feet of existing timber bulkhead, I
couldn't figure out why that was -- I mean that should be an
exempt action because the in-place replacement of the bulkhead is
exempt under Chapter 268, but in any event that's the one
section of bulkhead there that will be removed and replaced
in-place, and the top elevation of that wall is what will be held
across the new sections of bulkhead both on the landward side
and then making the connection to the neighbor.
Finally, on the south side of the property, we looked at
with the Board, is an area of eroding embankment that has some
Baccharis halimifolia on it. The Baccharis is at immediate risk
really of being undermined and so the proposal is to place some
stone rip-rap, not in a real engineered, structured-type way,
but just in a way to try to toe up the shore of that embankment
Board of Trustees 22 November 16, 2016
because if it continues to scour out at the toe, that entire
row of Baccharis will kind of just dump into Gull Pond there. So
hopefully the rip-rap will help preserve the existing wetland
vegetation that is there and hopefully help stabilize the
eroding portion of Mr. Ahlers' property.
If the Board has any questions, I'm happy to answer them.
Otherwise, that's all I have.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Looks like a good project. It has some good
saving features for the wetland.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any problems with the ten foot?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. I talked to Mr. Ahlers about that. If there
is any way the Board can see to limit the buffer, perhaps a
five-foot buffer, given the fact that there is, in that across
the middle of the property is up to a seven-foot wide section of
existing upland that we are removing and giving back to the
waterway. It will further reduce the limited lawn area that is
already between the house and bulkhead. So if the Board would
look favorably upon it, we'll just ask for a narrower buffer
there, if the Board would see fit for it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any problems with that?
(Negative response).
MR. HERRMANN: I can give you revised plans showing that.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I note we didn't find the permit for the dock.
MR. HERRMANN: There is a permit for the dock, sure. I think
have it here.
(Mr. Herrmann consults).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: In reading the description, I left out the words
"to the dock where the ramp meets the proposed bulkhead" because
we have not found the permit for the dock. And we'll address
that issue at a later time.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. If I can, I could have sworn we had it. I'm
finding the DEC permit, was in April, 2000, was to remove
existing ramp and float, extend dock ten-foot seaward, install
32"x16" ramp, 6x30 float. And I think that was, that was one,
when the ramp, the float orientation was changed, correct?
(UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes.
MR. HERRMANN: We have it somewhere, Mike. I was not thinking
about it, honestly, in connection with the presentation tonight,
so I'm sorry about that. But I'll try to find it because I'm
pretty sure we had something for it.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Seeing the way we handle that now, we'll handle
that later on. Anyone else here --
MR. HERRMANN: But the part, the raising of the ramp has to be
included in the scope of work. I'm not sure I follow you on
what you said when you said you eliminated the words "to the
dock."
TRUSTEE DOMINO: No, we did include raising the ramp. Just
remove the words "to the dock."
MR. HERRMANN: Okay.
Board of Trustees 23 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application?
Questions, comments from the Board
(Negative response).
Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application
as submitted with the addition of a five-foot non-turf buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made, is there a second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number nine, En-Consultants on behalf of SUSAN
& IRA AKSELRAD request a Wetland Permit to renovate and expand
an existing single-family dwelling as follows: Construct a
second story over existing first story; construct a 6.7'x15.4'
two-story addition to west side of dwelling; construct a
±2.7'x27.6' two-story addition to north side of dwelling
(partially in place of existing northerly deck)with 4.5'x6'
steps to remaining ±198 sq.ft. portion of northerly deck;
construct a ±10'x24' one-story garage addition to west side of
dwelling with a ±3'x24' extension of the new second story above;
remove and replace ±11.8'x17.3' portion of existing first-story
deck on east side of dwelling with first story addition;
maintain ±11.8'x16.5' portion of existing first-story deck on
east side of dwelling over existing on-grade patio with new
outdoor kitchen; replace ±22sq.ft. of steps with one-grade slate
patio; maintain existing on-grade slate patio on north side of
dwelling; and remove ±4'x9' portion of existing dwelling,
57.5sq.ft. of steps, 4'x10' arbor, and ±3.6'x20' portion of
northerly deck; install drainage system consisting of leaders,
gutters, and drywells to contain roof runoff located more than
100'from bluff except for 8'x9' deep drywell located off
southeast corner of dwelling; remove primary septic system and
install new beyond 100'from top of bluff; remove existing
drywell located adjacent to top of bluff; install pool drywell
for existing 25'x50' swimming pool; and install new water
service line to existing 10'x28' pool house; remove pool house
septic system located 13'from bluff and install new pool house
sanitary system more than 1 00'from bluff; maintain as-built
bluff stairway consisting of an ±8'x8' upper platform, ±4'x16'
stairs, ±8'x8' middle platform, and ±4'x19' stairs leading to a
±4'x7.5' lower platform with ±3'x12' steps to beach; establish a
S wide, approximately 1,033sq.ft. non-turf buffer adjacent to
bluff crest; for the existing ±233 linear feet of vinyl
bulkhead, including ±19' and ±14' angled end sections; 1,431
slate pool patio with associated 4.8' wide walks and steps; and
existing stone walls are to remain. Located: 4125 Nassau Point
Board of Trustees 24 November 16, 2016
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-9-6.4
The LWRP found this to be both consistent and inconsistent.
The consistency consisted of what was built there already, with
the inconsistency being it was done without a permit.
The CAC resolved to support this application.
This site was visited multiple times by myself and I just
noted that a few things had to be changed in the description,
the original description.
Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this
application?
MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants. I wanted to find
my original project description because there was some language
in that description that was taken out for the public notice.
Okay, so --
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I do have the letter submitted with the
modifications to the description.
MR. HERRMANN: Okay. So I'll try to make this as short and sweet
as possible. Because I think this application does have the
characteristic of the longest project description I have ever
submitted.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It is painful.
MR. HERRMANN: For this project, this property that exists today
was actually previously two lots. And this Board recently or,
not recently, but previously, had issued Wetland Permits 8146
and 8147 to Alan Cardinale, and that work covered a wide range
of structures, some of which are still there, some of which were
completely removed although they had been permitted to be
replaced. And some were constructed but in slightly different
locations. So we had originally asked for a transfer of those
permits. But with the change in the tax map numbers, with some
of the deviation between what is there is and what was
permitted, and then what is now additionally proposed, we were
nudged toward submitting a new Wetland Permit application that
would cover everything, and so that is one reason why the
description is so long, because I've tried to do a lot of
housekeeping for these lots.
So the long and short of it is, instead of proposing a
second dwelling in connection with the southerly lot, the lots
were merged. So obviously as a starting point, that's a great
thing from the Town's perspective, because you have one house,
one sanitary system per dwelling, as opposed to having two
dwellings.
The existing swimming pool and the patio and the walks and
the stone walls and the pool house, those were all already
permitted structures by the Trustees as as-built structures in
connection, in the case of the pool and pool house, with
Wetlands Permit 8147. So we locked that language into this
application so we can continue to have a current permit for
those structures running with this application.
Permit 8146, which was for the northerly lot, had an
approved a bluff stairway. The bluff stairway that was --
Board of Trustees 25 November 16, 2016
actually, both permits approved a bluff stairway. There were
two stairways but only one was constructed, which actually
worked out very nicely when they merged the lots, otherwise we
would have two stairways on one property. So the stairway that
was constructed was constructed south of where it was originally
approved and with a little bit different configuration. So we
are lopping that structure in as an as-built.
With respect to the dwelling, there was also an as-built
deck on the northerly corner of the house. So that would be one
structure perhaps covered by these LWRP comments, but that
structure'is now, as you mentioned, a modification, is going to
be removed in its entirety. So we are no longer seeking this
Board's approval to maintain that deck on the northerly corners
of the house, and the reason for that is because of the newly
changed code that requires a 100-foot bluff setback now under
zoning for the bay bluffs in addition to the Sound. The
proposed second-story addition here requires a Zoning variance. It
also requires side yard setback because the house does not
conform to the minimum side yard setback, and the northerly deck
encroached on that setback. So as part of the ZBA's approval,
which granted authorization to everything else that is proposed
and in front of you, except for the deck. So the deck is to be
removed, and we submitted revised plans to you and also a
revised project description showing removal of that deck.
