Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-09/19/2012 James F.King, President O��QF SO�T�ol Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer G Q Michael J.Domino �� Telephone(631) 765-1892 " �yC4U01 Fax(631) 765-6641� BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES JAN ? M1Z TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, September 19, 2012 RECEIVED '` 6:00 PM JAN 2 �^ Present Were: Jim King, President Dave Bergen, Trustee Southold Town Clerk John Bredemeyer, Trustee Mike Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 10, 2012, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 17, 2012, at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, October 17, 2012, at 5:30 PM TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone, welcome to our September meeting. We have Wayne Galante down here taking down what everybody says. If you have comments to make, please, during the public hearing section, come up to the microphone and identify yourself for the record. We have John Stein from the Conservation Advisory Council here with us. They go out and do many of the same inspections we do and give us their recommendations on those projects. The first order of business, we'll set the next field inspection for October 10, eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Next meeting will be October 17, at 6:00, with a worksession starting at 5:30. Board of Trustees 2 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2012. A check for $7,293.56 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wed., September 19, 2012, are classified as Type LI Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: They are listed here in the agenda. Mary Huettermoser— SCTM#37-4-7 Richard Downing & Janet Engels —SCTM#118-2-10 Strong's Marine — SCTM#122-9-6.2 Phyllis Sousa — SCTM#51-6-32 Erin & Matthew Cunningham —SCTM#122-4-17 Jane & John Ingrilli -SCTM#119-1-15 Pequash Recreation Club, Inc. —SCTM#110-7-12 Robert Williams—SCTM#35-4-18 Rocco Resciniti —SCTM#111-14-18 Evan & Barbara Bell — SCTM#94-1-9 U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Animal Disease Center—SCTM#132-1-30 U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Plum Island Animal Disease Center— SCTM#15-9-9, 15-9-6.1 & 16-2-1&2 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion on that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Before I go any further, we have some postponements. I don't want anybody sitting here thinking we are going to review something that we are not. I believe there are five. Board of Trustees 3 September 19,.2012 Page seven, number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of MARILYN PASIERB request a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace the existing pool and surrounding deck. Located: 680 Truman's Path, East Marion, has been postponed. Number nine, Carl Governale on behalf of ROCCO RESCINITI requests a Wetland Permit to remove remains of existing bulkhead and construct a new 90 linear foot bulkhead with one (1) 8' return and one (1) 18' return; backfill with up to 100 cubic yards of clean fill; re-vegetate and subsequently maintain a 6' wide area landward of proposed structure using DEC approved plantings. Located: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. Number ten, Docko, Inc., on behalf of HIRAM MOODY, JR. requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'wide pile and timber pier and install an 8'X 20' floating dock with hinged ramp and associated float restraint piles, boat berthing tie-off piles, utilities and ladder. The overall length of the pier from the shore waterward of the high tide line and tidal wetlands vegetation is 120'. Located: 33 Reservoir Rd., Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number eleven, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 5'x16' seasonal floating dock, 3'4"x16'4" wooden ramp and existing 4'x16' fixed catwalk; construct new 4'x16' fixed catwalk in-place; replace existing decking on wooden ramp win untreated decking; install handrails on ramp and reinstall onto a new 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 1695 Mill Creek Drive, Southold, has been postponed. And number 12, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ERIN & MATTHEW CUNNINGHAM requests a Wetland Permit to remove 30' of existing bulkhead and retaining wall and construct 30' of new bulkhead in-place; top of bulkhead to be level with existing adjacent bulkhead; construct 25' of core stone rock retainer; construct a 4'x8' wood deck; provide a 10' wide non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead and core stone rock retainer; construct a 4'x12' fixed catwalk; provide water and electric service to offshore end; install 1,8501b. Boat davit; install a 32"x16' seasonal ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal float secured by two 8" diameter anchor pilings. Located: 2080 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. So we won't be addressing those tonight. IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: Under resolutions and administrative permits, we try and move things along fairly quickly here. If they are simple and there is no controversy with them, and we reviewed them and have no problems with them, we try and lump them together and approve them all at once to try and save us some time. I would like to move one, two, three and four, number six and number eight, we Board of Trustees 4 September 19, 2012 can do all those at once. They are listed as follows: Number one, Frank Uellendahl, Architect on behalf of PATRICIA WALKER requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing permitted deck and rebuild it for handicap accessibility; proposed additions on the landward side of the existing dwelling; proposed addition connecting the main house to the garage, which will be partially converted into living space; proposed wood deck off of new master bedroom; installation of a drywell to contain roof runoff. Located: 1020 Ruch Lane, Southold. Number two, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of EMANUEL MORAITIS requests an Administrative Permit for the re-vegetation of the disturbed/cleared areas from the top of the bluff landward. Located: 40 The Strand, East Marion. Number,three, CLEAVES POINT CONDOMINIUMS requests an Administrative Permit to install three signs at locations along the property lines. Located: 2820 Shipyard Lane, East Marion. Number four, GreenLogic LLC on behalf of RICHARD WINDMULLER & CAROLINE ROCCHETTA request and Administrative Permit to install a ground mounted solar electric system. Located: 285 Queen Street, Greenport. Number six, STEPHEN WALSH requests an Administrative Permit to provide a 4' wide foot path consisting of gravel from the house through the phragmites to the landward edge of tidal wetlands boundary in order to provide access to the water. Located: 7065 New Suffolk Road, New Suffolk. And number eight, JULIA & JOSEPH VERGARI requests an Administrative Permit to install a 225 square foot area of chain-link fencing off of the dwelling to contain the pets. Located: 5855 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. I'll make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: And on number five, EDWARD WERTHNER requests an Administrative Permit to install approximately +/- 175' of underground electrical wiring and water pipes from the dwelling to existing bulkhead and dock. Located: 180 Windy Point Lane, Southold. We found under the original permit for his home, there was supposed to be a 30-foot buffer behind the bulkhead. And that has not been done yet. So as part of this application we'll stipulate -- I would like make a motion to approve the electric line