The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-08/15/2018 *®f SO Town Hall Annex Michael J.Domino,President ®C G_ ® 54375 Route 25 John M.Bredemeyer III,Vice-President = » ss22, c� P.O. Box 1179 Glenn Goldsmith Y° `r Southold,New York 11971 A.Nicholas Krupski a� Telephone(631) 765-1892 Greg Williams ��ic®� Fax(631) 765-6641 9 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED Minutes 12eoA. (2-3'�Sp)i SEP Wednesday, August 15, 2018 �� S thold Town Clerk 5:30 PM Present Were: Michael J. Domino, President John M. Bredemeyer, Vice-President Charles J. Sanders, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee A. Nicholas Krupski, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Senior Clerk Typist Damon Hagan, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:30 PM at the main meeting hall WORK SESSIONS: Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:30 PM at the Town Hall Annex 2nd floor Board Room, and on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 18, 2018 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Good evening, and welcome to our Wednesday August 15, 2018 meeting. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order and ask that we stand for the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance). First I would like to recognize the people on the dais. To my left is Vice-President and Board Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Glenn Goldsmith, Trustee Nick Krupski and Trustee Greg Williams. To my right is Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan, Senior Clerk Typist Elizabeth Cantrell, and we'll also have with us court stenographer Wayne Galante. And the Conservation Advisory Council member scheduled to be here tonight is John Stein. Agendas are located on the podium and out in the hall. I would like to announce at this time postponements, if you take a look at the agenda, page nine we have number four, Young &Young on behalf of ROBINSON ELIODROMYTIS requests a Wetland Board of Trustees 2 August 15, 2018 Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling with the first-floor area to include 1,320 sq.ft. of living, storage and mechanical space on a pile foundation; adjacent to the dwelling construct a raised swimming pool and pool deck for a combined 769 sq. ft. footprint with associated seaward side 4'x3.5' cantilevered platform with 3.5'x12' steps to ground, and landward side 4'x3.5' cantilevered platform with 3.5'x15' steps to ground; install a sanitary system on the landward side of the dwelling within an approximately 450 sq.ft. area; install a proposed 4'x39.25' (157 sq.ft.)timber stairway and walk from proposed house to driveway; install a driveway consisting of 19 cubic yards of crushed stone over an area of 1,034 sq.ft.; install public water and electric; approximately 432 cubic yards of material will be excavated over an area of 1,978 sq.ft. to facilitate the placement of 230 cubic yards of rock revetment over an area of 608 sq.ft., and the placement of 89 cubic yards of rock armor over an area of 357 sq.ft. to support the existing concrete seawall; approximately 199 cubic yards of clean sand backfill over an area of 972 sq.ft. will be placed over the rock revetment to the finished grades shown on the plan; approximately 233 cubic yards of sand fill over an area of 1,254 sq.ft. will be placed from the top of the rock revetment to the 5.50 contour; new native plants and rock will be placed to augment existing grasses and brush; the excavation and fill volumes are intended to be balanced an no excess material will leave the site. Located: 600 Leeton Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-59-1-7 is postponed. And number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of MARK & HELEN LEVINE requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a 240' long rock revetment at the base of the bluff using Y2 to 3 ton rock and 12" to 16" diameter Coir-Logs; re-contour the 205' long top edge of bluff and build a new berm reusing material excavated for revetment construction; re-grade and re-vegetate area with native plantings; terrace eroded areas on the slope of bluff as needed using 12" to 16" diameter Coir-Logs as terracing boards; re-grade areas landward and re-vegetate slope using native plantings. Located: 2510 Grand View Drive, Orient. SCTM# 1000-14-2-3.7 is postponed. On page eleven, number nine, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES & BRENDA GRIMES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 15'x24' bluestone patio on sand; stepping stone paths; 4'x6' steps; a 4'x158' fixed dock utilizing "Thru-Flow" decking; a 3'x12' ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by two (2) piles. Located: 4145 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-2-12.6 is postponed. And page 12, number ten, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of GREGORY & NELLIE RAMSEY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing storm damaged dock and replace with a proposed 4'x44' long fixed dock using un-treated decking and supported with 8" Board of Trustees 3 August 15, 2018 diameter piles; install a proposed 30"x14' aluminum ramp; and install a proposed 6'x20' floating dock using un-treated decking situated in an "L" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles. Located: 1160 Oakwood Drive, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-12-29 is postponed. Number eleven, PAUL & SUSAN WACHTER request a Wetland Permit for a Ten-Year Maintenance Permit to trim the Phragmites and removal; and to install and perpetually maintain a 30' wide non-disturbance buffer along the landward edge of the beach. Located: 2295 Bay Shore Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-53-4-15 is postponed. And number 12, D.B. Bennett, P.E., P.C. on behalf of KUPARI, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to construct an approximately 65' long by 4.5'wide timber staircase on existing bluff consisting of an 8'x4.5' top landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to an 8'x4.5' middle landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to an 8'x4.5' lower landing to 13.5'x4.5' steps to bottom of bluff; proposed bluff stairs to be supported with fourteen 6" diameter by 12' deep timber piles. Located: 4115 Rocky Point Road, East Marion. SCTM# 1000-21-1-30.3 is postponed. I would also like to announce that under Town Code Chapter 275-8(c), the files were officially closed seven days ago. Submission of paperwork after that date, including tonight, may result in a delay of the processing of the application. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to have our next field inspection Wednesday, September 12, 2018, at 8:00 AM at the town annex. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll entertain a motion to hold the next Trustee meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2018, at 5:30 PM here at the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: So moved TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll take a motion to hold next work session at the town annex board room, second floor, September 17th, 2018, at 4:30 PM and at 5:00 PM, September 19th, 2018, here at the main meeting hall. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: So moved TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). At this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the Minutes of the July 18, 2018 meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? Board of Trustees 4 August 15, 2018 (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2018. A check for' $6,702.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VIII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 15, 2018, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Kathy Halbreich SCTM# 1000-138-2-12 Stephen & Charlotte Wagner SCTM# 1000-24-1-11 Robinson Eliodromytis SCTM# 1000-59-1-7 Vanston Bear, LLC, c/o Andrew Beck, Member SCTM# 1000-111-10-14 1663 Bridge Lane, LLC, c/o Donald Brennan SCTM# 1000-118-2-4.2 Timothy & Nancy Lee Hill SCTM# 1000-77-2-2 Isle of Cedars, LLC SCTM# 1000-32-1-8 Ann T. Krom SCTM# 1000-145-2-19 John & Elvira Aloia SCTM# 1000-118-4-9 Janet Van Adelsberg SCTM# 1000-86-1-9.5 Resolved that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VIII public hearing section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, August 15, 2018 are classified as unlisted actions pursuant to SEQRA rules and regulations. A long environmental assessment form and a field inspection have been completed by Trustees for the following applications and it is hereby determined that they will not have a significant effect on the environment. That would be: Cutchogue 6213, LLC, c/o Stephanie Guilpin, Managing Member SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.1 Cutchogue 6291, LLC, c/o Stephanie Guilpin, Managing Member-SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.2 Brett O'Reilly SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HAGAN: Just to make it clear, that's the two resolutions listed under Roman numeral III on tonight's agenda, you are moving collectively on both of those resolutions listed therein? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. MR. HAGAN: Thank you. Board of Trustees 5 August 15, 2018 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL DECLARATION OF SIGNIFICANCE PURSUANT TO NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT NYCCR PART 617: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral IV, 1. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BRETT O'REILLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead and construct new 164 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place; install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; remove and replace existing 4'x4' steps to beach in similar location as existing; remove and replace decking on existing 6'x33' fixed dock using un-treated decking material; extend existing fixed dock at seaward end by constructing a proposed 4'x30'fixed dock using un-treated decking material; remove existing adjustable ramp and floating dock, and install a proposed 30"x14' aluminum adjustable ramp and a 5'x24' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles; and install four(4) 10" diameter tie-off piles (two tie-off piles along each side) adjacent to proposed floating dock. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on August 13, 2018, the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of BRETT O'REILLY to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and; WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on August 7, 2018 and having considered Jeffrey Patanjo plans for this project dated June 1, 2018 showing the proposed dock and water depths by John Gerd Heidecker, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated June 1, 2018, and water depths it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: Navigation: The proposed dock meets standards and does not extend beyond 1/3 across the water body. Depths for the dock terminus are within Town Trustees, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and United States Army Corps. Of Engineers guidelines and there is no recognized Federal/New York State/Town navigation channel in the immediate vicinity of the proposed structure. Scope: The proposed dock is comparable to docks on neighboring properties in areas where docks historically are used for commercial and recreational purposes. Scope in relation to the riparian rights of shell fishers: The plan allows a standard ramp to float design that will not impede access for those seeking shellfish and crustacea in season. Scope in relation to view shed: The seasonal end of the Board of Trustees 6 August 15, 2018 proposed dock will not extend appreciably beyond the existing dock and as such the perspective will not be discernibly different from the existing view. Environmental upkeep: The dock design projects a usual lifespan of 30 years with limited pile replacement so as to minimize disturbance of the bottom. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That is my resolution. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 165 linear feet of stone revetment (to be tied into proposed revetment to east), including a westerly 10' angled return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5-ton stone placed over 50 to 100-Ib core stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and placing approximately 209 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 169 cy of on-site material excavated from toe of bluff for revetment installation and approximately 40 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source) to be vegetated with native plantings; and establish a 4' x +/-64' wood chip path to bluff crest through the 50' wide non-disturbance buffer. Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.1 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on August 13, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and; WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on August 7, 2018 and having considered Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. plans for this project last dated June 8, 2018 showing the proposed revetment, terracing and bluff stabilization, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated June 8, 2018, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach. Board of Trustees 7 August 15, 2018 Access to the site for construction will be by barge. Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of the bluff alone. Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetments is necessary. As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to complete loss of bluff stability. A site inspection by the Southold Town Planning Board recognized severe erosion on this property and requested a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 165 linear feet of stone revetment (to be tied into proposed revetment to west), including an easterly 10' angled return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5-ton stone placed over 50 to 100-Ib core stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and placing approximately 214 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 169 cubic yards of on-site material excavated from toe of bluff for revetment installation and approximately 45 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source) to be vegetated with native plantings; construct a 4' wide elevated timber bluff stairway with approximate overall length of 76 feet (top to bottom), including a 5.6' x 7' entry platform, two 4' x 4' middle landings, two 4' x 5.6' middle landings with benches, and 4' x 5.6' bottom landing with bench, leading to approximately 4' wide stone steps through revetment to beach; and establish a 4' x +/-415' wood chip path through beach access easement to proposed stairway. Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.2 S.E.Q.R.A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE: WHEREAS, on August 13, 2018 the Southold Town Board of Trustees found the application of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER to be an Unlisted Action Negative Decision pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations. A Short Environmental Assessment Form and a field inspection have been completed by the Board of Trustees; and it is hereby determined that it will not have a significant effect on the environment, and; WHEREAS, the Southold Trustees are familiar with this project having visited the site on August 7, 2018 and having considered Board of Trustees 8 August 15, 2018 Jeffrey T. Butler, P.E., P.C. plans for this project last dated June 8, 2018 showing the proposed revetment, terracing and bluff stabilization, and; WHEREAS, in reviewing the project plans dated June 8, 2018, it has been determined by the Southold Town Board of Trustees that all potentially significant environmental concerns have been addressed as noted herein: No existing rocks or boulders are to be utilized, moved, or relocated on the beach. Access to the site for construction will be by barge. Vegetative, non-structural measures are not capable of stabilizing the erosion of the bluff alone. Protection of the toe of bluff using hardened structures including rock revetments is necessary. As time progresses, continued soil loss at the toe of the bluff may lead to complete loss of bluff stability. A site inspection by the Southold Town Planning Board recognized severe erosion on this property and requested a bluff stabilization/erosion control plan. THEREFORE, on account of the foregoing, the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve and Authorize the preparation of a Notice of Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the aforementioned project. That's my motion. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral V, Resolutions - Administrative Permits. In order to simplify our meetings, the Board of Trustees regularly groups together actions that are deemed minor or similar in nature. Accordingly, I make a motion to approve as a group items one and two. They are listed as follows: Number one, Joe Read on behalf of LEE KRUTER &TRACY WEISS requests an Administrative Permit to expand existing 8'x17'4" southerly screened porch an additional 140 sq.ft. for a total proposed 16'x17'4" southerly screened porch. Located: 9475 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-119-1-1 Number two, JASON & CATHERINE VERRELLI request an Administrative Permit to install a ±32" wide by±32" deep by ±40" high fiberglass pad with air conditioning unit situated on top Located: 560 Ruch Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-52-2-25 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number three, Young & Young on behalf of JONATHAN REBELL & NOAH LEVINE requests an Administrative Board of Trustees 9 August 15, 2018 Permit to remove existing one-story frame cottage (670 sq.ft.) and abandon existing water supply and existing sanitary system; construct new 1,779 sq.ft. two-story dwelling with a 265 sq.ft. screen room, a 435 sq.ft. deck with trellis and 50 sq.ft. stairs to ground, a 120 sq.ft. side porch with 30 sq.ft. stairs to ground, a 152 sq. ft. rear porch with 97 sq.ft. stairs to ground; a 576 sq.ft. garage; a 232 sq.ft. pool house with outdoor shower and 205 sq.ft. trellis area; an 800 sq.ft. swimming pool; install new water supply well and new sanitary system landward of dwelling; and install gutter to leaders to drywells to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Management. Located: 4790 Blue Horizon Bluffs, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-74-1-35.56 The Trustees did a field inspection on August 7th and noted that the building is nearly non-jurisdictional, that is the northeast corner of the building lies almost exactly 100 feet from the crest of the bluff. And accordingly, while the building might be non-jurisdictional, the building envelope, which is jetting 20 feet around the building to allow for construction would in fact be in the Trustees'jurisdiction. And in addition, the LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and the Conservation Advisory Council -- it's administrative so there is none there. I make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the understanding that the building envelope will encroach 20 feet into the Trustees'jurisdiction and is accordingly allowed so that construction may continue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Roman numeral VI, again, in order to simplify the meeting, I make a motion to approve items one through four. They are listed as follows: Number one, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of THEODORA A. MARANGAS, THERESA B. MARANGAS, CATHERINE M. WILINSKI, ALICE V. DONLAN & EILEEN RAYESKI requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8862, as issued on August 17, 2016. Located: 1685 Westview Drive, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-107-7-8 Number two, Docko, Inc. on behalf of MARK FRANKLIN requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8860, as issued on August 17, 2016 and Amended on April 19, 2017; and for a One-Year Extension to Coastal Erosion Permit#8860C, as issued by Town Board Appeal Approval on November 22, 2016, and Amended on April 19, 2017. Located: Private Road on Clay Point Road, Fishers Island. SCTM# 1000-2-12-12.2 Number three, Jane Costello on behalf of THE BOATYARD AT FOUNDERS LANDING, INC. requests the Last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#8666, as issued on August 19, 2015, and Amended on April 20, 2016, and Amended again on Board of Trustees 10 August 15, 2018 January 17, 2018. Located: 2700 Hobart Road & 1000 Terry Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-64-3-10 & 1000-64-3-11 Number four, Thomas McCarthy on behalf of PAUL &JOAN KUSTEK requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4461 from Victor& Gail Ferrulli to Paul & Joan Kustek, as issued on May 25, 1995. Located: 1540 Smith Dive South, Southold. SCTM# 1000-76-3-5 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number five, Patricia Moore, Esq. on behalf of JOHN &JESSICA LUPOVICI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2160 from John H. Molitor to John & Jessica Lupovici, as issued on July 31, 1986. Located: 1160 Snug Harbor Road, Greenport. SCTM# 1000-35-5-39.1 1 conducted the inspection on behalf of the Board as the area Trustee on August 13th in the morning. I met with Mr. Lupovici and we proceeded to the dock and it was discussed the requested transfer. The smaller dock, instead of having a single float as was noted to have two floats that were in relatively good shape. It's at variance from the original permits slightly. And accordingly, it can't be transferred as it's currently built. In discussing with the owner, the standard Trustee policy would be to transfer subject to a stipulation that he would have to amend the permit. And I indicated to him that I would recommend to the Board that any future float replacement be conditioned to reverting back to a 6x20 float and that, unfortunately, when the permit was generated, it was generated in 1986 as a result of the creek survey and there is only a hand drawing of the dimensions, which is almost discernible. It took the clerk and myself looking at it some time to actually discern and figure out the measurements. So I also indicated to Mr. Lupovici it would be appropriate that he provide a licensed land survey that depicts the floats for the file. So accordingly, based on my discussions with Mr. Lupovici, and he seemed in agreement, I would move to approve this transfer subject to a stipulation that a current licensed land survey showing both docks be submitted, and that an application be submitted to amend to the current size structure with a stipulation that any future float replacement of the two, the northerly most docks, would then revert, any float replacement would revert back to a single float not to exceed 120-square feet. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, CLIFFORD & KAREN CID request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#452 from William Moore/Cramer to Clifford & Karen Cid, as issued on Board of Trustees 11 August 15, 2018 September 17, 1985. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 and, as a group, I'll also include number seven because it is also for the same property. Number seven is CLIFFORD & KAREN CID request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5638 from Robert Lobick to Clifford & Karen Cid, as issued on October 18, 2002. Located: 675 Meadow Lane, Mattituck. SCTM# 1000-115-5-7 Trustee Glenn Goldsmith is the area trustee, and myself performed inspections on this property of this permit. We found upon inspection that a fence which did not have a permit had been removed and that invasive vegetation that was on the property had also been removed, and wood chips had been installed in the non-turf area, and that reverting the property to a state where the native vegetation could be planted. Accordingly, I would move to approve the transfer of these two permits with the stipulation of a submission of a planting plan for the native, 30-feet of native vegetation adjacent to the wetland. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. RESOLUTIONS -OTHER TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Item VII, resolutions other, number one, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees RESCINDS the Resolution Adopted on July 18, 2018 regarding the property located at 3520 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. SCTM# 1000-87-3-66.3. After a further research of the archives it is noted that the dock was transferred and amended in place, so a denial was rendered moot and this resolution will correct that oversight. That's my motion TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees AMENDS the Resolution Adopted on April 18, 2018 regarding the property located at 1350 Paradise Point Road, Southold; SCTM# 1000-115-11-9 to read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the request of Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. On behalf of EDWARD & DIANE DALEY for a Wetland Permit to construct additions and alterations to the existing dwelling consisting of squaring off seaward side of dwelling and constructing second-story additions to create a 2 'h story, 76.8'x40.8' footprint dwelling; construct an 8'x75.5' seaward side porch; construct a 8'x52.10' landward side porch; construct a 13.7'x18.1' breezeway leading to a proposed 26'x30' attached garage on landward side of dwelling; reconfigure existing driveway approximately 15'-20' to the south to accommodate new garage; construct a 40'x24' swimming pool Board of Trustees 12 August 15, 2018 with 9'x9' hot tub; install a 60'x63' pool patio with 20sq.ft. patio connecting pool patio and garage; construct a 34'x18' pool house; and install a 6' wide concrete walkway from pool patio to dwelling. Located: 1350 Paradise Point Road, Southold. SCTM# 1000-81-3-23 This was the actual description of the property as submitted by the applicant. Due to a scrivener's error, the pool house was inadvertently left out of the previous description, and this resolution will correct that error. So this is my resolution. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. MR. HAGAN: Just for clarity on the record, there was a field inspection of the fully applied for application and it appeared on the plans originally filed but because of the project it was just one line was inadvertently left out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Okay. That's my resolution. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under VIII, public hearings. At this time I'll take a motion to go off regular meeting agenda and enter the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: This is a public hearing in the matter of the following applications for permits under the Wetlands Ordinance of the Town of Southold. I have an affidavit of publication from the Suffolk Times. Pertinent correspondence may be read prior to asking for comments from the public. I would ask that you keep your comments relevant to the application, brief, five minutes or less if possible. AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under amendments, number one, Michael Kimack on behalf of KATHY HALBREICH requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#9024 to modify the proposed dock to be the following: Remove existing 5'5"x6'0"wood dock and two (2) 4"x6" wood pilings; construct a 4'0"x5'6" walkway to a 4'0"x12'0"fixed dock with eight (8) 4"x4" pilings (walkway 22sq.ft. and fixed dock 48sq.ft.); decking shall be Thru-Flow for both walkway and fixed dock; and structure to be installed one (1) foot further seaward than originally approved. Located: 5100 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-138-2-12 The Trustees did the most recent field inspection August 7th, and noted everything was straightforward. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with the condition that there be thru-flow on the decking. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 13 August 15, 2018 MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I'll make it very brief. You approved this in May of 2017 for a 6x8 deck one foot off of the bulkhead, which put it seven feet out, with a 5'3"x8' walkway to it. The DEC did not agree to that. Their requirements are if it was wider than four foot it's not considered a dock but a deck, and it has to be four feet away in order to stay away from the Spartina. So we redesigned it to be 18"with the platform and four feet from there. We have the same square footage. We took the 6x8 and basically made it 4'wide by 12. Then it becomes eight feet from the wood bulkhead instead of seven, in order to be in compliance with the DEC permit, which has been approved, it was part of the application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Very appropriate application for the location. MR. KIMACK: I think so. I think it worked out well. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number one, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6213, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 165 linear feet of stone revetment (to be tied into proposed revetment to east), including a westerly 10' angled return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5-ton stone placed over 50 to 100-Ib core stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and placing approximately 209 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 169 cy of on-site material excavated from toe of bluff for revetment installation and approximately 40 cy of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source) to be vegetated with native plantings; and establish a 4' x +/-64' wood chip path to bluff crest through the 50' wide non-disturbance buffer. Located: 6213 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.1 The LWRP found this to be consistent provided that in 2016 the Planning Board agreed to allow a four-foot wide access path through the non-disturbance buffer on lot one, with the condition that covenants and restrictions are filed to Board of Trustees 14 August 15, 2018 memorialize this'decision, and describe the limitations of it for future landowners; that no existing rocks or boulders are used, moved or relocated on the beach; and access to the site for construction is identified and agreed upon. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support this application. Historically the proposed project plan does not work in this area, which is a highly sensitive area extending along the entire shoreline to Orient. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 7th, noting that it was a straightforward application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. Sorry, Jeff could not be here tonight, so hopefully I can carry his weight. This is a site that the Board looked at, has looked at a couple of times with us. It probably becomes even more familiar with the hearing to follow in the property to the north, 6291. Basically between the two properties there is a proposed revetment at the toe of the bluff, and on this parcel there is a pathway that is proposed through the non-disturbance buffer which was originally covenanted as part of the subdivision. The Board may remember that as part of a buffer restoration plan that the Board approved a couple of years ago, we had proposed this path, but the Board had pointed out that the covenants and restrictions from the subdivision prevented any clearing associated with the buffer that was not strictly related to restorative plantings. So we did apply to the Planning Board and had approved a couple of things, one which I'll hold off on, which relates to 6291 and the stairway easement, but one was the allowance of this pathway. So in response to the LWRP comments, there were covenants and restrictions filed with the county clerk pursuant to that Planning Board decision that was to allow for this pathway. It's the same pathway that was shown specifically to the Planning Board. So there is no surprise there. Access, as with the prior permit for the bluff stabilization, would come from Duck Pond Road, which is an existing beach access road about 2,000 feet to the south. I notice in the SEQRA determination that was read it talked about access coming from the Sound by barge. I don't believe that would be the plan. I believe the plan would be as it is designated on the site plan, which is access would come from Duck Pond. It would not come about over the top of the bluff or through the buffer, which I assume was the importance of pointing out where the access would come from. We would not be able either legally or physically here to having access coming from the top of the bluff. So if access didn't come from the Sound, it would come from Duck Pond Road, and I know they would have to file a bond to use that roadway. But otherwise, it's a pretty straightforward erosion Board of Trustees 15 August 15, 2018 control application. It does follow-up on what the Board had originally approved as a bluff erosion control plan that did not include a revetment. And as you can see in your photos, the severe erosion that has occurred since that time has basically identified the fact that to proceed without some sort of toe erosion would probably be a fool's errand. So therein lies the context for the application. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board?J TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would just like to mention the comments that because there won't be a bluff cut access from a barge or off Long Beach, it still doesn't effect the negative declaration. MR. HERRMANN: Excellent news. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Any other comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application, noting that access would be via the Sound or through Duck Pond Road. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number two, En-Consultants on behalf of CUTCHOGUE 6291, LLC, c/o STEPHANIE GUILPIN, MANAGING MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct along eroding toe of bluff approximately 165 linear feet of stone revetment (to be tied into proposed revetment to west), including an easterly 10' angled return, consisting of approximately 3 to 5-ton stone placed over 50 to 100-Ib core stone and filter cloth; restore bluff face by constructing terrace retaining walls and placing approximately 214 cubic yards of sand re-nourishment (including approximately 169 cubic yards of on-site material excavated from toe of bluff for revetment installation and approximately 45 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source) to be vegetated with native plantings; construct a 4' wide elevated timber bluff stairway with approximate overall length of 76 feet (top to bottom), including a 5.6' x 7' entry platform, two 4' x 4' middle landings, two 4' x 5.6' middle landings with benches, and 4' x 5.6' bottom landing with bench, leading to approximately 4' wide stone steps through revetment to beach; and establish a 4' x +/-415' wood chip path through beach access easement to proposed stairway. Located: 6291 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-82-2-3.2 The LWRP found this to be consistent, noting provided that Board of Trustees 16 August 15, 2018 in 2016 the Planning Board agreed to allow a shift in the access easement to avoid slopes; no existing rocks or boulders are used, moved or relocated on beach; access to the site for construction is identified and agreed upon. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support this application. The Trustees conducted a field inspection on August 7th, noting that it was straightforward. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann En-Consultants behalf of the applicant. This is a continuation of the proposed revetment that the Board just addressed in the prior public hearing. The one difference in this application is this is the property over which the stairway easement for the original Oregon Landing subdivision runs. We had been before the Trustees in the past, as I noted in the prior hearing, not only for the bluff restoration but also for the construction of the bluff stairway which provides access for all four properties created by the subdivision. You may remember at that time that Trustee Domino had raised an issue of concern relating to the location of access to the proposed stairway because it was going to be running down seaward of the top of the bluff, and we were grateful at that time and thank him again for those observations, as that triggered a long process that included going to the Planning Board and actually relocating the stairway easement to run landward of the top of the bluff and not below it. That stairway easement modification was approved by the Planning Board and covenants and restrictions were filed accordingly documenting the location of that easement. So on this latest plan by Jeffrey Butler, you'll now see that the access path and stairway easement now run in a different location than they did before, which necessitated a change in the previously issued permit, as does the bottom construction stairway in connection with the proposed revetment. So we are hoping that this will be the last time the Board will have to look at this property in connection with the bluff restoration, as we hope we now have a proper means of restoring the toe of the bluff, the face of the bluff, putting the stairway in the right location. It will be built over the revetment, and we have the access pathway in more appropriate location. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? Board of Trustees 17 August 15, 2018 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application noting access will be via the Sound or the end of Duck Pond Road, which does not effect the negative SEQRA declaration. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number three, En-Consultants on behalf of STEPHEN & CHARLOTTE WAGNER requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to install approximately 69 linear feet of 1.5' to 2.5' diameter, 300 to 1,500 pound stone rip-rap (approximately 240sq.ft.) on filter cloth along toe of eroding embankment; remove existing damaged steps to water and construct new 5'x5' wood landing and 4'x6' steps; and establish and perpetually maintain a 5' wide non-turf buffer in place of existing lawn adjacent to top of bank/landward edge of proposed rip-rap, to be planted with Cape American beach grass 12" on center. Located: 20 Harbor River Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-24-1-11 The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application with the condition of a seven-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. The Trustees visited this site the 7th of August. All were present. The notes read as follows: Initially it was not staked but that was fixed later on. Acceptable project. Photos from the stakes landward of the private sign in keeping with Board concerns. Which I guess we don't have a picture on that. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Yes. Rob Herrmann behalf of the applicant. Steve Wagner is here as well. This is a project that we looked at with the Board originally on a pre-submission basis. And what you are seeing should be consistent with our discussion. This is a location where the Wagner's have experienced almost sudden and extreme erosion since the Orient Creek began to be dredged in the past couple of years. Just the volume and flow velocity of the tides coming in and out there have caused the shoreline up in this location to be eaten away. There is actually, as you go south along the shoreline, still sort of a healthy swath of Spartina patens high marsh, so we don't have the photos up but where we are proposing the project basically runs from the existing bulkhead about 69 feet down to where that marsh vegetation is still intact. Once you get to the point where the extent of the project ends, you start to see some Baccharus coming back-- I shouldn't say coming back, but it's still there. The patens are still there. In terms of the placement of the stone, it will run right along the toe of the eroded embankment above mean high water. So as you mentioned the sign, I don't remember where the sign was, onshore or offshore, but that's about where the stone Board of Trustees 18 August 15, 2018 ends, where that sign was located because that's where the marsh starts to come back. And again, due to DEC restrictions we have to keep the stone from intruding upon that marsh and also keep the stone up above high water. So if the Board has any questions or comments we are happy to try to address them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was not the post-staking photograph that I -- I apparently didn't see in the file. The staking conformed with what the -- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have the staking photographs in the file. Are there any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Can you speak to expanding the buffer at all? I know the CAC requested a seven-foot before buffer in that location. MR. HERRMANN: We proposed to have a five-foot non-turf buffer of beach grass along the top. To extend that back to seven feet is fine. The idea is to try to keep this area of shoreline stable, so to have a little more pervious area, a little more beach grass is also desirable as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Great. Any other comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make motion to approve this application with the amendment of a seven-foot non-turf buffer TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES): WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Under Wetland Permits, number one, En-Consultants on behalf of VANSTON BEAR, LLC, c/o ANDREW BECK, MEMBER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-place approximately 1,032 linear feet of existing timber bulkhead forming boat basin and channel jetties with vinyl bulkhead; a Ten (10) Year Maintenance Permit to dredge approximately 7,800 sq.ft. area of channel/mouth of basin to a maximum depth of four feet below mean lower low water; place approximately 500 cubic yards of approximately 1,400 cubic yards resultant sand spoil as backfill around replacement bulkheading; place approximately 600 cubic yards spoil in designated ±9,100 sq.ft. on-site disposal area above spring high water to south of channel; and place approximately 300 cubic yards spoil in designated ±5,800 sq.ft. spoil site on beach above spring high Board of Trustees 19 August 15, 2018 water on two adjoining properties to north, including unopened "West Bay Road" (Town of Southold) and Harbor Cove Property Owners Association (SCTM# 1000-111-10-12); and remove and replace in-place 3.5'x36' and 5'x81' fixed timber docks located inside boat basin during bulkhead replacement. Located: 5250 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-111-10-14 The LWRP found this project to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application and recommends both groins are cut back to open up and allow the proper flushing of the boat basin. And they don't feel there will be a need for constant dredging. On 8/7 of'18, the Board of Trustees visited the site. The notes found the project to be straightforward. At this point I would like to open the public hearing. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to the application? MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Greg. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This project should look very familiar with the Board. Several years ago we actually met with the Board to determine a spoil site on this property. You may recall permit 8600 was issued in May of 2015. It was originally issued to Glendalough Properties, you may remember working with Barbara Brotts. The property was transferred in February of 2017 and as part of the due diligence of that sale, the permit was wisely transferred to the new owners, but unwisely not extended. So had that permit been extended it would still be valid today. We are asking virtually for the same scope of work as was originally approved, except the unfortunate situation that the new owners find themselves in having to go through the Trustee permitting process again actually opened up a fortuitous opportunity for the down drift owners, Harbor Cove Property Homeowners Association. You may remember we had a very, very lengthy public hearing in 2015, Harbor Cove Property Owners Association members had come to the hearing, and were hoping for sand material to be transferred down drift onto their beach. By way of background, the Board may remember that originally the material was not being transferred down beach because we could not get permission from the nature conservancy who owns most of the properties to the north of this site, other than the one owned by Harbor Cove. So again we went through that inquiry with the nature conservancy and they maintained their objections. However, as a new neighbor and new owner and someone who is looking to establish themselves here, as opposed to the prior applicant who was looking to get out as quickly and efficiently as possible, they did extend an offer through our office to Harbor Cove Property Owners Association to give them the beach re-nourishment material they originally asked for in 2015. 1 don't know if the Board remembers, Trustee Bergen was actually a nay vote on the original permit because the material was not, there was not enough effort being made by the applicant to put any material on the association lot. So for the new owner, in a fresh outlook, we had a change we hope that will Board of Trustees 20 August 15, 2018 benefit them. We did submit with the application written consent and authorization from all of the association members indicating that they would be willing to and probably happy to accept the sand. So the project stands exactly as the Board had approved it in 2015, with that exception, being that less material will be placed on the subject property, less spoil material will be placed on the subject property with about 300 yards of material being placed on the association lot. Otherwise it stands the same. Our DEC permit remains current and valid. That permit has been transferred and we just ask them to make the same modification to allow the material to go down drift. I had a preliminary conversation with Drew Walker, their regional supervisor, who indicated they didn't anticipate having any problems. With that, we hope we'll have a much shorter hearing and the Board will approve the application, again, with that modification that benefits the association. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to this application? Please come to the podium. MS. BILLINGHAY: Melissa Billinghay, 4505 Vanston Road, Cutchogue, and I'm a member of the Harbor Cove Association and I was one of the people who requested the spoil be placed on our beach for replenishment. So I appear tonight as just to say thank you to the homeowners for agreeing to give us the spoil. We have full support from Harbor Cove that we wanted it. Everyone is appreciative of the way Trey and Laura have gone forward with the plans and we support them. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, Miss. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak to this application? MS. HARRISON: Patricia Harrison, 4490 Vanston Road, and I own an adjacent piece of property on what is mostly the nature conservancy property. And I just have a question. Can you or somebody explain to me where the unopened West Bay Road is? MR. HERRMANN: Sure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Now that the subject has arisen. I confirmed with the Town highway superintendent, and maybe local resident and former Town Trustee Dave Bergen, who is in the audience, could support the notion that-- he is a resident in the Nassau Point area. My understanding roads may have been depicted as Town of Southold on the maps but there is no ownership interest in the roads on the part of the town. I don't know if that's entirely correct, but that's what the highway superintendent indicates, we don't file the roads, we don't perform maintenance. MR. HERRMANN: So all I would have to offer is a survey. Do you mind if I give it to the speaker? This is sort of just to the north of the inlet channel. There is this road that shows up on the tax map as West Bay Road, as an unopened town road. So, and you can keep this. MS. HARRISON: Can I?Thank you. Board of Trustees 21 August 15, 2018 MR. HERRMANN: So if you went down there you would not have any idea where any such thing existed, and surely will never exist. But we have to follow, when the land surveyor prepares the map he has to follow what is shown on the Suffolk County tax map regardless of how silly it may seem in the context of today's setting there. MS. HARRISON: Thank you MR. HERRMANN: Since it's a beach, we anticipated the Trustees would be the permit-issuing authority for placement of the sand there regardless. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to the application or any other comments or questions from the Board? (Negative response). I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of 1663 BRIDGE, LLC, c/o DONALD BRENNAN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing boat whips, fish cleaning station,jet ski lift, and ladders from deck; remove existing ±125' x±13.5' deck along bulkhead, existing ±125' long bulkhead, and existing east and west bulkhead returns completely; construct a new±125' long vinyl bulkhead with a 13' long east return and a 12' west return in-place; construct a new 125'x13.5' wooden deck along bulkhead in-place; backfill and re-grade areas landward of bulkhead and new deck so that new deck matches the existing grade; reinstall existing jet ski lift, ladders, fish cleaning station and boat whips on deck; install two (2) new 8" diameter mooring pilings; and for the existing water and electric services, and existing 15'x18' shed to remain. Located: 1663 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-2-4.2 The Trustees most recent field inspection of this property was conducted on August 7th. The field notes indicate that possibly consider pulling the jet ski lift. Everything else is straightforward. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that although a 1994 survey found in the town's laserfiche system so that the dock and the boathouse, no wetland permits were found in the town records for structures and accessory structures. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that no animals are kept in the cage. There Board of Trustees 22 August 15, 2018 is a cage noted landward of the deck. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for this application. And there goes the tiger. I told them to take the tiger out of there and see if they could get rid of it. And, certainly, that is a condition, not a big problem. But it's actually taking all the existing structure in removing --the description is a little more deceiving. It's taking everything out, including boat whips, the ellipse, everything out and putting it back exactly in the same location, same spot. The only difference is the two additional tie-off pilings, should you have storms occasionally, instead of the whips, relying on the two whips holding the boat off alone, the extra pilings were requested just in a storm condition. Any questions that the Board has, we were told, I was going to attempt to originally elevate it by six inches, knowing the tides are rising but if it goes under water, you can elevate the electric and water and utilities. That's what we do now anyway. On most docks, the electric and all the utilities are elevated no matter what. Because they do go under water. I have had several marinas that had electric go under and don't do it any more. Most of the electric is either buried or elevated. And we'll put the utilities back in. Whatever we'll take out we'll put back in as they are. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It sure is comforting to hear there are no tigers in that cage. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: What was that, was that a pen for animals? MR. COSTELLO: I believe they had a couple of pets and they didn't want them running around the yard and going in the water and tracking the dirt and mud around. So they would just retain them temporarily while they are out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). Any further comments? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application knowing that by granting a permit will bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number three, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of TIMOTHY& NANCY LEE HILL requests a Wetland Permit for the as-built 25.4'x12.3' Board of Trustees 23 August 15, 2018 (312.4sq.ft.) Seaward side deck; propose to construct a 12'x40.3' (483.6 sq.ft.) one-story addition on westerly side; propose to construct a 14.8'x12.3' (182 sq.ft.) at grade patio with 3.5'x3.5' (12.25 sq.ft.) steps to grade. Located: 360 Oak Avenue, Southold. SCTM# 1000-77-2-2 This project has been deemed to be both inconsistent and consistent with the Town's LWRP. The inconsistency draws from the fact that the as-built 25.4x12.3, 312.4 square foot seaward side deck was constructed without a wetlands permit. And the Conservation Advisory Council had voted to support this project. The Board in inspecting the property on August 7th recognizes the structures have literally no environmental impact and feel this is a straightforward construction and it will not have an impact on the adjoining wetlands. But did raise the question whether the hundred-year old plus oak trees could possibly be saved during the course of construction because of their extremely advanced age and their beautiful, absolutely beautiful shape and construction. They look to be very stable trees. That's a question we raise with all hopes they can be saved. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. All I can tell you is we can make our best effort to save them. It's a narrow, it's only 12-feet wide, and I'm not sure there is really anything that we can do when we talk about trees. Usually the roots will equal the canopy area, the drip line. If so -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We understand that. We felt they were so beautiful. We were just about to ask, if possible. MR. ANDERSON: We wish it was otherwise. The other thing is there are insurance issues, too, with that. We don't want, if a tree like that ever fell on the house, it would go right through the house TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Understood. Particularly if it's destabilized. It's a question of excavation for the foundation that the root zone was really not in play. But otherwise it's true. You factually nailed the botany aspect of the drip line and the roots. MR. ANDERSON: I really don't have much more to add. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Anything else to add?Any comments? MR. ANDERSON: No. We think it's a very innocuous application. I'll say one thing that might interest you, when we looked at this, we also made sure if we ever needed the septic upgrade we can put it between the house and the road. So make that part of the record, because that was a consideration TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very good. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? (Negative response). Any comments from the Board? (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. MS. CONTE: I wanted to speak. Should I come up? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll rescind the motion to close the Board of Trustees 24 August 15, 2018 hearing. MS. CONTE: Sorry. I'm Diane Conte, I'm speaking on behalf of my daughter Elizabeth Lohr, 325 Oak Avenue. One of the questions that we had was, are we following the side, side setback codes for this project MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MS. CONTE: You are within the ten, 15 -- MR. ANDERSON: We are beyond the ten feet-- TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You can't speak across. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. You should address your comments to the members of the Board themselves. Actually, there is a determination and a finding of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ordinarily the Building Department reviews all our applications and applications that require variances then have to go through the Zoning Board of Appeals. So by the time we receive an application for the wetland review it has been viewed and has been accepted to be meeting the requirements of the Building code and setbacks and/or has been granted Zoning Board of Appeals determination. MS. CONTE: Okay, I was not aware of that. Because the addition to this home they are making is almost leading way to opening up to other people to do like mega-mansions and just take the entire space on the property almost to zero property line at this point. And also it's preventing other people from seeing the view of the water in that location. People across the street are no longer going to have the view they had before. On top of the fact this makes no difference to you I'm sure, but they put in a line of shrubs in the front, trees, I think Lelands, that are going to grow really high, as it is already, plus take another 12 feet away from the view of the people across the street. And I was just wondering if they did have those side setbacks approved. I was not aware they already went through the zoning, because we had written a letter opposing that back when, and had not heard anything of it from them. So I'm just wondering how is this getting approved in that sense, because of that. Why was it approved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Board of Trustees really can't speak to the Zoning issues since it's a matter that is not really our purview and not within our jurisdiction. So we can only address the matters that relate directly to the Town Wetland Code Chapter 275. We did perform a field inspection on 8/7 and the Board did feel it was standard construction albeit it was deemed to be brought into consistency by, through permitting process because the one deck was built without a permit. MS. CONSTE: So are the existing properties around them supposed to be informed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are you saying you wrote a letter to our file, or for the Zoning Board of Appeals? MS. CONTE: The Zoning Board of Appeals. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, thank you. I just wanted to Board of Trustees 25 August 15, 2018 clarify because if you had written a letter to us we would read it into the record at this time. MS. CONTE: No, it was to the Zoning Board of Appeals. So I'm wondering, are you not supposed to get notification once something is approved or if there is any further discussion about it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Again, this Board can't speak to that. MR. HAGAN: The Town Code is clear as far as the noticing requirements with regard to applications, whether it's before the Board of Trustees or the Zoning Board of Appeals. MS. CONTE: Okay, so basically it's going to be approved then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't disagree your comments, but this Board doesn't have the power to control that. MS. CONTE: I mean it's just going to become mega-mansion city because we are now extending to almost the end of the property, which is really not fair, since they built the house, bought that property for that reason, and there are other people across the street as well, were kind of-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I appreciate your comments. As a young fellow, I ran around those streets. I'm with you. Unfortunately it's not us. We tried as best as we can with our code. MS. CONTE: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Is there anyone else to speak to the application? MR. ANDERSON: I would like to say something to the folks that just spoke, and that is the minimum setback is ten feet. We exceed that. We show setbacks here of 14.5 and 15.8. The second thing I would like to say, it's a one-story house, it's a very low house. And as far as, you know, the over-building, the gross floor area standpoint is quite modest, what we are asking for. I hope that makes a difference. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Anybody else? (Negative response). Seeing no one else approaching the dais, no additional comments from the Board, I make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that by granting a permit we bring it into consistency with the Town's LWRP, and as expressed on the side but not part of the permit approval, if the trees and root zone are not at risk during construction that an attempt be made that they save the trees with respect the application to approve as submitted. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Number four, Isaac Israel on behalf of ISLE OF Board of Trustees 26 August 15, 2018 CEDARS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 2,220.1 sq.ft. one-story dwelling; construct a 14.4'x6' addition onto landward side of dwelling; construct a 7.6'x22.1' front entry addition; construct a 20.3'x12.6' screened in porch on westerly side of dwelling; construct a 16.3'x46.3' second-floor addition over existing easterly section of dwelling; remove existing 564.4 sq.ft. seaward side deck and construct a proposed 11.9'x24.6' deck with two steps to grade; abandon existing sanitary system and install new sanitary system landward of dwelling; install gutters to leaders to drywells on the dwelling to contain roof runoff, and in accordance with Chapter 236 of the Town Code Stormwater Management. Located: 2450 Peters Neck Road, Orient. SCTM# 1000-32-1-8 The LWRP found this to be consistent, provided the following: Verify the wetlands jurisdictional setback; the Orient Point landmass is not served by public water and properties in the area are subject to high groundwater and flooding; the property is located within a FEMA flood zone AE EL-6; depth to groundwater is shown as 3.7 2012; installation of an innovative alternative onsite waste water treatment system is recommended to further policies Five and Six; establish the natural wooded area required in permit 7774 and 7774-C, be shown as vegetated non-turf buffer. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees visited this site on the 7th of August. The project looks okay. Possibly require a sanitary system. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. ISRAEL: Good evening. Isaac Israel, agent for the applicant Isle of Cedars, LLC. This is pretty much the very similar application to what this Board had approved back, or some members of this Board had approved back in 2012. And with the one of the only differences being actually a decrease in the size of the deck on the water side of the property. We have already a permit from the Building Department as well as Health Department approve approval to replace the sanitary system, which we already started to do. And we have brought in some additional fill to try to take into account any differences that the system perform properly. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else here that wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The sanitary system. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We would like to remind Mr. Israel and the owners of the LLC that this zone is on a peninsula and your soil shows water at 3.7', and subsequently you might want to consider elevating a bit more the septic system to take into account possible future rises in sea level. MR. ISRAEL: Thank you, we'll take that into account. Board of Trustees 27 August 15, 2018 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comments or anyone else to speak to this application? (Negative response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ISRAEL: Thank you. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Number five, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ANN T. KROM requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing cement bulkhead and replace with 97 linear feet of new vinyl bulkhead in-place with one 35 linear foot bulkhead return and one 6 linear foot bulkhead return; raise existing height to 42" above existing top cap elevation to match neighboring bulkhead to west; install 225 cubic yards of clean sand fill from upland sources behind bulkhead to replenish sand lost during storms; install 4' wide by 10' long platform and stairs to beach supported with 3-10" diameter CCA piles; install and perpetually maintain a 10' wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 1296 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. SCTM# 1000-145-2-19 The project description that is in the agenda has been updated and revised as of July 17th. The new project description is the project includes removal of existing remaining bulkhead, install 97 linear feet of proposed rip rap stone armor along existing line of erosion landward of the mean highwater line. Rip rap to consist of three courses, varying in size from two to five tons, placed in three courses; provide a ten-foot wide non-turf landward of the proposed rip rap wall. The LWRP found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency was, it is recommended that the bulkhead be realigned to coincide with annual mean highwater line to improve public access along the foreshore; a vegetated buffer comprised of native salt-tolerant plants required landward of the bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support this application. The Trustees have been to this site a few times, most recently on July 11th. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: One moment, please. I would like to recuse myself from this application. (Trustee Nick Krupski, recused). MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: On the original project description talks Board of Trustees 28 August 15, 2018 about steps. MR. PATANJO: Steps will not be included. Steps will be worked out with the rip rap for a native stone-stepping platform. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: And also on the original 225 cubic yards of fill. MR. PATANJO: No fill will be required. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Okay. Is there anyone else here who wishes to speak regarding this application? (Negative response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (Negative response). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: I make a motion to approve this application based on the new project description as of July 17th, 2018, therefore bringing it into compliance with the LWRP. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Goldsmith, aye. Trustee Williams, aye. Trustee Krupski, recused). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JOHN & ELVIRA ALOIA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 60 linear feet of existing jetty in same location as existing with new vinyl jetty. Located: 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. SCTM# 1000-118-4-9 The LWRP found this project to be inconsistent. The proposed action does not comply with this policy. The existing groin structure interrupts the long shore drift of unconsolidated materials, sand, starving the properties to the south. It is recommended that the structure be shortened and lowered, low profile to normalize and improve sand movement. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. There are several letters in the file regarding this application, one letter from Ed Volini, 8625 Nassau Point Road, not supporting the application. Another homeowner in the area, Vincent Manago, not supporting the application. And another letter from Kathleen and David Kilbride residing at 9045 Nassau Point Road, not supporting the application. The Trustees visited the site August 7th of 2018. We have notes that the jetty should be dialed back to 45 feet from the current 64 feet; needs a cross-section; new jetty needs to be lowered and sloping down; currently five-and-a-half feet from top of pile on bulkhead, should be lowered down one foot. All Trustees were present. At this point, would anybody like to speak to the Board of Trustees 29 August 15, 2018 application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. We do have a DEC permit in hand, and I think the LWRP consistency was resolved by way of the new proposed plan which is 18 inches above the existing grade, which is a DEC requirement. So therefore DEC permit in hand for the proposed 60-foot long, 18-inches above existing grade jetty, to remove and replace. The applicant has no problems with reducing the length of it by 15 feet if that's acceptable to the Board. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Are you saying 18 inches higher? MR. PATANJO: Lower. 18 inches above grade. So it will be walkable over. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The standard construction, 18-inches above grade. MR. PATANJO: Correct. Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of clarification, we measured 64 feet, so -- MR. PATANJO: The survey said 60, so. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: My tape measure said 64. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Williams was dancing out there with his tape measure. MR. PATANJO: We can modify the scope to make it 45-foot long. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to this application? I'm going to ask that you just keep to the point on your comments and try and please keep them brief. Please state your name for the record. MR. KILBRIDE: Thank you. Good evening. My name is David Kilbride 9045 Nassau Point Road. Just to let you know there are six members of the neighborhood in attendance here this evening, many of whom will have some comment. There is a lot of engagement, a lot of concern about this. Is it possible to put the Google Earth image up on the screen? First of all, the fact that the six of us who are here plus the seventh who wrote a letter, have a lot of concern about this. We have spoken to the Trustees in the past about it. Obviously the concern emanates from a high profile jetty that has been in existence for many years. In fact the proposal is for a low profile jetty, which coastal engineers would suggest may mitigate some of the problems that we have experienced certainly is a point in our favor. But I do think you are going to hear that we want to understand what the impact will be and how the dimensions might be determined. The LWRP quote from Town planner Terry used the word that the beaches to the south have been starved. I think if I had used that world I would have been accused of being dramatic or melodramatic, but actually that is really the case. And I don't think that what we are asking for is to have hundreds of feet of sugar sand beach to the south. That's not why anybody lives on the north fork. But what's happened, you can see there Board of Trustees 30 August 15, 2018 is absolutely no sand left, really from mid-tide to high tide now. Our house is 500 feet to the south of that jetty and there is two feet of water against the bulkhead at high tide. Which means there is absolutely no mitigating rocks, gravel, sand, to absorb the energy from the waves. Every single wave is smacking against the bulkhead, and I think that's true of most of the people who are here who want to talk to you about it. So if a low profile jetty is going to solve that; I think, speaking personally, I would be all for it. I do have a question about the length that is being discussed. I did measure it, my measure agrees with yours. From the monogamous side of the jetty, I think Vincent will talk about the measurements, but my understanding is the code allows these things to be built to the mean low water line, and on last week when we had sort of average low tides, they were not high highs or high lows or low lows, the measurement was in the 30 to 35 feet off the sheathing of the bulkhead. Not 45. And certainly not 60. The plan that was submitted showing the mean low water mark is 60 feet offshore is actually, that's about two-and-a-half feet of water at low tide. So that's an error. This is an important discussion. whatever is built will have a 20 or 25-year life and, um, there is, we are very, very concerned about the loss of protection, and so I think there is a structure that could be built which would protect their sand, their beach, I certainly understand their interest in doing that, but I hope the Trustees understand that there is seven of us who have weighed in here who are asking to protect our interests as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Please approach the podium, sir. MR. MANAGO: Bruce Manago, I live right next door to them. May I give you these? These are photos, in fact it really matches Mr. Patanjo's photo up there. It shows what the low water mark is, that we are happy to hear it's going to be cut down and made low profile. So that's no problem from our end. It's just a matter, as we heard from Dave as to what the length will be. As you see there, that's the 29 feet. That's the low water mark. It's not 60 feet, you know, as we see in their application. So I don't know how we get to 45, but I think it should be some place between 30 and 45. That's at the low water mark. Then it narrows down to seven feet on my next door neighbor's property right here, the Konowitz'. So that's why I think somebody should go out and really measure it from the Board's standpoint and see where the real low water mark is. It's certainly not 60 feet. And it's only at 29 at the bulkhead. And that's the most we've had in a long, long time, because, you know, the far end of the bulkhead or of the jetty, you know, is really gone. So it has to be something less than that, I believe. That's the only point we wanted to make. But we are happy it's going to be shortened and made low profile. That works for us. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the Board of Trustees 31 August 15, 2018 application? MR. KEATING: Stanley Keating, 9275 Nassau Point Road. I didn't write a letter because I knew I would come tonight and I did attend the work session. My property is one of the disadvantaged properties because of this. We purchased our property in 1991 in and around the time of the famous perfect storm and survived that with a reasonable amount of beach and protection of the bulkhead. And of course the situation has deteriorated over the years. I'm just south of David Kilbride. I actually want to ask your forbearance and endorse what Mr. Kilbride and Mr. Manago have just said. I keep thinking that there is an accommodation to be made here to afford us southern-standing properties some relief and still not terribly disadvantaged with the Aloia faction is attempting to do and has in fact done. But I'm also certain that the lengths we are talking about, when we talk about 60 feet, I think anything that involves low profile and 18-inches, and'I certainly would like to hear, by the way, that defined more accurately. An 18-inch bulkhead, depends on whether it's poison fruit sand that you are building it from, it turns out to be a much larger bulkhead or groin than would be if you measured it from the Manago side, for example, that's certainly down from our side where we have no sand,just rock and wave action is pretty impressive during the nor'easters. So without prolonging it, I just want to add my concerns and hope you'll take them under consideration. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the application? MS. DAVANI: Maria Davani. I understand the neighbors' concerns to the south, but I just wanted to read a statement from, that I made just about the history of this jetty/groin. Before the Manago's and all these other people moved in, there are people that lived there were the Grahams, the Papora's and the Flores'. The Flores' were my next door neighbors, where the Manago's are living now. And, um, they were there when the groin was built. This was in the, you know, late '50's, probably. And basically the Army Corps of Engineers advised them they are in an erosion zone and that in order to protect their beach fronts, they would need to build groins. The previous owner of my parents' home, Mrs. Chute, asked the neighbors to the south if they would like to build one together, so that would be the Papora's and everybody else to the south. They opted not to. So Mrs. Chute built it on her property, which is that jetty that you are looking at now. That is the jetty that Mrs. Chute built with some maintenance. And there was a repair, because I guess it was in 1995, the seaward side of the jetty was lifted out the water. So they rebuilt that whole section over there. So anyway, the Papora's who were the people where the Manago's are now, they addressed their erosion in front of their home by building a rock groin, and all the neighbors to the Board of Trustees 32 August 15, 2018 south of this groin put up bulkheading to protect their property. This all happened nearly 60 years ago. And their homes and their bulkheads are all still intact and selling for millions of dollars. I believe the neighbors, if they are being starved, are, being starved by the enhanced rock jetty to the north of them. If anything, my parents' groin is providing some protection to the bulkheads to the south, as most major storms come from the north. Everyone who lives on the bay knows the risk of damage that can be caused by severe weather. My parents have lost their bulkheading several times because the nor'easters hit them as they were hitting the jetty. I would also like to say that by caring for a part of the jetty field to the north of the Manago's, and there are other jetties there, or groins, whatever you want to call them, that my parents were helping to maintain a small portion of the beach to the south and providing some beach to the north for those who enjoy walking along the shore and to the public access a few steps away. Thank you. Also, Jeff, do you want to handle this with the pictures, because, I mean, the description of the starvation and all that other stuff, this is 30 years of living on Nassau Point. I have been living at that house since I'm 24 years old, and I'm 57. So I have been walking down --yes, there has been erosion, but there has also been other things that happened on Nassau Point. For example, the bootlegger's house, I don't know what their address is. But do you know what I'm talking about? The house that's built out? That they built out, I would say probably another two feet into the bay. So any sand that is coming down from south is going to be slightly blocked by the bootlegger's house. You know, yes, it's low tide is the only time you can walk down, and we used to be able to walk down, but I don't really believe, I mean the high profile jetty is not something we are married to, obviously. We do want to do whatever, you know, the code is. We didn't want to starve anybody of sand. We are just protecting our beach front. So basically that's all I have to say. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to this application? MR. CASTALDI: Bob Castaldi, 525 Nassau Point Road. I'm three houses down from that jetty. We would like to have a little sand down there also. I mean it's pretty obvious from that picture what is going on. And I'm sure everybody is learning a lot. I'm not an expert on jetties or sand, but I'm sure there has been a lot learned over the last 60 years. And I'm sure that if it's modified that we too can have some protection for our bulkheads, have a little beach and also increase the property of our house, that is we have something other than a pile of rocks in front of it. I'll make it short. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else that wishes to step up? Board of Trustees 33 August 15, 2018 MR. KONOWITZ: Good evening, I'm Paul Konowitz, 8425 Nassau Point Road. And I just want to, I'm here to just support the opinion recommendations of my neighbors to the south of the jetty. I have only owned the house for about five years, but to me when I hear about this, and I was aware of this issue from years back when I bought the house from the person I bought the house from, it was controversial even a number of years ago, ten, 15 years ago. And to me this is an issue of fairness and what the code is. Fairness that, yes, this may have been an event that started 60 years ago, but 60 years is a long time and I think we are dealing with the present. And I think it's only fair that the neighbors to the south of the jetty also share in the beauty of the sand and of the Peconic Bay. And if we are going through the trouble of changing something, why not change it to what the code states, to the mean low water mark, and that has been measured out by my neighbors very clearly as you can see from the photos. So I think I'm very happy to be here and hear the Board is in favor of changing the jetty. I just think if we are going to change it, we change it to what is really right for everybody involved. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak? MR. BERGEN: Dave Bergen, 9525 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Since some time has been spent on the history, I thought I would help you with the history. First off, to help, I think the bootlegger house that has been referred to is the Weiss-Kruger house that the boathouse that comes out into the bay. MS. DAVANI: That's what people call it. MR. BERGEN: Yes. I just thought for record, because that's what, those are the legal owners. It would be easier to find them on the record than the bootlegger house. What I have submitted here is a letter, and I actually have the original letter right here from the State of New York from November 4th of'63, and this letter states, this was written from a gentleman Charles Jennings, with the Executive Department of the Office of General Services in the State of New York. And as you can see in the letter this was a letter that was written because the State of New York had determined that Mrs. Chute had built this without permission. Without their permission. So, yes, the history goes back a very long time on this, regarding this jetty. I would also like to stipulate, I would like to make sure that the letters that Mr. Williams did not read, that the Trustees have received, stipulate they are entered into the record here tonight. No need to read them. I just want to make sure it's stipulated they are entered into the record here tonight. Now, in addition to this history from 1963 -- MR. HAGAN: If I could stop you for a second. The letters that have been submitted, are part of the record. MR. BERGEN: Thank you. There was also a jetty to the north of this, the Frazier jetty, that has come up in conversation, not Board of Trustees 34 August 15, 2018 here tonight, but regarding these two jetties, both of them were reviewed by the State of New York and one of them was actually ordered to be cut down two feet in height back in the '60s when all this came up. So even back then there was a concern from the State of New York about the height and length of these jetties when they were built without permission of the State of New York. In 2006 there was an issue with some sheathing that was added to, I believe the south side of the jetty/groin—actually, technically it's a groin. And also the top there was some material put on the top of this jetty at that time. And there was a review by the Trustees at that time to see if this was technically re-built without a permit. And by a three to two vote, it was not a violation issued for the work that was done on this jetty. But it was noted that if any work had to be done in the future, a permit had to applied for. Then we come up to the winter of 2018 where the last section of this jetty that had not been reinforced in the past, succumbed to ice flow that was there. Now, you have had pictures submitted tonight that show that the apparent low water mark that was taken, and the date and time of that is on those pictures, so I'll leave to it to what is on there, shows that it's approximately 34 feet on the Aloia's side or the north side. That is the apparent low water mark. So the fact that the apparent low water mark on the plan was, as I measured it out, scaling it out, excuse me, was 57.5 feet, it's actually 34. So we have quite a difference there. When I hear the Trustees talk about the opportunity to shorten it to 45 feet, that jetty at 45 feet, according to these - pictures you have in front of you, would then be eleven feet beyond the apparent low water mark into the bay, still stopping the littoral drift of sand. The code is very specific that it cannot extend beyond the apparent low water mark and in 18-inch height down drift. So I appreciate fact that the Trustees have looked at that and looked at lowering the seaward end of that by a foot. Whether that takes us to 18 inches, I'll leave it up to you guys to determine that. Also on the application page there were a couple of errors there. On the application page saying the nearest structure is 2000 feet from the edge of the wetlands. Well, the nearest structure is the bulkhead, which is right at the wetlands. It also says on the application that if this application is approved, this proposed structure would have no impact or no effect on the wetlands. Obviously, a jetty of any length is going to impact the wetlands. Particularly if it goes out beyond the apparent low water mark. So what I would propose to this group is, you have the opportunity to postpone this hearing and maybe the parties gather at the next field inspection at low tide and so that everybody can take a tape measure at the same time and take a look and see what the apparent low water mark is on that date and Board of Trustees 35 August 15, 2018 that particular date what the low tide is. It is noted that the LWRP found this inconsistent for the very reasons that have been stated tonight. And the only other thing I have to say is should it eventually be approved, I would ask as a condition of the approval that the terminal length from whatever the mark is, whether it's 34 feet, as I'm hoping it would be, or beyond that, that anything terminal that would be removed, that that would be a condition of the final permit. Thank you. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Is there anybody else wish to speak to this application? Mr. Patanjo? MR. PATANJO: I have some photographs,just making reference to mean low water. I only have four, so you'll have to share. But dog-eared a few of these just so you can see them. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to remind that submission of, according to the code, 275-8(c), submission of new materials may delay the progression of the application. MR. PATANJO: Sure, I'm fine with that. And I also have on top of that engineering reports from the last time this was brought up. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would you reduce the size to 35 feet? MR. PATANJO: No. We would like 45 feet. We reduced it already from my proposed plan which is apparently inaccurate, 60 feet, which was based on the survey and engineering report that I just brought up to you. You said your measurement is 63 feet. We reduced it 18 feet from the original proposal and the DEC also approved it at the 60 feet, with the reduced height. As you see in the photos that I provided, everybody knows mean low and mean high water vary over time. There is a mean low low, there is a mean high high. There's multiple elevations of water. Water elevations vary. This time of year, water elevations are a little higher than normal. So 34 feet would be in fact correct. If they said 34 feet. Which I'm not disputing at all. I was not out there to take the measurements. The photos that you see in, that I dog-eared, 1954, whatever it was -- UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: No, 1994. MR. PATANJO: 1994, same thing. That was, you look at the piles there, it's about 12 feet back from the end of the proposed, existing jetty. So we are reducing it by 15 feet. Also, the second on the last page that I dog-eared in the photos, that was most recent, 2017, 1 believe, you can see the location of the mean low water in approximate relation to where we are going. We are looking right now, based on the photographs, the photographic evidence, is proof that we are going at the mean low water elevation, and also reducing our proposal to 18 feet less than what was requested. And I might add also we have the DEC permit. They do some evaluations on this as well. The other piece of documentation that I provided was an engineering report by a New York State licensed PE, dated April 20th, 2004, which is now part of the record. That states right on the opening page of that engineering report, it's the first letter that I provided, that the constructed and maintained Board of Trustees 36 August 15, 2018 Aloia groin does not cause erosion of the Manago beach property. Removal of the Aloia groin reported, (a), new erosion undermining of the Aloia property, and, (b), additional erosion of the Manago beach. So I'm not going to go read all of the statements in here, but judging from the PE certified, stamped, signed and sealed documentation of this waterfront property, they are saying that it's going to cause additional erosion. If you look at all the jetties there, only the properties with jetties have sand. It's understood, we all know that. The Manago's and maybe the ones to the south do in fact have jetties. Manago's have a stone jetty, which was built up over the years, not,doing an adequate job. And I believe, as Maria had mentioned, you know, the Army Corps had suggested everybody build jetties to protect their beach. So I feel we are meeting all the requirements and of not only the Trustees, the DEC and the code by the proposal and the modification of scope, which is 18 inches above grade, which is reducing the length of it by 18 feet and meeting all required codes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We are not normally in a habit of debating the expediters. I want to point out again, I said submission of materials is frowned upon after less than seven days before the hearing. And there is a reason for that. Because it's not fair to this Board, nor the people who oppose this application, to receive something like this and be expected to digest it in five minutes. I mean, I looked through this briefly, and I have to tell you, looking at that photograph, I'm rather annoyed that someone would write that construction of a groin does not cause erosion on the beaches. It's not substantiated. I also want to mention that if someone goes to the beach on August 8th and measures the low tide, that does not constitute mean low tide. Nor if we go next month and measure the tide. If you want to hinge everything on whether or not this is, where the mean low water line is, we'll have to do an in-depth study to determine the mean value. Having said that, I support shortening this groin/jetty to approximately 40 feet, and lowering it. I think it will protect the people to the north and provide some relief to all the properties to the south. That's my statement. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Anybody else wish to speak to this application? Mr. Bergen? MR. BERGEN: I believe the code as of a few years ago used the term apparent low water. Not mean low water. Unless that code is changed, that's what it is, is apparent low water. So that's what I would encourage the Board to go by, is apparent low water rather than mean low water. It takes out the opportunity to have to go back 17 years and see what the data is. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Thank you. Any other questions from the Board? (Negative response). MR. PATANJO: I would just like to point out apparent low water would be the average over the seasons. If that, if I'm not incorrect on that. So what season do we actually look at low water elevations for this application? If this application is Board of Trustees 37 August 15, 2018 presented in winter, apparent low water would be a little further out than during summer. I just want to add that for the record. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Any other questions from the Board? (Negative response). At this point I make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: I make a motion to approve a 40-foot vinyl jetty commencing one foot lower at the bulkhead than the existing jetty, to continue seaward at a downward slope, not to be level, and at no point greater than 18-inches above grade. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of BRETT VREILLY requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead and construct new 164 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place; install and perpetually maintain a 10'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead; remove and replace existing 4'x4' steps to beach in similar location as existing; remove and replace decking on existing 6'x33' fixed dock using un-treated decking material; extend existing fixed dock at seaward end by constructing a proposed 4'x30'fixed dock using un-treated decking material; remove existing adjustable ramp and floating dock, and install a proposed 30"x14' aluminum adjustable ramp and a 5'x24' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration and supported by two (2) 10" diameter piles; and install four(4) 10" diameter tie-off piles (two tie-off piles along each side) adjacent to proposed floating dock. Located: 505 Lighthouse Lane, Southold. SCTM# 1000-70-6-29.1 The Trustees did their most recent field inspection of this property on August 7th, and all Trustees were present and noted that the bulkhead was destroyed. It is straightforward. The dock exceeds the pier line by 24 feet and must be reconfigured to conform to code. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the following facts: The existing dock received wetland permit 5898 in 2004, and it was modified in 2008 in its current configuration; the conditions of the permit requires the float to be reduced to six foot by 20 foot, and it was not; the existing dock measured 58 feet in length and has a mean low water ranging from 2.13 feet to 2.26 feet; water depth in 2004 was shown 2.6; the pier line shown uses the dock that LWRP coordinator could not locate a permit for on Suffolk County tax map SCTM# 1000-70-6.28. That's to the west. This dock should not be considered. A representative vessel is not shown; Board of Trustees 38 August 15, 2018 application does not discuss potential impacts to water quality and impact on turbidity. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application with a ten-foot buffer. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I was trying to absorb all of those, as always. The bulkhead is a straightforward removal and replacement. That's clean. The steps to the beach off of the existing fixed dock, that doesn't seem to be an issue. I think the depth, the length of the existing dock, one of the questions was not showing the boat. I can add that through the proposed plans, with an amendment. That's not an issue. We do have 461 feet in one direction to the opposite shoreline. 621 feet in the other direction. So there is no impedence to any navigable waterways. The existing, the line of projection as indicated on my plan has it within whatever is existing there. If you look to the dock, to the direction to the left, which is probably south, the dock io the south, that is an existing dock. It has a really big floating dock on it. The new one, which is fairly new, if you are looking at the water to the right, to the north, that, if I'm correct, is fairly new. So I'm a little perplexed as to why there is no permits for that one. So what we did is we did the projection of line in accordance with the coding to docks that meet this sufficient water depth as required by New York State DEC code, which is 30 inches of water at low tide at a minimum. The one dock directly to the left is, which is tucked back quite a bit, it sees mean low water at times, from what I have been told. There is not sufficient water depth on that dock. So lif they came in for a new application, they would probably be proposing to go out the same distance as this dock would be iri line, if you looked at Google Earth with the other ones in the area. So we what we are looking for is not overly beyond the limits and approvability of the Board as far as alignment with projection outside. We do meet the one-third waterway width rule! We do meet the water depth rule. And we are in alignment with functional docks that happen to be in existence at the time. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (Negative response). Comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I was just looking at the aerials and I looked at some of the work you submitted, and as we discussed in prior hearings, and I don't know if you were present or not, but the pier line is not necessarily a straight line. MR. PATANJO: It's along the shoreline that is created. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So by my calculations, the maximum you could go out would be quite a bit less than the applied-for application. MR. PATANJO: Based on what you have just mentioned with the pier line, and I have done this a couple of times with pier lines as Board of Trustees 39 August 15, 2018 far as shorelines, offsetting shorelines, different colors, pretty pictures. With this, in looking at it now, I'm going to tend to agree with you. And looking at it, at a maximum, I would say if you did turn that pier line and bend it in a little bit we can shorten this up by ten feet, which would still give us adequate water depth at mean low water, which is required. It will still meet all the conditions and still meet the applicant's requirements for water depth for his boat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's certainly fairly quiet in the north in the winter for the float to be housed. What about orientation in a "T" or an "L"? MR. PATANJO: He's looking for an "I"for friends to come over, in terms of, not for full-time storage. That's the added, because of the size of the boat, and it does get beat up over there a little bit, he's looking for tie off piles to protect his investment, protect the docks, tie-offs would make it nice. So the add on on the side is friends. He has a lot of friends. What do you mean me to tell you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If it was a friend that dropped a jet ski float off it should disappear because you have a limitation of 120 square feet. So total square footage -- MR. PATANJO: Jet ski float? I set the stakes. There is no jet ski float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Didn't I see a jet ski float? MR. PATANJO: He just bought the property about three months ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So a little education for your client might be, there is a monster float that is not to code. MR. PATANJO: That was not there when I was there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record -- MR. PATANJO: I used that kayak there, for the record. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, the pier line is established by the adjacent docks, irrespective of the water depth, which is immaterial to this discussion. The pier line is drawn from the dock which is to the west. And the dock to the east of this proposed dock ends almost exactly at the foot of the existing ramp. Maybe a foot further. So that if you were to turn the float from the existing "I" configuration to a "T" configuration, maybe cut the ramp back a foot or so, you would maintain the pier line and at the same time the water depths that you show would be 2.8 feet and three feet on the outward, seaward end of the float. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's conceivable that will also allow access to both sides with the visiting friends who will come and pick up their jet skis. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Assistant Town Attorney Damon Hagan also reminded me, I didn't refer to the fact, as previously said, the coast is not straight and the pier line will follow that, making it further back than what I articulated. The point I'm trying to make is that you can turn that float and maintain the pier line. Or you can construct a fixed dock that is 24 feet shorter than what you are proposing, maintain the pier line and still have Board of Trustees 40 August 15, 2018 sufficient water depth. Perhaps Trustee Krupski would like to elaborate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I basically just echo those points. That's definitely several options that will still get you the water depth and allow us to grant the dock within the construct of the code. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: As Trustee Bredemeyer stated, if they configured it in an "L" configuration, you can still invite friends over and they can dock their boats and the terminal end would still be within the pier line at sufficient depth and still give you the ability to dock more than one boat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To add another option to the mix, obviously the 120 square foot maximum could be redefined to include a narrower floating catwalk adjacent to the jet ski float, if that's approved. MR. PATANJO: One of the things I want to add is, I understand that the projection of the neighboring docks, I understand that, we have been through that, it's code. I want to say it's a little antiquated, the fact of the DEC requirements as far as water depth requirements. The DEC requires now 30 inches of water. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You can stop right there. Because we are not compelled to honor that. MR. PATANJO: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think there is a way to put this dock in at the proper depth to satisfy both the DEC and the Town. I know there is a way. MR. PATANJO: Can we adjourn? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you wish to table this application? MR. PATANJO: Table it, please. TRUSTEE DOMINO: At the applicant's request, I make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE WILLIAMS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number eight, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of JANET VAN ADELSBERG requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing 4'x68'fixed catwalk; construct new 4'x48' fixed catwalk using Thru-Flow decking and supported with 8" diameter CCA piles; install a proposed 3'x16' aluminum ramp; and install a proposed 6'x20' floating dock situated in an "I" configuration, using un-treated timber decking and supported by four (4) 10" diameter piles; and to install 3"x10" cross braces to support the floating dock a minimum of 30" above bottom at all times. Located: 4297 Wells Road, Peconic. SCTM# 1000-86-1-9.5 This application is deemed to be exempt by the LWRP coordinator. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to support the application. The Trustees' inspection on August 7th, the Board has specific concerns about this dock, that is basically a terminus to the creek, the headwaters of the creek, where there are no Board of Trustees 41 August 15, 2018 adjacent floats, and then the water depth, the Board feels the water depth is insufficient to have a float without damaging the bottom. The Board recommends leaving the eight-inch existing piles, lowering the deck to go into through-flow as a modified, so it would be possibly safer for entrance on the walk. And no float. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I see two docks across the street, so it's kind of normal to have docks here. The applicant asked if you can you please make it a condition to any approval if it is so granted that this is for kayak use only. Elderly folk own the house. Hopefully they are not here and offended, but they are looking for easy access to the water for kayaks. They do not own a boat. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you, very much. Anyone else wish to speak to this application? (Negative response). It would seem that we are all, probably all swimming upstream together on this application. If lowering, it's one of those places travelers go. It's very narrow, it's the last going to headwaters. It would seem with thru-flow, to lower this as much as permissible for the safety of the owners and possibly install a step with thru-flow or some means to them closer to the water for that kayak launching, if they want to launch kayaks correctly into the water off the stepping. MR. PATANJO: Hold on. Let's back up. I still want the proposal for the floating dock so at high tide -- are you talking about steps and thru-flow? The whole dock is proposed as thru-flow already. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe --the temperament of the Board on this application, both in discussions in the work session and in the field is that it's not an appropriate area, and we would work with you, as the applicant has the onus, particularly looking for kayaks, to come up with an alternative. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: In the past, Trustee Bredemeyer and I think Trustee Domino had suggested leaving like a lower section of dock so you can thru-flow you can bring it way down, is it's just as good if not better than a float with much less impact to the environment. And no bottom coverage. The other option might be, as you were saying, a set of steps with the width to be determined. MR. PATANJO: That would be my concern is the width. A four-foot dock, even though it's fixed, is not really that wide for somebody to launch a kayak. It's quite narrow. The problem that lies with that would be the width of it at the terminus at water side is the DEC Army Corps of Engineers, New York State Department of State, all their requirements are maximum four feet wide. They would have an issue if we went to a wider dock down at the bottom. They don't allow platforms such as that. So it would need to be a floating dock, which is typical, because we are going to include the cross braces on the floating dock, which pretty much acts like what you are looking for. I would say right now, I thought about it and I thought it was silly, but if we added thru-flow decking to a floating dock, it I Board of Trustees 42 August 15, 2018 serves no purpose. This float is underneath the floating dock, so it's not going to do anything. At all, at low tides, the proposed plan is to maintain 30 inches off the bottom at low tide, which meets the conditions of, don't matter, but the DEC, and also protects the bottom, which is all murky, mud. I sunk in. It protects, it's environmentally friendly, it's not any more intrusion, it may be even less intrusion with piles being inserted to the ground than an actual dock because it's two less piles. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Well, you look at the adjacent docks across the creek there and they do have an "L" configuration to them. So you might want to consider this having an "L" configuration along with thru-flow with a lowered section, as opposed to the main deck, which could substitute for your floating dock, give you the lower depth for the elderly people to launch their kayak at a more reasonable height. MR. PATANJO: You are saying a fixed "L". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which is what almost every single dock in the near vicinity has. That was a decision by past Boards to maintain this area as it is the headwaters to the creek and somewhat of a crucial environment. MR. PATANJO: If we did a fixed "L"would it be amenable to the Board to put the fixed "L", if you look at my plan, along that six-foot wide section where I'm showing it, the six-foot projection out into the waterway? I need to obviously make resubmissions to the DEC, they may have an issue with this. I don't know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are a little confused. If you would approach the dais and show us on the plan. MR. PATANJO: You are talking, see the six foot there, if you want to put the "T", we can line up with the outside of that deck through here. With the fixed portion being lower a couple steps down to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, I think that's best. MR. PATANJO: I like that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: You are going to extend this? MR. PATANJO: Yes, that will extend out a couple of steps down to the six-foot portion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so new plans consistent with that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So how do you want to move forward here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A diagram was brought to the dais. You have to follow up with a set of plans indicating that there would be a "T" configuration that would extend no further seaward than the seaward end of the float, and that the applicant has offered to provide plans consistent with that. Any questions concerning that? MR. PATANJO: And thru-flow decking on that portion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, thru-flow decking on the portions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So we are going no further out than the current-- MR. PATANJO: No further out than the plan, the proposed end of the floating dock which is six foot seaward than the existing end of the dock. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional questions or concerns? Board of Trustees 43 August 15, 2018 (Negative response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this dock with the stipulation of submission of new plans showing the aforementioned through-throw going no further seaward than the proposed seaward limit as proposed on the submitted plans to the float; the action being supported by the Conservation Advisory Council and is exempt under the LWRP. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And all fixed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. All fixed configuration. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion to adjourn TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GOLDSMITH: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Motion made and second to adjourn. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, Michael J. Domino, President Board of Trustees RECEIVE® 3: 5 �1 � SSP 2 0 2018 a S �tholdows-C'erk