So with respect to actually the LWRP comments about the
structures not being permitted there, I don't think there is
really anything that we are seeking your approval for, at this
point, that was built without any kind of Trustee approval.
Some things are a little different but still within the
spirit of the original approvals. In terms of the proposed work,
the proposed work all really relates to the existing dwelling.
There is a second-story addition proposed, there is some decks
over patios, there is some things on the west side of the house
that are really well more than 100 feet from the top of the
bluff, but connected to the house that is within your
jurisdiction, so we have included those in the application as
well.
There is a lot of mitigation in the plan. It's all in my
application. I don't know that I want to spend your time going
through it. But it is in the application relocation of existing
septic systems, et cetera.
So that is kind of the long and short of the application.
If the Board has any questions on that, I'm certainly happy to
try to respond. Nick, I know you looked at this site at least
two or three times, so we appreciate you going out and out and
out again.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So I did look through everything and most of
this is fairly straightforward, once you weed through start to
finish. Just in terms of the letter we received from you with
the description, its just the first half of this description
that changes, correct?
Board of Trustees 26 November 16, 2016
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. In the letter I submitted, I actually
underlined the changes. The only thing that really changes
toward the end is just the date of the site plan, because we
have given you a different site plan. And again, the,just to be
clear for the record, once this deck is being removed, we have
to propose in its place a series of landings and stairs, in
order to get down to grade. That causes the removal of a portion
of slate patio and the addition of a little bit of patio. In
other words, everything in that corner needs to be sorted out.
So we have included all of that language now in the project
description. And that is all stemming from the deck.
Now, there are a couple of things that are unrelated to the
removal of the deck that are on the west side of the house.
Again, these are items that are more than 100 feet from the
bluff, and I don't know that you have any particular interest in
them, but I wanted to include them just because the raised
patio, for example, on the west side of the deck, becomes, under
Zoning Code, part of the house. It's a piece of the inside of
the house. Or inside the U-shape on the west side of the house.
So I wanted to make sure all of that was disclosed on the
project description. Although, again, it's anything that is up
front by the garage is really outside 275 jurisdiction. Or at
least beyond the setback.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay, now, one request I did get from the LWRP
coordinator was for a ten-foot buffer rather than a six-foot
buffer. Is that something we could work on?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes. And I spoke to the owners, and also Stacy
Paetzel who is the landscape architect who has designed the
landscape design for the whole property. She is here tonight.
When we originally approached this, I noticed that there
had not been a buffer required as part of the original
application. But as per our usual attempt to mitigate, we wanted
to include at least a five foot. The reason that we stuck with
five feet is because in the center of the property there is this
stone wall that runs along here, it's kind of slope down to the
wall, and then there is flat area of lawn. And if you come out
with ten feet, it pinches almost right up against the wall. So
there is really no place to bring lawn mowers, maintenance
equipment, et cetera, through there. So what we had in mind is a
concept that we are hoping the Board will entertain, is the idea
of having a variable-width buffer, that within that this tight
area and where the ground is basically flat, so we'll have sort
of the least concern for runoff that we could maintain five
feet, but then as we go out from the side, particularly toward
the end of the property past the wall where the steep slope is
unretained, actually fan that out as wide as a 15-foot buffer so
you have a little bit of a variable width, but end up with a
pretty similar area. So I had a concept that I wanted to show
you, which I rushed together after I saw the comments from the
LWRP coordinator. So here the idea is we would run five through
the center and the area of the wall, then as we fan out here,
Board of Trustees 27 November, 16, 2016
expand this as we pass the wall, the 12 feet, we can hold this
12-foot width down here. Again, this is just something we were
trying to come up with as concept.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the down slope is actually vegetated
anyway. It's a huge natural buffer.
MR. HERRMANN: Right. And particularly in this corner you can
even fan this out more, whatever the Board's pleasure is, but
with the idea being that this sort of maintains the use of
really what is the only flat lawn here. But then provides more
vegetative coverage in the form of a buffer where the slopes are
steeper and unretained between the upland and the bluff.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The smallest would be what, five feet?
MR. HERRMANN: The smallest width would be five feet, which is
what we proposed, but the widest width would be 15, which would
be five more than what the LWRP was asking for.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you planning on re-landscaping the entire
parcel?
MR. HERRMANN: Stacy, do you want respond?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you planning on redoing the lawn area
adjacent to creating buffers?
MS. PAETZEL: More so the planting to the revegetate. We really
have not gotten that far on it yet honestly.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I was just think it would have that
objection to also requiring maybe a low fertilization
requirement grass species such as fescue, that requires a lot
less fertilizer.
MR. HERRMANN: That, I don't know. I know that they were very set
upon trying to maintain this one sort of flat lawn area between
here because this all slopes down pretty steeply. So again, maybe
we could expand the width of these somewhat if that would --
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not seeing anybody thinking that what is
being presented is not reasonable. There is a vegetated buffer,
natural, I guess American beach grass or whatever we have going
down slope.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, that whole bluff after Sandy was revegetated.
It actually came out pretty nice. And there was a lot, some of
the deck structures the Trustees had approved for reconstruction
on the bluff, were simply abandoned.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The two boards or one board prior.
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, because there was conditions about deck
spacing and all of that. But those structures just ended up
being completely removed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have a comment on that?
(Negative response).
Do you have an approximate square footage for that non-turf
buffer?
MR. HERRMANN: 1,624 square feet. Approximately.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: As depicted in the plans.
MR. HERRMANN: Do you want to call a date on this, make it
today's date? If you want to say conditioned upon submission of
the -- and I can hand this in tonight. It's a draft form but so
Board of Trustees 28 November 16, 2016
Stacy can finalize it, but it would be proposed buffer
revegetation plan by Marshall Paetzel, Landscape Architect,
dated November 16, 2016, and I can shoot an e-mail to Liz on that.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So do you want to give us those plans or do you
want to put that on --
MR. HERRMANN: I'll give that to you. If there is something about
this you want us to tweak?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is minor in relation to, and it's
addressing the inconsistency directly, so.
MR. HERRMANN: That was our hope, yes.
MS. CANTRELL: Do you have a second one, Rob?
MR. HERRMANN: I don't but--
MS. PAETZEL: We can bring two copies tomorrow if you would like.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak
regarding this application?
(Negative response).
Any other comments from the Board?
(Negative response).
That being said, I'll make-a motion to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to approve this application,
and I have a couple of modifications here, so bear with me. A
modification to the description that reads as follows: Starting
from the beginning. Renovate and expand an existing single
family one-story dwelling located partially within Chapter 275
jurisdiction as follows: Construct a second-story over existing
first story; construct a plus or minus 6.7 by 15.4 two-story
addition; and a plus six-foot by 27-foot raised patio with
eleven-inch by nine-foot step on west side dwelling; remove an
existing 294 square foot deck and construct a 2.7 feet by 27.6
foot two-story addition at northeasterly corner of dwelling,
with stairs from proposed addition to grade consisting of a plus
7.9 foot by 3-foot landing three steps, and a plus 6.5 by 3-foot
landing and 12 steps; remove plus 3.5 by 9.4 portion of slate
patio and maintain portion of patio on north side of house with
plus 25-square foot of additional on-grade patio within Chapter
275 jurisdiction.
Everything from there on in the description reads as
written.
In order to bring this into consistency with the LWRP
coordinator, we'll be issuing this permit which will then bring
the partial inconsistency to consistency. And this is also
subject to the submissions of the new plans with the non-turf
buffer.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that covers it.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
Board of Trustees 29 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Point of discussion, I would like to thank
Rob Herrmann for his lengthy work on this as well as Nick
parsing this together. It was really a lot of work and it is a
lot of due diligence there, and it's really appreciated.
MR. HERRMANN: No problem. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded with comment.
All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: En-consultants on behalf of ROBERT J.