and water line run down to the dock. I think it would simplify it if the electric line, which is in one corner of the house is run along parallel to the house, and then run a common ,trench down to the dock rather than run two separate lines. would suggest that. And a 30-foot buffer would have to be replanted as part of this application. And I think a 90-day timeframe to plant that buffer would be acceptable. That would be my motion, to approve the Fine being run down to the electric and water,,and the 307 foot buffer to be re-established within 90 days. Board of Trustees 5 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Any discussion? (No response). All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, CLAIRE MANNING requests an Administrative Permit to remove the existing septic system and construct new septic system further landward. Located: 1470 Jackson.Street, New Suffolk. This was an application that was tabled last month because it was found inconsistent by the LWRP. I've discussed this application with the applicant and at this point I'm ready to make a motion to approve the application. And as the septic that is going in is a new septic that is approved by the County Health Department, we'll find it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, same as I said before, we'll try and group some of these together, noting there is no controversy about them, they are very straightforward. We'll do one and two, numbers four, five, six, seven and eight. They are listed as follows: Number one, Deborah Doty on behalf of VIRGINIA DIETRICH requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7388 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7388C, as issued on September 22, 2010. Located: 55755 County Road, Southold. Number two, ALEX HILLENBRAND requests a One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7395, as issued on September 22, 2010. Located: 50 Lupton's Point Road, Mattituck. Number four, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf. of CARLA STARCIC requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7500 for the installation of a 4x4' drywell to handle runoff from the approved deck. Located: 205 Private Road #3, Southold. Number five, ROBERT & CHRISTINE HERZOG request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7605 to include the as-built two handrails on the fixed dock; and four pilings with stops to support floating dock, per D.E.C. requirement. Located: 3392 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold. Number six, KENNETH & KATHLEEN HEIDT request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7537.for the as-built 16'x15.5' deck and seasonal aluminum stairs that are to be lifted when not in use in lieu of a fixed set of wood stairs to beach. Located: 8530 Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Number seven, Docko, Inc., on behalf of LEONARD OOR requests an Board of Trustees 6 September 19, 2012 Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7315 and Coastal Erosion Permit#7315C for the installation of a temporary steel sheet pile cofferdam to aid with footing and seawall construction. Located: Private Road off Equestrian Avenue, Fishers Island. Number eight, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND FERRY DISTRICT requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7490 to include the installation of a 20' long and 30' wide ramp with no increased encroachment into Silver Eel Cove; the new bulkhead alignment will be landward of the existing steel sheet piling; the new counter weight towers and bumper system will remain in close proximity to their existing location and previously authorized locations. Located: Silver Eel Cove, Fishers Island. I would make a motion to approve those as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, is not an administrative amendment. That's a full amendment. We'll be dressing that under the amendment section of our agenda. VI. DUCK BLINDS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Duck Blinds, number one, MICHAEL J. CONNOLLY requests a Duck Blind Permit to place a home-made duck blind in Hashamomuck Pond using public access. Located: Hashamomuck Pond. I believe this is okay. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings and go on to our public hearings section. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. - TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS: TRUSTEE KING: These are public hearings. Please, I can't stress this enough, there is not many people here. Try and keep your comments five minutes or less. If you can't get the point across in five minutes, we'll gladly accept written comments. We all.know how to read. They'll be put into the official record. And the reason I'm bringing this up, we try and accommodate people, I have the feeling sometimes people mistake kindness for weakness. i just got through reviewing our July minutes. I don't think everybody else has seen them yet or reviewed them. I reviewed them the other day. And out of 15 pages of public comments, eleven pages were taken up by one person. I think that's excessive. I think it's taking advantage of this Board, and it's going to stop. So that's where I'm coming from with that. Board of Trustees 7 September 19, 2012 We are glad to hear your comments. We want to listen to everybody, but it can't go on and on and on with rambling conversations. And we are starting to see dialogues between applicants. I. don't want to put up with it anymore. I don't want sound harsh but it's gotten to the point where it's a little ridiculous sometimes. We get here late at night, we get tired and that's when you make your mistakes, so. With that being said, we'll get going: AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first is in the matter of Walter J. Krupski, Jr., on behalf of PEQUASH RECREATION CLUB, INC. requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#3912 to repair and/or replace existing landings and steps to the beach using untreated lumber or composite. Located: 205 West Road, Cutchogue. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? Or against it? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not hearing any comments from the audience, the Trustees, we performed an inspection of this. I went to the site. It's basically an inkind replacement of the existing stairs and bench seating. It's almost identical to that which is at Fleet's Neck beach next door. It's ending its useful service life. The surrounding vegetation is strong.Based on what 1 saw, I had the recommendation that the upper bench, excuse me, the upper bench seating and platform associated with it will just be moved approximately three feet landward of the existing bluff, so that after construction the bluff can be revegetated so it won't have a blowout occur. Other than that, I have no other comments with respect to this application. Any comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the stipulation that the upper platform and seating associated with it be moved three feet landward, and that a new plan showing that -- actually, the plan doesn't show the bluff. That should be fine. If they simply move the upper platform three feet landward, should be fine. So moved. 'TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Stuart Narofsky, AIA on behalf of ADRIENNE LANDAU requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7123 to bring the Board of Trustees 8 September 19, 2012 grade level around the deck to 18" below the deck level and plant shrubbery and bushes on,its perimeter; eliminate two staircases at the back of the house and perimeter deck railing; install stepping stones at rear deck; and a protection fence at the east and west sides of the rear deck as well as at the south side. Located: 855 Soundview Ave., Mattituck. The CAC moved to support this application. The LWRP determined it is consistent. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? (No response). Any comments from the Board? MS. HULSE: The violation is still pending. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The violation is still pending on that? MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: The violation has not been cleared up on that yet? MS. HULSE: No. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing counsel's statement I make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: By the way, folks, Lori Hulse is our legal advisor tonight. She is getting here a little late, but she is here. TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Richard Baldwin on behalf of U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit— ORIENT HARBOR -to repair/rehabilitate approx. 400 linear feet of existing bulkhead which surrounds an existing jetty, and approx. 300 linear feet of seaward-facing existing bulkhead located to the west of the marina entrance. Provide safer navigation conditions for vessels entering the marina by extending the existing jetty by approx. 45'. The work will include the following along the 300 linear feet of bulkhead to the west of the marina entrance; 1) replacement of the existing wale; 2) replacement of existing tiebacks/anchors, as needed; 3) emplacement of approx. 300 linear feet of filter stone/splash pad directly landward of the existing bulkhead; 4) repair of existing steel cap, as needed; and 5) emplacement of approx. 270 linear feet of revetment stone along the seaward face of the existing bulkhead. The work along the approx. 400 linear feet of jetty will include the following: 1) replacement of the existing wales, tiebacks and upper portion (e.g. above mean low water of the deteriorated steel bulkhead and/or depending on their condition, in-kind replacement of steel sheet piles on an as-needed basis; 2) installation of filter stone/splash pad interior of the jetty; - and 3) emplacement of revetment stone only on the seaward faces of the existing bulkhead, to include lengthening the existing jetty by approx. 45' (including a seven-pile dolphin with red navigation light installed just off of the jetty). Establish coastal plantings in the .82 acre vacant parcel directly Board of Trustees 9 September. 19, 2012 landward of the bulkhead. ORIENT POINT - Install approx. 230 linear feet of revetment stone along the south-facing shoreline and approx. 400 linear feet of revetment stone along the north-facing shoreline (for a total of 630 linear feet of materials to be emplaced) all above MLW. Utilize revetment stone to stabilize the utilities where they "daylight" on the eastern tip of Orient Point and enter Plum Gut; or redirect and bury the utility lines such that they run offshore, parallel and north of Orient Point, then make landfall and continue sub-grade to an existing sub-station. Located: 40550 Route 25, 41425 Route 25 & 3250 & 3380 Point Road, Orient and Orient Point. This is found to be consistent with the LWRP. Use a silt boom if necessary. Where practicable. The CAC supports the application and recommends a vegetated, non-turf buffer along the parking lot. This is, I think, on the second one. (Perusing). Yes, this is on the second one. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. BALDWIN: My name is Richard Baldwin, on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. I represent the applicant. I work with Apex Companies, LLC, with offices located.in Bohemia,New York, 120 Wilbur Place #D, in Bohemia New York. We have the plans here, I have the design team, so we are here to answer any questions that the Board may have. TRUSTEE KING: We went out to the site and we had kind of a little guided tour, so we don't have a lot of questions to ask about it. I think we did have one suggestion, but I don't see it in the notes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the boat basin we are looking at. MR. BALDWIN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: On the splash pad, the western portion, we suggested it be extended all the way west of that return, because there seems to be an erosion problem there, and to stop short with a splash pad, I think it would be a better job of it to continue west of that return that runs north and south. And possibly, the return is not in very good shape, you might consider replacing that return. And I think other than that, those were the only comments we had. It was pretty straightforward. As far as the vegetated buffer, if it was just left natural, so I don't think it's necessary to plant it up with anything. Just leave it alone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Would the applicant be willing to include in here the replacement of that return that is on the western end of the property? MR. BALDWIN: We would have to, we would certainly consider it and get back to the Board. We have to discuss it with the owners. TRUSTEE KING: I think what we could do is just put these in as recommendations on the project., If they can do it, do it. If they can't, well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, then he can come back for an amendment to the permits later if you want to, and add the return on. MR. BALDWIN: Sure. Board of Trustees 10 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the extension on the splash pad. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The concern for that, obviously there is another owner to the bulkhead to the west, and should that bulkhead fail without a return there, you'll experience, you know, an extensive loss of property there. So it's just to protect the government's property, I guess. Our property. MR. BALDWIN: Taxpayers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody else? Board? MR. MINETTI: My name is Joseph Minetti. We own the property that is directly adjacent to the substation at Orient Point. First, just had a question. What you were just referring to, is that in Orient Harbor or-- TRUSTEE KING: This is where the facility is, not at the end of the island. MR. MINETTI: Is there any discussion or will there be any further discussion regarding what will be done at the end of the island? It seems they are both -- - TRUSTEE KING: That's next under Wetland, I believe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that's this one. MR. MINETTI: Or is it sort of a separate part of this? TRUSTEE KING: This is included in this? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, I stand corrected. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Did you have some comments related to that one? MR. MINETTI: Just that certainly we would be in support of any placement of revetment stone there. We have been in, our family has owned the property for 50 years. And we have noticed quite a bit of erosion. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like it got beat up pretty good. MR. MINETTI: On the south side, yes. And that's really the only comments we have at this point. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make.a motion to approve the application, and in the event that they do decide to extend that splash pad and replace the return, we could do that as an administrative amendment to this permit, and it won't.require any hearings or anything like that. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Karen A. Hoeg, Esq., on behalf of EVAN & BARBARA BELL requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the removal of the existing gazebo which is not to be replaced; Board of Trustees 11 September 19, 2012 permit the existing dwelling, existing deck, existing hot tub, existing timber bulkhead, existing timber stairs, existing 17'x9' timber deck at the base of the stairs, and existing 8'2"x5'4"x5'6" timber deck at top of bluff; and permit general maintenance of same. Located: 1055 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be inconsistent due to the fact that the Town Code says platforms associated with stairs can't be more than 32-square foot. And on this property there was 153-square foot deck. And then also a 45-square foot deck and a gazebo out near the bluff. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that runoff is controlled by the northeast corner of dwelling by installing drywells. And the runoff of the deck is addressed. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. HOEG: Good evening, Karen Hoeg, I'm attorney with Twomey, Latham, Shea, I'm an agent for the applicant Evan and Barbara Bell. The Bell's recently purchased this property in August of this year, and the instant application is to request a Trustees permit for all of the existing structures and to permit general maintenance of the same. All structures are believed to have been in existence for over 20 years. The house was built in the early 1970s and overlooks the Long Island Sound. The timber bulkhead runs across the width of the property and the neighboring property to the west is also bulkheaded. The coastal erosion hazard line runs through the rear of the property as set. forth on the file survey. As you can see from the photographs that we submitted, the bluff is very stable and is heavily vegetated. The timber bulkhead and walkway have had a positive effect of promoting the growth of vegetation and reducing bluff erosion. The top of the bluff is also heavy revegetated. In regard to the filed application, my clients have recently changed their minds on the gazebo. They now wish to keep it in its current existing location. I would like to respectfully request that the Board, if we can move forward tonight on amending the application to include keeping the existing gazebo. Aerial photographs of the Suffolk County Clerk's website shows the gazebo has been there since at least 2001 and appears to have been there in 1984. The gazebo is not set on a foundation and as you know is seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. In reviewing the application that was submitted I noted too that the masonry patio should also be included in the application, since we were trying to legalize all existing structures, as they have been there for such a long time. And realize that was inadvertently omitted. I have some aerial photographs going back to 2001 and 1984 from the Suffolk County Clerk's website, if the Board would like to see them, to see the structures have been there for that period of time. Would you Board of Trustees 12 September 19, 2012 like to see the photographs? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. MS. HOEG: This is 2001. And this is not a great copy, but it's from 1984. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. All right, I just want to make sure you are done with your presentation. MS. HOEG: I am. If you have any questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, obviously on the original application, as you said, the application is for the removal of the gazebo. Now what you are asking for is an amendment of that description; you want to keep the gazebo where it is. MS. HOEG: Yes. I think once my clients took ownership of the property they realized how nice it-was to have the gazebo there. So they had contacted me about a week or two ago and asked me if it's something we can either amend the application at the hearing or if we need to amend, we could do it at the next hearing at a later date separately. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The challenge this Board has is that we have to, when we are considering permits we have to consider the Town Code as currently exists or currently stands. And the code does not allow in coastal hazard zones, does not allow for structures to be seaward of the coastal zone line. So this gazebo is not something, as I understand it, that we, under code, could even allow to permit in, in its current location. What we had talked about out in the field was the opportunity to move that gazebo back on to what is labeled as the masonry patio, which I know you are now asking to also include in this application tonight,, which we would be willing to do. Part of that masonry patio, it should be noted, is also seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. So what we would consider is the approval of that gazebo, but moving that gazebo back on to that patio so it is landward of the coastal erosion hazard line. So that is one issue, the gazebo. We have the same challenge with the wooden deck associated with stairs. The current code says no more than 32-square feet. And what is there is larger than that. I have a feeling on that that I'll reserve until I hear public comment on. But those are the challenges that we have. Now, you heard the Conservation Advisory Council also address issues with regard to drainage from the patio. MS. HOEG: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And under 236 Town Code all water must, runoff water, must remain on your property. So I would just ask that your client be aware of 236 and recommend that they install something to contain or to address any water runoff from that masonry patio. Because it is a very large patio, so that it stays on the property and doesn't go next door onto the adjoining property. MS. HOEG: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I would like to do now is see if there is anybody else who would like to make any comment regarding this J Board of Trustees 13 September 19, 2012 application. (No response). Any comment from the Board members? TRUSTEE KING: Lori just brought up a point that was advertised as removal of the gazebo and now it will be remaining. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I thought of that also. The challenges we get into that with that is when we advertise something, once it comes in, it's advertised that way and noticed to adjoining property owners. So right now the adjoining property owners are under the impression this application is for the removal of the gazebo. So eventually, what I was going to get to with this, is if the applicant does wish to amend the application to keep the gazebo, we are going to have to table this tonight so that can be, an appropriate application can be turned into the office and so that notification can be given to the adjoining property owners, as required under the code. MS. HOEG: Right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other suggestion for consideration from the Board regarding the deck that I have is, you know, the code says it has to be 32-square feet. So one option is that it is required to be downsized to 32-square feet. Another option for consideration could be if it ever has to be replaced, it would then have to meet Town Code. Those are just two options I throw on the table for discussion. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge issue with that deck down behind the bulkhead. Because it's really not, to me it's not a part of the wooden walkway. The wood walk ends at that deck and we have a lot of them and we have approved a lot of those decks behind bulkheads. The upper deck I would say cut off the easterly section of it to bring it into code. But I didn't have a huge problem with the lower deck. And as far as the gazebo goes, I think we all felt pretty strongly that should be moved down to the northeast corner of the patio, and maybe that's what they should apply for, is not to remove the gazebo or not to keep it but to keep it and move it landward of the coastal erosion hazard line; I think would be the proper way to submit an application on that. Rather than just say well let's keep the gazebo and then we'll have to argue the point where it should be moved to. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: I think that will simplify the process here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: So I would recommend we table it with those suggestions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to remind about the drywells, along the eastern boundary of the property, the runoff from the gutters leads directly on to the neighbor's property, and that has to be addressed also. TRUSTEE KING: There needs to be a drywell two take care of that runoff problem. MS. HOEG: Is that the east side of the property? Board of Trustees 14 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. We noted a tree had been cut down there and so even with the existing vegetation being removed, you are even going to have more opportunity for a runoff issue. MS. HOEG: Would you like me to amend the permit to include the drywel Is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. I would suggest going back to your client and having a discussion to include the relocation of the gazebo, the comment Jim made about the deck that is adjacent to the gazebo, to bring that into code, 32-square feet, and then some type of drywell system to address the runoff issue. With that I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing under Wetland and..Coastal Erosion Permits, number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ANDREAS &YULA SERPANOS request a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 100' of 1 to 3 ton rock revetment; re-contour top edge of bank; provide 1' high by 3' wide berm and a 5' wide non-turf buffer; re-vegetate area with Rosa Rugosa, Bayberry, etc.; backfill existing heavily eroded area of slope landward of revetment with clean trucked-in fill, approximately 300 cubic yards, and re-grade; terrace slope and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass. Located: 19105 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This project has been visited'by the Trustees twice. The second field inspection to confirm staking. It's consistent with the Town's LWRP, and the Conservation Advisory Council supports approval of this application. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello, with Costello Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Mr. Serpanos. If there are any questions, you can see they made several attempts in the past to try a softer, more economical approach by terracing and planting, and due to some of the severe storms we had in recent years it didn't seem to working without a toe protection. That's why we make this application. Without toe protection, I don't believe any soft approach would work at that location. And he doesn't want to go for the bulkhead, but he does like the rock revetment. TRUSTEE KING: Access by barge, John? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The whole Board looked at it. I believe we had no issue with the revetment construction whatsoever. Just two issues came up during the discussion during the field inspection. The stairs there are heavily dilapidated and might be impacted by construction. The question was, was there an intent to include language in the application to replace those stairs in the same form as they are, or-- MR. COSTELLO: One of the reasons he took the softest approach Board of Trustees 15 September 19, 2012 and tried to do it with the terracing was the economics of it. And what we told him is he's going to have to do minimal maintenance on the stairs, as of now. And he doesn't want to do anything until after he, first of all, until he gets the rock revetment put in and he pays us. And I want to make sure that that happens, too. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was stated clearly. Okay, the Trustees felt that the offer to provide a berm for this particular physical layout here may not be necessary, because of a natural slope away from the bluff. We didn't know if there was a particular reason to have the berm.-We felt that the natural physiography of the land would suffice, and we were going to suggest a ten-foot buffer in lieu of a five-foot buffer and a berm. MR. COSTELLO: I believe the owner would satisfactorily go with that. But we'll still try to put, no matter what, we'll try to bring in, putting the buffer in there, we would bring in enough topsoil so there is a slight berm. I mean no big structure, but if we brought in a few yards of topsoil, have the water flow back in there, that's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments from the Board? (No response). Anyone else wish to speak for or against the application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted subject to the requirement of a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. And the recommendation that the berm be, what we would term, the recommendation would be removing of the, voluntarily, I don't think we felt it would be needed at this point. The berm be optional. That it be a requirement of the permit to have a ten-foot, non-turf buffer. I would move that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE DOMINO: Wetland Permits, number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of U.S. DEPT. OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PLUM ISLAND ANIMAL DISEASE CENTER requests a Wetland Permit for the installation of a new ferry landing ramp and restoration of the ferry landing bulkhead facilities; restoring the east wharf by replacing the existing anchor/tie-back system and installing steel sheet piling immediately in front of ("oversheeting") the existing bulkhead for the easterly 120LF or so, with a new tie-back system; a new pile supported hinged vehicle ramp will be installed in the existing ferry slip east of the main ramp Board of Trustees 16 September 19, 2012 used by the "MV Plum Island` existing fill (approximately 3,000 cubic yards) will be removed to make way for the new anchor system and replaced upon completion of the anchors; this work will be landward of.the high tide line and high water lines. Located: Ferry Terminal at Plum Island. -The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted in favor of this application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. NIELSON: Good evening, my name is Keith Nielson with Docko, Inc., and we prepared the application documents before you tonight. Included with those application documents was a fairly extensive narrative that addressed the description of the work, the proposed construction methodology and the various issues raised by the LWRP and the SEQRA, and our application and our opinion is completed and fairly thorough in regard to all of these issues. In order to help visualize the project, I have prepared this board and would like to say, first of all, that the existing site, basically, is a bulkheaded shorefront. This represents the east half of the harbor at Plumb Island and there is an existing hinged ramp for loading vehicles on to the ferry used at Plumb Island, and that is this section of the project right here in the northwesterly corner of the east harbor. . What is needed right now this stretch of bulkhead is one of the oldest sections of bulkhead in the harbor. We did a pretty detailed analysis of it a year-and-a-half ago and found some areas that were worn, needed to be bolstered, and now the facility has the budget to replace them or restore them, and that's the purpose