GUARRIELLO &ANNA T. GUARRIELLO IRREVOCABLE TRUSTS request a
Wetland Permit to construct approximately 124 linear feet of
vinyl bulkhead and t9' vinyl return in place of and 6" higher
than existing timber bulkhead and southerly return; remove
existing northerly return; incidentally dredge 10'wide area
adjacent to bulkhead to a maximum depth of 4ALW and use
approximately 25 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil as backfill; and
remove and replace in-kind/in-place existing 5.5'x6' platform,
3'x12' ramp, 5'x7'wood platform, 3'x8' ramp, and two (2) 3'x4'
steps to existing 6'x106'floating dock which shall be
temporarily removed to allow for bulkhead reconstruction.
Located: 250 Budds Pond Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-56-5-19
On November 9th, the Trustees were present, we were able to
go to this property and take a look. So the notes depict that we
desire that the buffer next to the next door neighbor is
matched.
All right, on Sunday, November 13, there is an e-mail --
should I read the e-mail?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Go ahead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: This is from Jay Bredemeyer, CC the attendants
Elizabeth Cantrell and Dianne DiSalvo. The above applications
are properly Type II actions, are therefore relatively minor
amendments/alterations to existing permitted structures and
represent those being altered/replaced essentially in-kind, in or
being applied to meet new code for depth or to protect
vegetation. There being no— I can't make this out.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Basically, there was a minor alteration to
the dock in this case, so that it was a question, because we were
taking a harder look under SEQRA on docks over public properties
where we have been compelled to do more in depth reviews, the
question came up on SEQRA processing, because it is a dock, but I
made basically a determination because it fits clearly into the
state guidelines for Type II. It's a minimal change to an
existing permitted structure.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is the mooring dock permitted?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, to my understanding, it's permitted.
There is a history in some of the private canals in Southold,
just like Gull Pond and here that, back in the day when Trustees
were still wet behind the ears in the last century, even my name
might appear on a permit for a fairly long dock. Its the
current standard obviously is 6'x20'.
Board of Trustees 30 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE SANDERS: The LWRP found this to be consistent and
inconsistent.
Under the inconsistent section, he references to 6.3,
protect and restore tidal and fresh water wetlands. And he also
mentions the structure comply with the Trustee regulations and
recommendations set forth in Trustee permit conditions.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Some of the structure pre-dated Trustee
permitting.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: So giving it a permit brings it into
compliance.
All right, the CAC has also found to support this
application.
Is there anyone here on behalf of this application?
MR. HERRMANN: Yes, Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of
applicants. I think they are also here someplace. This is an
application to remove and replace the existing bulkhead, the
return on the north side of the property which is adjacent to
the recently reconstructed vinyl bulkhead that is in the far
side of your photo there. That return is just proposed to
remain. That would not be reconstructed because there would be a
tie in now between two vinyl sheath bulkhead, and there is a
proposal to removal and replace the southerly return, because
the bulkhead is being removed, the existing five-and-a-half by
six-foot platform and 3x12 ramp to the existing floating dock
you were just discussing would have to be removed and replaced.
The platforms will have to be removed and replaced but are
proposed to be removed and replaced as they exist.
The dock, as we discussed, its one of these sort of, I
don't know, clerical anomaly or not, but when we were looking
for permits for the original dock we found grandfathered permit
4253, that was issued in 1993 with a survey of the bulkhead and
the floating dock. I think I showed this to you on field
inspection, and I'm sure it's in your file someplace. But it
shows the same floating dock there, same owner Mr. Guarriello,
for some reason that grandfathered permit only doesn't mention
the dock, it only mentions the bulkhead. Normally, today, if an
application like that went through the Board, it would never
happen. You would have to cover everything that was there. But
that was the documentation at least that we had of the floating
dock's presence with the bulkhead when the bulkhead was
grandfathered in 1993.
We are not proposing to reconstruct the dock at this time,
we just mention, we always try full disclosure in these plans,
that that float will have to be detached and then hooked back up
to the newly replaced platform.
Other than that, we talked I think in the field about the
addition of ten-foot non-turf buffer. A ten-foot non-turf buffer
had been required for one or both of the adjoining properties,
so I would give you a revised plan showing that buffer.
Otherwise that's all there was to it. There was incidental
dredging adjacent to the face of the bulkhead to recover some of
Board of Trustees 31 November 16, 2016
the spoil that was lost from the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is there anybody here who would like to speak
on behalf of the application?
(Negative response).
Thoughts from the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Motion to approve this application. By
granting a permit for this structure, it will bring it into
compliance with the LWRP. And also a ten-foot non-turf buffer
with updated plans.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Is there a second?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:,All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. HERRMANN: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, Thomas Wolpert, P.E.
on behalf of MILDRED M. PASCUCCI requests a Wetland Permit for
the as-built 10'wide path through the existing vegetation along
the easterly side of the property to install a test well;
construct a proposed two-story, single-family dwelling with the
first floor area to include 518sq.ft. of living space, a
1,445sq.ft. deck, a 336sq.ft. pool, which we will remove from
the project description. Strike that pool because it was not in
the revised project description. A 70sq.ft. ramp, and 148sq.ft.
of stairway; second floor to include 1,741 sq.ft. of living
space, a 345sq.ft. deck, 112sq.ft. of stairway, and a 625sq.ft.
landing; install a sanitary system in an approximately 625sq.ft.
area; construct a 2.5' high by 88' long retaining wall; install
a 1 ,030sq.ft. driveway; add approximately 630 cubic yards of
clean fill onto property; and clear vegetation within a
9,557sq.ft. area on the property. Located: 305 Narrow River
Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-26-3-11
This application has been supported by the CAC with
sufficient drainage being installed.
The LWRP coordinator had made a specific request concerning
delineation of the wetlands and flood zone. And this application
had no fewer than three site visits by the Trustees, including a
pre-submission conference and field inspections on June 15th, a
subsequent date, in the file with the report that was undated,
and September 13th. And the project has now been through two
successive plan revisions, the latest plan revision dated
October 27, 2016, reflecting the comments of the Town
Engineering Department. The Trustees had forwarded this
application to the Town engineers for consideration before final
review under the Wetland Ordinance because the lot is extremely
low lying and heavily constrained for drainage attributes.
Board of Trustees 32 November 16, 2016
The request of the ten-foot wide as-built path was to
acknowledge the fact that access for a test well cut through
vegetated wetlands.
The LWRP coordinator has determined this is inconsistent
for the lack of some facts. We can clarify that since the
drainage review has considered the flood zone elevation, and the
Trustees basically indicated that the lot was formally connected
to wetland at Hallocks Bay but it's across the street from the
mapped wetland, so it's non jurisdictional with respect to the
Hallocks Bay wetlands, but it does contain protective species
which are high tide bush, therefore we require the local wetland
permit. But the inconsistencies have been addressed through the
permit process and a succession of, like I said, three
inspections and a pre-submission inspection, and a second set of
revised plans. j
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this
application?
MR. WOLPERT: Yes. Thomas Wolpert, Engineer with Young &Young,
representing applicant. I think the chairman pretty much !
covered everything associated with this application. I have
nothing further to add that the time but I'm here to try to
answer any questions that the Board may have.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily--this is an unusual property
for having a disconnected, if you will, wetland, where the
growth is fairly lush, and we do recognize there is some upland
properties that can grow the Baccharis or the high tide bush
which is considered a facultative wetland plant, meaning that it
can grow in wetland areas and grow in others. But the
combination of very low lying area and that and the fact there
is several other wetland species it does become a regulatory
wetland for the Trustees.
We did note, and we appreciate the fact, because of the
prospective owners working with us, we did note that there has
been other subdivisions of land and other properties along
Narrow River where they protect natural vegetation along the
road because it's one of the more scenic areas in the town. And
we ordinarily have tried to have none disturbance areas where we
have wetlands.
The area on the plans that is presently along King Street,
which is preserved as much vegetation as possible, typically the
Trustees would be looking at such an area to preserve it in
perpetuity with a non-disturbance area. And so I'm just, we
haven't discussed this during the submission process but since
the property was so extensively covered with facultative
wetlands, one of the possibilities is we could have a 15-foot
non-turf buffer along King Street, that would allow for
approximately seven to eight feet of construction access to put
the footings in for the sanitary system retaining wall and allow
for maintenance of that wall.
Do you think that would --
MR. WOLPERT: We have no objection to that.
t
Board of Trustees 33 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because that would be a saving feature. That
would allow the Baccharis to continue to flourish in that area
and also allow for maintenance of the sanitary system wall on
occasion. Okay,just a question I had.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
Not hearing any, are there any questions from the members of the
Board?
(Negative response).
This is about as good as you are going to see a set of
plans dealing with a difficult situation. The retaining
structure is making use of the new lower profile infiltrators
for septic leaching, has six with two future, I'm sorry six with
two future expansion leaching galleys. The applicant also at the
request of the Trustees did cooperate and move their driveway to
the westerly side of the property so that we could preserve what
wetlands were possible here. So I would just like to note the
cooperation of the applicant in working with us. And we
appreciate Mr. Wolpert working with us. This was straight up the
way we like to do a project. We had a pre-submission conference,
we maintained dialogue with the applicant, and we are actually
going to preserve some wetlands.
Okay, so I move approve this application as submitted, with
a 15-foot--wait, we did not close the hearing.
I move to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application as
submitted with a 15-foot non-disturbance buffer along King
Street and submission of a revised plan showing the
non-disturbance buffer at 15 feet, please.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MR. WOLPERT: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would like to take a five-minute break.
(After a short recess, these proceedings continue as follows).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Back the record. Next is Land Use Ecological
Services, Inc. on behalf of DANA& MICHAEL SAVINO request a
Wetland Permit for the existing +/-104 linear foot long bulkhead
to be removed and replaced or cut down in-place to become a
low-sill bulkhead; install +1-96 linear feet of new vinyl
bulkhead 5' landward of proposed low-sill bulkhead; remove +/-60
cubic yards of fill between the two bulkheads to create
+1-475sq.ft. of tidal wetland area and vegetate with Spartina
alterniflora; the 5'wide deck area between the proposed
low-sill bulkhead and proposed vinyl bulkhead to be converted to
open-grate decking with the existing seaward bulkhead pilings to
i
Board of Trustees 34 November 16, 2016
be utilized to support the seaward edge of proposed open-grate
decking area with the low-sill bulkhead under it. Located: 1945
Bayview Avenue, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-106-6-37
This has two parts to it. The first part is the Board to
consider a stipulation of settlement in a manner that was an
Article 78 proceeding brought against the Board. And the Board
working with Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan, has generated
a stipulation of settlement. And I have been advised by
Assistant Town Attorney Hagan that the Board is to consider
approving this stipulation authorizing the Chairman to execute
the agreement so that it is able to be entered in upon a court j
record according to the rules of Article 78.
Accordingly,'I would move that the Board approve this
stipulation of settlement authorizing me to sign on behalf of
the Board.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I would second that.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion is made and seconded. All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Then the second part is with respect to the
permitting matters for this application. This application does
have a long history and --sorry, we are opening up the public
hearing now with respect to this matter with respect to this
application. And there is a long permit history with respect to
this application.
The CAC did not support the application due to the lack of
access to the property and continuing problem of encroachment on
Town property. So we don't really have a report with respect to
the CAC on that.
The Board of Trustees has had multiple opportunities to
access the property.
The LWRP coordinator expressed some concerns with respect
to the survivability of the proposed plants, wetland vegetation,
under the open-grate decking. It's recommended a three-year
survival condition be placed on the plants to ensure the
restored area develops function and value.
And the project description as it appears in the handout
for tonight's meeting in the agenda, has, will be changed and
read into the record because it reflects this approved
stipulation of settlement, and I'll go through that in some
detail.
And before we get into that, is there anyone here who
wishes to speak on behalf of this application?
(Negative response).
Seeing no one here, I'll read into the record the
description for the Dana and Michael Savino project located at
Suffolk County tax map 1000-106-6-37. And this is the Trustee
proposed project description answering and settling, and also a
part of the stipulation of settlement of the dock.
The Savino's existing dock has two unauthorized additions
that would likely prevent a transfer of the wetland permit to a
new owner, particularly as the existing dock is much larger than
i
Board of Trustees 35 November 16, 2016
the Chapter 275 standard dock allowed for residential waterway
access. At a minimum, the offending structures would need to be
removed before the Board would transfer the permit.
The removal of the unauthorized additions would allow
transfer of a permit to new owners and the replacement of the
existing dock, for any owner, would require a new application
for a wetland permit with the likely requirement of substantial
downsizing as a condition of a new permit, the amount to be
determined by the Board as part of the permit process.
With respect to the bulkhead and decking replacement, all
timbers and sheathing of the existing bulkhead shall be cut
flush to the native grade existing in front of the bulkhead.
The new bulkhead may be up to 18-inches higher(eight to
12-inches suggested)than the existing to provide more storm
protection and use the fill generated as a result of the new
bulkhead's more landward position.
All construction of the new bulkhead is to be positioned at
or landward of 170' from the property's upland corners in
conformity with prior Board of Trustee action. And that prior
Board of Trustees action basically allowed for construction on
the property of the owner.
The new bulkhead may have affixed directly to it
cantilevered beams supporting a maximum of a six-foot wide
non-toxic "thru-flow" style deck. There shall be no independent
piles or supports extending into the creek bottom for supporting
the maximum six-foot wide deck. Plans for the deck and
cantilevered supports shall be provided by a New York State
licensed design professional.
A catwalk extension to bridge the gap created by the more
landward bulkhead meeting the existing dock may include the
minimum number of pile supports necessary(maximum of four)and
the deck must be surfaced with "thru-flow" decking.
Plans to harvest the portion of the living Spartina
alterniflora plants within two to three feet of the existing
bulkhead for subsequent replanting in the approximate nine-foot
area of disturbance resulting from removing the old bulkhead and
soils shall be considered in lieu of plants from an upland
source.
This is making use of plants that will be otherwise killed
and destroyed during the construction of the new bulkhead.
Excuse me, during construction -- yes, removal of the existing
bulkhead and construction of the new vegetated area.
The revegetation of the disturbed area is to be with
Spartina alterniflora on approximately 12-inch centers.
The project will need to be bonded and/or securitized as
provided in the Wetlands Code in the amount of between $50,000
and $60,000.
Construction will require the installation of a silt boom
prior to and during construction.
And the plans depicting the above changes are to be
submitted for review by the Trustees prior to permit issuance.
Board of Trustees 36 November 16, 2016
As part of a requirement in the permitting phase there
will --we'll discuss that during the permitting phase. This is
the basic project description.
Are there any questions?
(Negative response).
Not hearing any questions, and hearing no one here wishing to
speak further in the matter of this hearing, I'll make a motion
to close this hearing.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this project subject
to the submission as iterated just previously during the
hearing, subject to the submission of a new set of a plans for
review by the Board. The new bulkhead with cantilevered supports
to be designed by a New York State licensed design professional
as part of, within those plans, and that the specific
requirement that the project be bonded or securitized as
provided in the Wetlands Code, and all other items that were
discussed in the public hearing, and specifically an additional
stipulation there be at least five inspections required for the project.
One, a pre-construction meeting with the contractor to
confirm staking and to review the plant harvest prior to
construction.
Number two, for inspection of the silt boom installation
for its verification.
Number three, construction inspection for an in-progress
inspection.
And number four, final construction with the cantilevered
deck.
And number five, plant survivability and over a three-year
period, meaning the request of the LWRP coordinator. That's my
motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Patricia C. Moore,
Esq. on behalf of JOSEPH SBARRA requests a Wetland Permit to
construct an in-ground swimming pool; install a 1,525sq.ft.
on-grade patio all landward of existing retaining wall with a 4'
wide planter. Located: 3200 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck.
SCTM# 1000-113-8-5
This application has been viewed by the Trustees and
inspected. There have been a number of communications that held
back and forth between the Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan's
office and Patricia Moore on behalf of the applicant.
The project has been deemed to be consistent under the
LWRP, and I'm looking for a CAC report. And the CAC has
voted to support the application.
It is my understanding that some issues surrounding the
Board of Trustees 37 November 16, 2016
property have been addressed through a revised dated survey that
has been submitted?
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Perusing). Or not. We still need it.
MS. MOORE: I have it here. I hand delivered it, November 14th
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We need a more official copy.
MS. MOORE: You know what, the pool -- I'll just put it on the
record. The pool was accurately depicted and reduced in size to
20x33.5 in order to make the 21-foot setback to the, we'll call
it the disputed property line, because we don't have a dispute,
it's the neighbor's deed was screwed up. So his description is
not correct, but we are going to go with the non-argued property
line. The surveyor, I asked him to put the fence on along that
same property line, along the undisputed property line, and when
delivered the survey, I realized, wait a second, he forgot to
do that. There were so many lines there, I missed it. So I'll
have the surveyor correct it, but I hand drew the proposed pool
fence to be along the setback line, the same 21-foot setback
line.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And not in the area of--
MS. MOORE: Not in the area, right, until this resolved with the
neighbor. Correct.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So to clarify what I said, and I think you
did, is we would expect then to have that line drawn in by the
licensed surveyor.
MS. MOORE: That's not a problem. I'll have him correct that.
caught it when I delivered it, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to
this application?
(No response).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, not seeing anyone. Any comments from
the Board?
(Negative response).
I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And I would move to approve this application
that as submitted in the revised plan with a stipulation that
the revision be formalized by the licensed land surveyor as
agreed to by Ms. Moore.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is number 14, Patricia
C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of DOUGLAS A. GEROWSKI, MICHELLE
GEROWSKI & DOUGLAS J. GEROWSKI request a Wetland Permit to
install a 16'x32' swimming pool with patio approximately 48"
above grade for a combined 1,766sq.ft. total footprint. Located:
2570 Clearview Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-10-29.2
Board of Trustees 38 November 16, 2016
The Trustees have been to this site several times. The
applicant has started to honor the request of the Trustees by
moving a shed out of a non-disturbance zone. There also, it is
acknowledgment and as witnessed by the Trustees that the prior
owners had invaded and conducted activities in the
non-disturbance zone, so that became part of the discussion for
this permit in this application.
The project has been deemed to be inconsistent, and because
of complying with the Trustee, as the requirement to protect and
restore wetlands and comply with Trustee regulations, which is
obviously there has been a lapse in the protection of the
wetland as previously permitted by the Board.
And the CAC voted to support the application with the
conditions of the application have both a drywell for pool
backwash, which I believe we did see on the plans.
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to
this application?
MS. MOORE: Yes, the owner Mr. Gerowski and I are both here to
review the application with you. As you can see from the
property that I have actually been involved in this property
since the house was previously constructed three or four owners
ago. The Board has approved the projects of building the house
and so on, and we are trying to restore the non-disturbance
area. My client has no issue with, in fact he would prefer to
not landscape seaward of the area that he has as a proposed pool
and patio. That will be his living area. The rest of it he
prefers to keep natural anyway. So it's consistent with both
your recommendation of non-disturbance and his preference not to
do yard work and keep things natural, are both in agreement.
Now it's just a question of how to restore that area. It
was, the prior owner had planted a lot of grasses and other
things, and we put up a fence to delineate the non-disturbance
area,just to make it nice and clear where that line was. And we
are willing to take whatever grass, non-native species that are
in the non-disturbance area, restore it, and plant, I think you
were talking about, we have a landscaper, that is Pete Castillo,
who is doing the pool, would help us in selecting some
non-native restoration of the non-disturbance area once its
planted, then it can be left alone to grow naturally. So that's
the goal here. If the Board agrees.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The question, I guess before we start
questions, is there anyone else here who wish to speak to this
application?
(Negative response).
A question from the Trustees had on field inspection was
that it appeared that the 50-foot non-disturbance
non-fertilization buffer line was actually going across the
areas of the proposed deck. And it seems that on the mapping of
the surveyor, that that 50-foot line was determined by the
wetland line of En-Consultants of June, 2000.
Board of Trustees 39 November 16, 2016
MS. MOORE: It appears back in June of 2000, that's when the
house was being constructed, or prior to construction. Or maybe
it was the deck. There were a couple permits throughout the
years. That wetland line was identified by Rob, or
En-Consultants, on June, 2000. Then prior to making this
application, as is customary, we have the wetland line flagged,
Bruce Anderson from Suffolk Environmental identified the wetland
line as of April 9th, 2016, when we began this process.
So there is a slight difference between, in the wetland
line just because of the land topography and who knows what it
could be, just deviations between the wetland flagging at the
time. But over a year, 16 years, there has been some
modification to that wetland line, but not significant.
So we would like to keep to the current wetland line of
4/9/16, because that enables us to be at 54.3 from the edge of
wetlands. And as you know, a wetland line is not precise because
it's predominant of the vegetation, so it's not, it's generally
a visual kind of opinion line. So we think that that difference
is so small a difference. This way it would enable my client to
have his pool and deck and allow for his living area to be
isolated in a sense from the rest of the property. The rest of
the property, which is everything else here, would be left
natural. So it seems like a good compromise since it's giving,
he has a very relatively small living area, and the rest is,
nature will take over.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's certainly wetland lines are somewhat
contextual, and individual reputable markers of them, whether
it's members of the Board or consultants and the two individuals
we work with --
MS. MOORE: Both of these are very reputable.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We work with these gentlemen on a regular
basis. This is a question I'm directing to you and the owner.
The Board has found that in the evolution of developing a
wetland regulations in the Town and trying to protect buffering
areas, that it has become necessary to file restrictive
covenants for these now, and this is one of the older buffers
that didn't have a filed restrictive covenant. And we also
found that natural barriers that separate the non-disturbance
buffers from the upland or non-turf areas, are desirable so that
way not only the current owner who has filed a restrictive
covenant is mindful of it and future owners hopefully on closing
they have that information, a physical barrier exists.
Would the applicant, would you and the owner have an
objection to at this, the 54, in other words, basically a
continuation of the pool deck either side as part of a fence or
barrier, and also the filing of the restrictive covenants.
MS. MOORE: If I could make a suggestion. The covenants, I have
no objection. That would have made things easier when he was
buying the property, and then it would have been obvious that
there is a covenant there and it would have alerted someone to
look for where that natural buffer was.
Board of Trustees 40 November 16, 2016
As far as a physical barrier, by the fact that this patio
and pool is going to be the physical barrier, we can put in the
covenant that landward of the, excuse me, seaward of the patio,
other than just a natural, you know, natural path to be able to
walk around it, but that it will remain non-disturbance. So
that way we have created a physical barrier. The fence that is
there, I think if you have seen it, looks awful. I mean, it's
not a very attractive feature. The physical, the patio and pool,
think is going to be more of a natural, common sense barrier,
because we can write it in the covenant, that there will be no
disturbance other than, you know, you are allowed access to
maintain your, you know, property.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think we are mostly talking about going off
either side of the pool and patio. Because it--
MS. MOORE: Landward?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, going off the sides.
MS. MOORE: Oh, a fence.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Or not even necessarily a fence. It could
be some small landscaping stone or very low profile split-rail
fence. In other words, we are not looking for a massive barrier.
We are looking for something; even railroad ties.
MS. MOORE: Okay. Why don't you draw what you are suggesting.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there a pool fence going all the way across
already?
TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is a pool fence going all the way across,
isn't it?
MS. MOORE: No, the pool fence is part of the elevated --so
there is no pool fence other than on top. Why don't you show me
what you are talking about.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You have a pool and patio. You are talking
about 16.9 and 18.5. So something to delineate, because then
you really are --
MS. MOORE: Right. That's not a problem, but you need to be able
to get around your house.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can do gates or something along those
lines, like a small gate.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The other issue is --
MS. MOORE: I mean railroad ties is easy.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The patio is going to be a wood patio,
right?
MS. MOORE: No, the patio is with stone. Elevated.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm thinking maintenance and security and
safety. Am so, I think, we are on the same wavelength. I'm
saying just that, something low profile on either side.
MS. MOORE: I mean vegetation --
TRUSTEE DOMINO: What is going to be non-disturbance.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We will need a revised plan. Okay.
MS. MOORE: I'll give you whatever, I just need to know what to put.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are asking if it could be vegetative or if
it should be something a little more structural.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It should be a little more structural.
Board of Trustees 41 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can you do like split-rail, is that possible,
split-rail fence?
MR. GEROWSKI: Would have to have the ability to have a gap in it
so you can --
MS. MOORE: You have to be able to get access around, even
emergency access.
MR. GEROWSKI: And we also have access to the walkway.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Right.
BREDEMEYER: Okay, we are --
MS. MOORE: It's good to discuss it. We want to make sure we
include everything, so.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They are questioning a gap so you can access
the walkway to the water. You could do it. Four-foot gap in --
MS. MOORE: Do you want us to suggest maybe a landscape plan.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's where, we have, because the existing,
the existing plan in the file dated August 19th, is actually
showing planting that is along the pool edge seaward. I think
that, if the Board is amenable, and sounds like the Board, since
you said you'll file the restrictive covenant, and you
understand that the Board is looking for something a little more
solid on either side, maybe a submission of a landscape plan
that would allow for a connecting path, for obvious reasons to
get to and around so you are not strictly obligated to go from
the pool deck, in otherwords, an additional connecting path,
and a landscape plan that would be specific to try to bring in
the native vegetation in that non-disturbance area, so it would
be more or less, a one off, but not the non-natives. So in other
words you are pretty much limited to bayberries and high tide
bush. So a landscaping plan that would delineate the natural
plants that would be returned and that would show the connecting
paths, and I think that would go a long way to solving the
problems. And then also as disclosed there is a mirror image
problem with the neighboring lot, which I think may have
developed about the same time. So at a motion of fairness to
all I think its sort of the direction we are going in some of
these, that way we are bringing the properties back into, with
the clearance and of what the Board did previously. Do the
Trustees have anything to add to that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's fine. Is there anyone else here to speak
to this application?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve this application
with the submission of new plans depicted a landscape plan of
natural plant, showing natural plantings, and access path to
connect with the existing path leading to the dock, subject to
filing of a restrictive covenant for the non-disturbance area
which would be seaward of or waterward of a line seaward of the,
waterward of the pool deck, and with an incorporating in the
Board of Trustees 42 November 16, 2016
plans a low profile indicator of the non-disturbance.
MS. MOORE: Do we have a have that if we have it landscaped? A
low profile.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can be creative about it, but something.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We want something but not a planted, subject
to expiring. That's my motion.
TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
MS. MOORE: Thank you, very much.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application is Patricia C. Moore,
Esq. on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland
Permit for a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to maintenance
dredge the entrance channel and a portion of the adjoining West
Lake to a depth of 4 mean low water; approximately 95 cubic
yards of dredge spoil to be removed, and temporarily diked and
placed within the upland portion of the property located at 250
Midway Road for de-watering prior to removal of the material to
an approved upland source. Located: West Lake Channel, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-90-1-11
This is a continuation of the hearing we had last month and
the Trustees have been to the site several times. And at this
point I'll open it up. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak
to this application?
MR. SCHEIN: My name is Alvin Schein, President of West Lake
Association.
MS. MOORE: This is really just a continuation. In the time
since the prior meeting we provided as we discussed at the
hearing proof of the roads, the original deed from the
Throeder's heir which was the developer of Cedar Beach. We also
provided the transcript of the hearing where the Mr. Moy, the
Moy family, was seeking to develop that vacant parcel that is
adjacent to the dredge area. And the discussions on the record
including that the permit that they received, that is the Zoning
Board granted to allow them to develop that property, had
specifically, the requirement the covenants be recorded that
would maintain the bulkhead. So they have not yet developed,
however the viability of that property will depend on the
condition of the bulkhead, the maintenance of that bulkhead.
We have submitted for the record environmental study that
has been conducted and maintained for the viability of the
health of the West Lake waterbody and the need to do maintenance
dredging. Two or three years ago, I guess, at this point, the
dredging was done. That was a significant dredging because
there had been a long time prior to that. At this point there
needs to be maintenance dredging done so that the amount of the
materials can be kept to a reasonable amount, reasonable both in
cost and in material removal.
So this particular dredging maintenance dredging is only 92
cubic yards, which is a very minimal amount when it comes to
Board of Trustees 43 November 16, 2016
dredging. So we are here to listen, and any comments that are
on the record. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding is the Assistant Town
Attorney Damon Hagan had reviewed the material submitted and there
was a public hearing record that was the Zoning Board of Appeals you
were referring to--
MS. MOORE: Yes.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: (Continuing)where there was ample
discussion on the record, and concerning the Moy's made
essentially a statement on the record as to what they owned and
they then restrictively covenanted to maintain that section of
the bulkhead.
MS. MOORE: Right.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just want to make sure I understood that.
Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application?
MR. MCCORMICK: Good evening. Matthew C. McCormick, Office of
Solomon & Herrera, I'm an attorney associated with that office.
Our office is representing the Moy's with respect to this
application. I don't want to be duplicative about what was on
the record last time. I believe Mr. Solomon already stated some
of the objections and concerns that the Moy's.have. I believe we
placed a letter in the record, along with a certified title
search regarding the ownership of that property and as far as we
can ascertain from the record of the Clerk of Suffolk County,
there is certainly an issue regarding the ownership of West Lake
Drive. Notwithstanding that, my clients have initiated
litigation proceedings in order to resolve the dispute regarding that.
But leaving that issue aside, my clients are also extremely
concerned about what the actual dredging will do to the
bulkheading along their property. In that vein, Ms. Moore was
correct, several years ago, there was an application to do
substantial dredging before this Board, which was for ten years,
and the Moy's also opposed that application, for the same
reasons that were asserted at the last hearing, and which I'll
echo again today, which is they are concerned the dredging will
result in damage to their bulkhead. Which has somewhat been
proved out. Mr. Moy is here today, one of the Moy family
members are here today, you know, he can further extrapolate on
the fact they had to make emergency repairs in the last year to
their bulkhead. Their long-term plan is obviously to replace that
bulkhead. And they know they need to maintain it not just as
good stewards of their own property, but probably as a
requirement generally under the Town's laws and ordinances
anyway. Their concern is they go ahead and continue to make
repairs, they continue to make replacements, then there is
subsequent damage that results to that bulkhead repair or
replacement by virtue of the dredging. I mean, in that regard if
the Board is inclined to offer them a dredging permit, ten years
certainly would be far, far too long of a duration.
My clients don't see any reason why, again, notwithstanding
the other objections, why there is going to be a dredging permit
Board of Trustees 44 November 16, 2016
permissible, we couldn't work within the parameters that we did
last time, two or three years. There is no harm in the
applicant coming back if there is no damage to the bulkhead and
come back, but if we allow ten years and something subsequently
happens to my client during that time, there is nothing this
Board can do.
So in that regard, a much smaller duration, if the Board is
even inclined to do it, for a permit on the dredging is far more
appropriate. Given, those circumstances. And I think that the
Board recognizes that the last time that this application came
before there.
And if the Board is so inclined, Mr. Moy would like to just
express those concerns and he can tell you, in detail, the
damage that has occurred to his bulkhead, which he has been
advised may be a direct result of dredging that has occurred.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before you might have Mr. Moy speak, the
Board has a problem reconciling the fact there was an
affirmation made on public record of not only ownership but also
that that structure would be maintained. That affirmation was in
2011. So this is 2016. What has the applicant done then to
repair or reconstruct the bulkhead?
This is an active, living waterway, that also has a permitted
shellfish grow-out operation on it, as well as numerous boat
owners with docks. So the applicant made an affirmation at a
public meeting, and we are looking at, you are asking us now to
dial back a proposal that is potentially going to harm a
waterway which is essentially a living, breathing body of water,
and this is a very difficult matter for this Board to reconcile.
So what do you say to this fact there was that affirmation made
on the record?
MR. MCCORMICK: It has two parts to it. The first is the
bulkheading that comes along West Lake Drive that definitively
not within the meets and bounds of my client's area. So if you
are referring to that area, that only lends credence to the
dispute about what portion of the bulkhead is not within the
meets and bounds of their legal description.
But my client, he'll come up here and he'll give you the
testimony. They are certainly very willing to and want to in
fact make a replacement of their own bulkhead. It is not a
question they don't want to do it. They made repairs and they
actually want to undertake a replacement of their bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: When do they want to do that?
MR. MCCORMICK: I suppose that part of the concern here with them
is if I go ahead and replace it and then they come along and
dredge and then it ends up resulting in damage. I mean, they
have already undertaken the process of obtaining bids. I believe
my client can speak to the fact I think they engaged Costello
Marine to start examining what the replacement cost would be.
They already made repairs. He can tell you the amount of repairs
and cost of repairs that they have made just in the last several
months. So it's not a question of whether or not they want to
Board of Trustees 45 November 16, 2016
replace that bulkhead. They certainly do. And I don't want to
lose scope of the fact that it isn't my client's application
that is before the Board. I mean if they have an affirmative duty
to maintain that bulkhead, that is certainly their duty. They have to
do that. I don't think that would be in dispute.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is your client suggesting that no dredging
occur. Yes or no?
MR. MCCORMICK: They would like no dredging to occur but to the
extent they understand this Board is inclined to permit
dredging, I think their major concern would be the length or
duration of the maintenance dredge.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean is it not true that the whole of that
record and the restrictive covenants were specifically dealing
with the notion of the maintenance of a bulkhead and the ability
to dredge?
MR. MCCORMICK: Well, I can't speak to the dredge part. I can
tell you, yes, my client has an affirmative and made an
affirmative obligation to maintain that bulkhead, and that is
what he has to do.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm confused because it seems illogical. At one
point you say my client would like the dredging not to occur,
but I understand the dredging has to occur. And you also affirm
the fact your client actually needs to have bulkhead put up and
eventually at some point, it seems very illogical to say you
want no dredging to occur. You basically just said dredging is
justifiable to occur, I just don't know when my client is going
up the money to actually fix his bulkhead
MR. MCCORMICK: To be fair, that's not accurate. I think what I
said is they would not like dredging to occur. To the extent
this Board says, okay, listen, that's not practicable. It has to
occur. Then my client's position is, okay, then ten years is
not a realistic duration permit. Let's dial it to two or three
years, come back, and make sure there is no damage resulting or
occurring as a result of that dredging. I think that--
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Even after two years, the dredgings will occur
anyway. It's a matter of if your client's bulkhead is in such
poor condition, it has not been replaced since "X" amount of
years, it seems logical you would want to do that so the
dredging could occur in the community.
MR. MCCORMICK: He wants to replace it because it's necessarily
for their own, for the maintenance of their own property. But
the concern about replacing it is whether or not the replacement
of that is just going to be undermined by allowing dredging or
or the type of dredging.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Dredging has occurred at this property for
years. So I don't understand --
MR. MCCORMICK: And that's my client's concern is to say the last
time we did, last three years we did dredge, I seen some more
damage occur to my bulkhead.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Is that because it's not been fixed for years?
MR. MCCORMICK: I can't get into a chicken and egg argument.
Board of Trustees 46 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is essentially the same argument and
discussion that has taken place five years ago on the record, in
2011. 1 think that the ten-year maintenance is a standard
permitting procedure of the involved regulatory and rating
agencies to allow for the protection of water quality, and these
waters and the rights of navigation. You have not done anything
for five years. There is nothing very, I don't see anything
compelling here, to forestall a permit any longer in this case.
This is just based on the facts. And the owner had said
something differently on the record before another Board in this
Town, which is actually a quasi-judicial, I understand we are
slightly a different, you know, we are constituted slightly
differently. But the Zoning Board of Appeals has much more
power with respect to the testimony they take, is my
understanding. I'm sure the Assistant Town Attorney Hagan can
speak at great length to that. Some of us have been doing this
sort of work for a number of years. I know you missed out of the
description I had on the record previously, in my former life I
was a marine researcher with the Suffolk County Department of
Health, and these waterways, particularly this waterway, and the
other waterways when they were blocked off, resulted in absolute
total death of all the indigenous wild life, and it was so
severe, you had fish dying and eels crawling out of the water on
peopl'e's lawns.
'To me this is a no-brainer for a Board of Trustees. And
what we are hearing here is your applicant has already spoken to
a public body here. I think now we are starting to,just
developing a record that is going on and on and on, starting
five years ago, and now it's revisited.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: It seems your client would have more credence
if they had a brand new bulkhead and they dredged and it was
damaged, that would make sense.
MR. MCCORMICK: And I understand that part. He wants to install a
new bulkhead. And part of installing a new bulkhead is also
related to the development of their property. So, and that
property was, I understand, permitted to be developed. It's
currently vacant now. So part of the installation of, if you
are asking what is the cause of the time lapse between 2011 and
now, well, the property has not been developed during that time
period. So the construction of the new home that was permitted
has on not occurred. So that is a contributing factor along,
you know, as to why they have not ultimately replaced that
bulkhead. I think that is part and parcel of what they would do
when they began construction.
But they are certainly cognizant of the fact that needs to
be replaced. I'm happy to have the client come up here and he'll
explain to you, you know, what their plans are and what they
have done.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe he's heard from the Board personally
now and maybe there would be ability for him to reconcile our
concerns and try to meet and work with his community.
Board of Trustees 47 November 16, 2016
MR. MOY: Thank you. Hi. Douglas Moy. My father is Dai Moy. We
have been opposed to the dredging for the fear of dredging
willy=nilly. Like, I think we have damage, there was
photographic damage, there is photographs to show the damage
that occurred because of the depth of what was dredged out. And
it's not an official testimony, but a representative came out
for West Lake Associates. I showed him where we were losing a
lot of land. And he's, oh, your bulkhead was undermined by the
way it was dredged so deep there.
Our main concern is not that it not be dredged, as much as
dredged every year or every two years so deeply that it will
undermine an old bulkhead or a new bulkhead or replaced
bulkhead.
Now, the reason why we have not developed that property.
What it is now, its different, but the development of it was
there were a series of hurricanes and so our energies and our
funds went to repair Irene, which was what, seven hours of 50
mile-per-hour winds directly from the south. So we had to have
our bay bulkhead pounded down. That was that cost. Then to say
that we also had to like fix other bulkheading, and the side
bulkheading was holding then, at that time. Up to 2011, um, '12,
'13. Then Sandy happened. So that was a series of why at that
time we didn't immediately build that house on that property.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Do you have any information --that is
reasonable, that makes sense. A lot more sense. That was -- but
have you consulted with an engineer in terms of determining how
deep the dredging should occur in order for it not to cause
damage on your property?
MR. MOY: No, we have not.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: That would be logical step to bring to us.
MR. MOY: I think the presentation that was made was it would be
like, it was reasonable that it was going to be shallow by the
sides, very shallow, and then dug deep. But it was deep all the
way through. Looking like --
(INAUDIBLE AUDIENCE MEMBERS).
MR. MOY: However it was, if it eroded that way, it got to that
point.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think the record is amply full with
respect to your requirements to maintain the bulkhead. This just
amplifies the fact these five years have gone by where you have
not met your obligation, based on the affirmative action of you
or your dad and testimony before another board. I have heard
enough. I don't know, does anyone have anything else they wish
to say?
MR. MOY: I just ask that we look at this every two, three years,
come back, and if there is no damage, great. Actually, I would
feel great, no damage. Great. Great. But how deep of vinyl
sheets do we have a get? 25 feet, 30 feet. That's our main
concern.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's not a question for this Board.
MR. MOY: Understood. But that's our reluctance.
Board of Trustees 48 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I see other people raising their hands who
would like to speak.
MS. GREENFIELD: Ina Greenfield, 550 West Lake. We filed a paper,
which you read.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, we read it at the last meeting.
MS. GREENFIELD: Okay. Those were the covenants that we had to
adhere to in order to put up the new bulkheading. That those,
the Town protects waters, protects the marsh, protects the
nature of the area. After all, that's why everybody buys here,
because it's so beautiful. Um, so adversely affects the wetlands
of the Town, cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation;
cause saltwater intrusion into the fresh water resources of the
town; adversely affects fish, shellfish or other beneficial
marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the
natural habitat thereof; increase the danger the flood and storm
tide damage; adversely affect navigation on tidal waters or the
tidal flow of the tidal waters of the town; change the course of
any channel or the natural movement or flow of any waters;
weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the
vicinity; otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and
general welfare of the people of the Town.
That is what the Town requires of any work done. And as far
as I know, everything adjacent in the lakes, the lake belongs to
the Town, correct?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Town underwater land, yes.
MS. GREENFIELD: Okay. So when the dredging was done, that was
the winter after my mother died, Marcella Greenfield, they were
supposed to come in hydraulically through the canal, however,
because of problems, mechanical problems, they actually came
through the lake along the wetlands. And the crane toppled in
the lake. They caused a big scar on the side, which has not been
filled in. Fresh water runoff comes from the road into the lake
now. Right opposite our house. And the cement platform is still
there and broken and has uplifted, and there are, it's dangerous
right over there. That was supposed to be removed. It was
illegal and supposed to be removed. It was submerged and was
used probably as the footing for the crane that went in. So.
And that has never been restored. And as far as I know, within
100 feet of the wetland is a special permit. So what is the
methodology? And if this happens, it should be repaired and it
should be revised. Not every ten years, because ten years was
what was requested four years ago. And so that makes it 14
years. Was ten years given four years ago?
Was there a ten-year? I don't remember.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If there were, we would not be here.
MS. GREENFIELD: So it was not given then, and we filed a letter.
It doesn't make sense. Nature is always changing. We have big
storms, we have small storms. We had a huge storm over the
summer, and that's when all that flew in. This is dangerous to
all of us. It threatens all of us. Not only that, but the deeper
you dredge, now, what they are dredging, they dredge right next
Board of Trustees 49 November 16, 2016
to us. And we had a lot of damage. And it was very difficult
for us. But they came right up, now maybe it's the way the
channel goes, you can't control nature. Water finds its own way.
You can try and do it that way, but it doesn't necessarily,
everything moves. Nature flows in and flows out.
So in order to check how it's done, what happens, what was
not done correctly, it should be revisited, to protect all of us
and the wetlands. Which make our area so beautiful. People come
to our area not because there are docks. They come because of
the natural beauty. It's bucolic. I came from an area, I grew up
in an area which is industrial docks.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can only speak to the--
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand that and we appreciate your
recitation of the code.
MS. GREENFIELD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does anyone else wish to speak to this?
MR. SCHEIN: Yes. I'm Alvin Schein, President of West Lake
Association. I have some comments as to what was said by Ms.
Greenfield and by Mr. Moy. First, her comments about a cement
platform being installed is complete nonsense. We did not
install any cement platform. That was a pre-existing condition.
Whatever she is saying is completely unsubstantiated. We did not
do any damage, and she has no basis of saying whatever she is
saying. We did not damage her bulkhead. The current application
is for a minimal amount of dredging. 92 cubic yards is a tiny,
tiny amount. We are trying to get some maintenance dredging done
so we don't have a have a huge dredging done every ten years.
It's much more economical and much more efficient and easier to
do if you do a little every couple of years. That's what we are
trying to do.
The health of the lake is critically important. We have 16
families on the lake, many of whom have docks and boats. And
if, as you said, if we don't do the dredging, the lake will die.
We want to keep the lake healthy. We have 16 families who depend
on the lake and we have Greenfield and Moy who are opposing
that, because of their own self-interest.
Now, what I don't understand is why Mr. Moy is opposed to
it, because he has two boats on the lake. If the lake is not
navigable, you can forget about your two boats.
Ms. Greenfield does not have a boat on the lake, so she
doesn't give a damn what happens to the lake.
Secondly, the Moy's argue whatever appears to be convenient
for them based on the time.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Let's narrow it to--
MR. SCHEIN: I want to point out five years ago they had
engineer come up, Joe Fischetti, who testified that, at that
time West Lake Association was concerned about their plans, that
they were going to have a driveway right next to the bulkhead,
and could the driveway, could you support cars and trucks parked
on the driveway. They had an engineer testify that the bulkhead
was solid, and you could park a truck next to the bulkhead and
Board of Trustees 50 November 16, 2016
nothing was going to happen. This is on the record. They also on
the record they said they would take care of the bulkhead and
they said they admitted they had no claim of ownership to the
road. And now we hear they are claiming ownership to the road.
Which is, by the way, if they, everybody claims ownership to the
Road, then Mr. Moy could not drive out. He had no way out to get
to a public road. We pay money. All of our members are assessed
money to maintain the right-of-way. All the way out to public
road. They don't contribute to that. We've asked them to be part
of the association. They don't. The Greenfield's don't
contribute to the right-of-way. We pay so they can get out to
the public road. This is not a fair situation where everything
is good for them and we pay money to maintain the roads.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think we are now getting far afield, far
afield.
MR. SCHEIN: I'm sorry, I'm upset by their objection to us doing
a little bit of maintenance.
Just one other point. We are not digging out to the
bulkheads. We have prescribed needs. We don't go to the
bulkheads. We are just going down the middle so a boat can get
out. That's all we'll are doing. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I think we have heard most
everyone speak. I want to wrap comments up here, and if anyone
else wants to be on topic, one or two more brief comments.
MS. MOORE: On topic. To try to address the concerns of the
neighbors, what we could do is send notice to the Trustees prior
to, during the ten years--oh, was somebody thinking of that
already? With the ten-year permit, give the Board notice that
we are scheduled to dredge. That way you can take it upon
yourselves, whether you want to inspect or not, and then notify
us if you see a situation that we should be concerned with.
We have no objection to prior notice. Would everybody
agree?
Yes. Okay, good. So it seems to be a way of keeping the
communication with the Board but allowing West Lake to do the
small amount of dredging over the period of time so it does not
become a significant project. Thank you.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish 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: Noting again that this is a matter that we
are visiting again, again, since 2011, and the application is
for a minimalist amount of dredging in the center of the
channel, which is largely fairly innocuous, fairly coarse, sandy
material, which does involve protecting the health of this
functional waterbody and preserves navigation, I would move to
Board of Trustees 51 November 16, 2016
approve the application as submitted for a ten-year maintenance
dredging with the stipulation that the Trustee office be
notified in advance of any dredging that would occur annually,
and that if there are any known issues, like an errant piece of
lumber or concrete pad or something that can be cooperatively
dealt with because there is some hazard or something that is
still there, that the parties get together and provide notice to
the contractor or to the West Lake Association that there could
be curative of anything there might be a piling or piece of
concrete that somehow got there or was there. And all notices
to the Trustees office would be in writing, and it would be
advisable to carbon copy the bay constable as well so that way
law enforcement would be advised of your notice so that way and
that way everyone at the Town level, and typically what we would
do in a situation like that, once we receive notice we would
have a member of the Trustees meet with the contractor or
representative of the group so we go over the work plan again,
see that everyone is going to be abiding by the permit terms.
That's my motion
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Last one, number 16, Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
on behalf of DAVID SCHAB &ARIEL KAMINER request a Wetland
Permit to utilize the property as a de-watering site for dredge
spoil taken from West Lake. Located: 250 Midway Road, Southold.
SCTM# 1000-90-1-9
The Board is familiar with this. We are also familiar with
the use of the site under a previous permit. We reviewed the
paperwork, it's pretty straightforward. It's an exempt action.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application?
MS. MOORE: No, this is really a backup dewatering site. We hope
to not have to use it, so.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would say if, I don't think you are going
to encounter any silty fines or material that would present a
problem.
Any other questions or concerns? Anyone else wish to speak
to this dewatering site.
MS. GREENFIELD: No, I just wanted to see if the Trustees can
come out and take a look at West Lake the way it looks now.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were just there.
MS. GREENFIELD: You were? And you walked the whole perimeter?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. In the last year we approved two or
three dock applications, we just approved,a modification of a
dock to grow oysters.
MS. GREENFIELD: That's very nice. In West Lake?
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, in West Lake.
Ms. Greenfield: So did you see the scar.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry ma'am, that is closed.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: We can't speak to that at this time.
Board of Trustees 52 November 16, 2016
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anyone else wish to speak to this
application.?
(No response).
Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this
matter.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the application as
submitted.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion that we adjourn.
TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second.
TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor?
(ALL AYES).
Respectfully submitted by,
John M. Bredemeyer III, President
Board of Trustees