of this project. So the bulkhead in this section here over to the midsection of this dogleg is going to be over-sheeted with steel sheathing. And a second ramp is going to be installed. This will also be capable of serving the Plumb Island. Because the existing ramp well is set in pretty tight configuration for the existing bulkhead, we feel that this ramp would be too short to be re-utilized in the project at this location. So a new hinged ramp will be installed here. This ramp will be installed over at the new hinged ramp, the new ferry landing, because we can move this ramp well closer to the new bulkhead face. And that way we'll be able to save Plumb Island some money make use of existing facilities. These ramps are very heavy duty and there would be no reason to throw this thing out. So it's, this is a good reuse of the existing materials. You can see also that part of the project is a new sheet pile anchor tieback wall for the new.bulkhead. We have quite a bit of soil load on the existing bulkhead. The water depth is about 15 feet, and the bulkhead is about eight feet above the water surface. So we have a total height of about 22 feet of structural support provided by this, and we need a tieback system. The utilities and ground infrastructure for the site, Board of Trustees 17 September 19, 2012 for that part of the harbor, will all be relocated to accommodate the new ramp, and basically when this project is finished, the new bulkhead will be within a couple of feet of the face of the existing bulkhead. And the other facilities, including the timber dock for some of the lighter access vessels and such will remain in place, but there will be a new set of piles lining racks into both of the ferry slips, as part of the project. If have you any questions or comments, I would be happy to answer them, and otherwise we respectively request your approval. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any questions. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No questions. TRUSTEE KING: We didn't get a chance to go look at it, but you have explained it pretty well. MR. NIELSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any further comments from the Board? (No response). We reviewed this and found it to be straightforward. I make a motion that we close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to we approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of ROBERT WILLIAMS requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 265 linear feet of existing bulkhead using vinyl sheathing with two (2) proposed 8' returns; remove existing platform, ramp and float and replace with a new 6'x6' platform, a 3'x14' aluminum ramp and a 6'x20' timber floating dock. Located: 706 Wiggins Lane, Greenport. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. It will require the installation of a silt boom where practicable during construction. Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the non-turf buffer is increased to a total of ten feet. And it did not appear to be a notice of hearing sign posted on the property. I think we found a sign but it was up in the property, rather than forward. Is there any here on speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of Robert Williams. We are in agreeance with the ten-foot non-turf buffer. I'll amend the plans for you and send you new copies. With regard to the sign placement, we did have the sign up. It was on the light pole. There is really no road frontage to this house. It's in the middle of the woods. So we put it up as best we could, and Board of Trustees 18 September 19, 2012 Elizabeth had certified the posted mailing that I sent. One item on the plan we would like to adjust or have your consideration for would be the floating dock. Mr. Williams' boat is 46-foot long. It's a big boat, as you know, you were out there and you saw it. When the wind comes out of the north it really rips down there. A 20-foot float as.proposed is not going to be sufficient for him, and he won't be able to utilize his own backyard for his boat, which is the intended purpose for his bulkhead and his floating dock. We would like to ask for permission to keep the existing 8x50 float that is currently there on the property, up until the point that it needs to be replaced. As Mr. Williams told you, it's approximately 20-years old and it's going to be reaching its useful'life soon and at that time we can re-visit a sizing of the float. TRUSTEE KING: We had talked about that in the field with the applicant. MR. PATANJO: Yes. We are okay with removing the float that is to the south, which is approximately 40x6'. But we really need the 8x50', if it's agreeable. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about possibly moving that little platform further to the north. MR. PATANJO: Further to the north? TRUSTEE KING: On to the larger float, make it a little smaller and make it a little closer to the big float. Those are what we discussed. MR. PATANJjO: The location of the platform is straight out of his door. Would it be agreeable to move the float closer to the south? TRUSTEE KING: Six of one, half dozen of another. MR. PATANJjO: Okay, great. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had a real issue with it. Even though exceeds the code, it's been there. This whole canal, there are a lot of large floats there. We would just stipulate when this reaches the end of its useful life that it's replaced with a 6x20. MR. PATANJjO: We agree. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Any other comments? Board comments? MR. COSTELLO: I have a couple comments. This is a narrow channel way up into that creek. That creek was privately dredged at one time, and the bottom of the entire canal was privately owned. TRUSTEE KING: It's still private now, right? MR. COSTELLO: Portions of it are. Most of it has been sold to the property owners that are adjacent to the canal. To the middle of the canal. So one person does not obstruct another person. That was the purpose of it. And a lot of these parcels were small, given that, to the middle of the channel. But unfortunately over a period of time, period of years, people have just obstructed the channel way to some degree. I think it is almost totally built out now, so, you know, the obstruction aspect of it is minimized. But the bottom of the canal, there Board of Trustees 19 September 19, 2012 are sections of it that are privately owned. TRUSTEE KING: Do you feel this is obstructing navigation? MR. COSTELLO: I have not seen it lately, but it is certainly bigger than necessary. TRUSTEE KING: It's tight. MR. COSTELLO: It is tight. I have navigated through there, in hurricanes, with a barge. You know, I have a bulkhead with no float at it, and on occasion I have taken a barge in there and tied up in hurricane circumstances. And it's difficult. And, you know, everybody has boats and everybody has normally bigger boats and it certainly becomes an obstruction. I would hate to run into anybody and do any damage, but let me tell you, it's a narrow canal. That's all. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? (No response). I'll make a motion to.close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve this application with some modifications: That the ten-foot, non-turf buffer behind the bulkhead; the existing 50x8' foot float that the boat is tied to now will remain and be moved closer to the ramp and platform to the south; and the other float to the south of the little platform will be completely removed. So the only thing, you'll have the one float there with the platform with the ramp down to it. And I think that's it. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With a condition that in the future should that float have to be replaced, it would have to come into code. TRUSTEE KING: When it reaches the end of its useful life and has to be replaced, it will be replaced with a 6x20' float to meet the current code. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JANE & JOHN INGRILLI requests a Wetland Permit to redesign previously approved rock revetment to 105' of 1.5 to 3 ton rock low profile revetment; re-grade slope landward and re-vegetate area with Cape American beach grass. Located: 10375 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however they did not appear to see a notice of hearing sign posted on the property. I did go out on behalf of the Board and looked at this application. Is there anybody here to speak behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Again, my name is John Costello. Costello Marine Contracting is making the application for Jane and John Ingrelli. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. There are a couple of questions I have. One, is access. How is access going to be gained to this, to do Board of Trustees 20 September 19, 2012 this job? .MR. COSTELLO- The access, we have two choices of access. Presently, we can probably obtain or get access and permission from the adjoining property owner to the south. She has not completed the entire revetment that was approved by this Board. And there is an access way with a couple of trees that were replanted in it. That is one access. The other access is the road end. The Highway Department has given permission, the original rocks that were brought in, the Highway Department allowed to bring those rocks in at the road end and restore whatever damage was done. Recently, another job was completed with access from the Highway Department with the same condition that make sure that you restore and bring in whatever damage is done, restore. And it was. A rock revetment was built to the north and permitted by this Board and restored. Those are the two options. Preferably, I would like to try use the road end. The road end needs a lot of attention, and any attention that we gave to the road end would probably improve the road end. And the water runoff that is occurring there, that was something that goes out right on to some concrete and it is exacerbating some erosion at the road-end and it would be temporarily corrected. Temporarily. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, with regard to the road end, that road end was really eaten up in Irene. Trees were there, fell down. Whatever you want to call the drainage system was there, fell apart. The town came in and all they did is repaired the stairs for access from that road end, since it's a town beach. But it's extremely steep and I think it would be a real challenge to use for this project. I'm not saying that it could not be done with adjustments made to the road end, and this Board would require you to work with the Highway Department if that was going to be the access to make sure that it was, improvements were made so it were safe for your work to be done. And that also it would be fill brought in to try to address the angle of repose that is there now. I know previously when it had been used there had been an attempt to vegetate with American beach grass, it didn't take, and what was there fell apart in Irene. So I just, I'm concerned about that, you know, for the safety and security of you and your personnel using that road end in its current state, and also the fact that it's in extreme disrepair right now. MR. COSTELLO: It is. But I'll tell you, after Irene it was a job done by Latham. He had did have access and permission from the Highway Department to go through there. And he did bring in some fill, which you'll see, and he took the piece of out, repaired the fence and put fill down, and much of the fill is already lost because of the drainage at the road end. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. MR. COSTELLO: He was not going to correct the drainage there, but my recommendation probably to the owner would be any access rocks that he had onsite, if he could leave them there for the Highway Department, it would certainly help the condition that exists. Board of Trustees 21 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. And this road end has been on the Trustees' list for years for the town to address. And for whatever reason it doesn't migrate anywhere near the top of the list. It gets a tremendous amount of runoff from the hill coming down Nassau Point Road and it goes direct discharge into the bay. And, you know, it is not the responsibility of this applicant to address what is a town problem. The other issue that we had was the deck that is presently there is a 10x20 foot deck, as depicted on your plans. The deck that was approved by this Board was an 8x20 foot deck. So the deck that is there is larger than what was approved. So that challenge has to be addressed:The project itself looks like a very straightforward project. MR. COSTELLO: The objection that the owner had to it at one time was underneath the deck and whatnot, it was approved, underneath the deck he's trying to keep fill placed upon the rocks in perpetuity. Perpetuity is longer than I'm going to.live, but that was difficult to go in there, you know, after rainstorm and whatnot, because it will wash off. It will wash off in a storm and that is why, he wanted to construct it properly with a better footing dug into the beach, and all the fill that was there -- when you displace fill with rocks, you have excess fill. The excess fill would be put on stop of the rocks and behind it and revegetated. Behind it, the beach grass will survive, and if there is any additional excess fill, you know, it would only be if the Highway Department allowed me, it would certainly be beneficial to the town to try get it next door and planted. But, you know, sand is good for the beach grass but the gravel and the hardpan that they brought in, Latham brought in and two other companies brought in, in the past, when it washes out, it washes out into the bay and it is not a good thing. Because it's half top soil, half rocks and gravel. Not something that is too environmentally pleasing. But as far as addressing the deck, if that's what was permitted, I think the owner should be aware of that and cut it back. Simple. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Was there anybody else who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Wasn't that supposed to be an 8x20? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 8x20. But it's 10x20. TRUSTEE KING: Doesn't seem like a huge issue tome. Can we include an as-built approval of the deck in this application? It was necessary to build it that way in the beginning. Either that or administrative amendment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you see any issues with the deck, Dave? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, I had no issues with the deck, other than it was out of compliance with the permit. But no, I would not have a problem with including the as-built deck. If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Board of Trustees 22 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Jane and John Ingrilli with the.condition of the inclusion of the as-built deck for 10x20, and that should access be via the town road, then an appropriate agreement be made with the Highway Department and appropriate bond be put up to cover that agreement. Those are my conditions. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number four, James V. DeLucca, R.A. on behalf of MARY HUETTERMOSER requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing wood bulkhead with vinyl sheet bulkhead with approximately 4.5' penetration into the soil after maintenance dredging; maintenance dredging with the removal of approximately 45 cubic yards of material in front of the proposed replacement bulkhead 10' out to a depth,of-3.75'; dredged material will be spread on front yard of existing site. Located: 2235 Cedar Lane, East Marion. This application has been deemed consistent with the Town's LWRP with specific,recommendations that a silt boom be employed during all construction phases, and that an alternate site for the dredge spoil be considered as the front yard will present practical problems. There is in the file two letters. One is a letter of permission from the homeowners association that is the owner of the underwater land. The Gardiner's Bay Estates Homeowners Association has granted permission for the activities on their property. The other is for a homeowner making specific reference to the notice they received, and I'll read the letter from the concerned individual. It indicates reference is made to public hearing scheduled for September 19th regarding property at 1135 Cedar Lane, East Marion. The subject concerns replacement of the existing wooden bulkhead with sheet bulkhead approximately four-and-a-half feet penetration into the soil for dredging. We find a discrepancy between the registered letter we received on September 11 and the posting on the property describing the project, namely the spread of dredge material on the front yard of the existing site. We have concerns regarding the spread of the dredge as it may compromise our quality of life, especially since we are full-time residents of East Marion. Item 1, the hearing does not detail the meets and bounds of the height of the dredge spread in the front yard. Two, will the dredge material be tested for pesticides, fertilizers mercury, lead and other carcinogens or contaminants. Number three, there are concerns about runoff and seepage of the sludge and how this will affect the environment, specifically, will the storm water runoff from the drainage of the road 1005 East Gillette Drive, be impacted. Please note the registered letter we received indicates an enclosure of a copy of.a sketch or plan. We did not Board of Trustees 23 September 19, 2012 receive an enclosure. Respectfully submitted T. and M. Toivonen. The Conservation Advisory Council had voted to support this application. The Trustees did visit the site and did notice some problems with the proposal and some concerns as how the project would carry out, specifically, the placement of the spoil in the front yard did not, was not substantially described to determine that it would not cause a problem with runoff or going out into the street or adjoining properties. There was a question of whether the applicant would be interested in matching the height of the bulkhead of the neighbor to the north or consistency and protecting the coastal zone. And we did note that limited areas were not in, already in pebbles or in concrete should probably have a minimum of a ten-foot non-turf. Although it's a fairly extensive list, it's actually a fairly straightforward project. The Trustees, I don't believe we had a problem with the dredging aspect per se and the activities and the waterfront and replace the bulkhead. But as I say, the concerns of the spoil did predominate. That all said, is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MS. SOROWITZ: I'm Susan Sorowitz, Community SSK Enterprises. I'm here on behalf of James DeLucca, who could not make it. The postings are given to Elizabeth and a letter signed and notarized by him stating I would represent.him and the owner. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: art of the discussion are our concerns about the dredge spoil. I think that the Board is really, I think we really are concerned, based on our field inspection and the impracticality of this front yard, and it mirrors the concerns of the LWRP coordinator. MS. SOROWITZ: Do you want another map looking where it's going to be changed to? Is that what you wish? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily, and correct me if I'm wrong, but ordinarily the permitting in these sorts of situations, the Trustees require disposal at an approved upland site. And it would not be on the property itself because of all the concerns that we -- MS. SOROWITZ: So you are stating you don't want that to be on the property, correct? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe it is the sentiment of the Board -- MS. SOROWITZ: So you want a letter to state where it's going to be placed? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be placed in an approved, upland site. TRUSTEE KING: I think that was the big concern of the Board, having dredge spoil trucked offsite. MS. SOROWITZ: Offsite..Got it. Anything else? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe that was fairly straightforward, unless there was any other member of the Board or anyone else who wishes to speak to the application. (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. Board of Trustees 24 September 19, 2012 MS. SOROWITZ: How many days are you going to give for this letter to come to you, a week or so or right away? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding if the Board were to --go ahead and approve the application, the permit, with conditions, if there was a requirement for a letter or, then the clerk would not grant the approval until, that we have a letter concerning that, and it was subject to approval of the president and the clerk. MS. SOROWITZ: Now, a letter would come to your Trustees office? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Correct. MS. SOROWITZ: That sounds like a plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application subject to the use of a silt boom during construction; the construction of a non-turf buffer for the those remaining turf areas for ten feet within the new bulkhead; and that all dredge materials from the maintenance dredging of this site be disposed of at an upland site, offsite. Offsite upland site. So moved. And with the recommendation that the applicant consider matching the height of the bulkhead to the north. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. SOROWITZ: Will this determination that you just stated now, will that come in a letter form stating -- of what you approved it with those in there prior to him agreeing to such? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: My understanding, as a rule not. You would respond with confirming you have the approved upland site. Correct me if I'm wrong. And a revised plan to show you would be disposing of it at an upland site. MS. SOROWITZ: Got it. Thank you, so much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry, the revised plan should show three things. If they chose to add the additional approximately eight to ten inches of the neighboring bulkhead is higher, it should include that. It should include the areas on the north and south, a small area there where they would have to have the ten-foot non-turf buffer,'and it should also include the language describing the dredge material will be moved to and offsite upland site. MS. SOROWITZ: Okay, so eight to ten foot includes,.and north and south ten foot turf buffer and dredge material offsite. Three things. Thank you, so much. Have a blessed evening. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're welcome. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of RICHARD DOWNING & JANET ENGELS requests a Wetland Board of Trustees 25 September 19, 2012 Permit to replace the existing foundation; new additions; replace existing 2nd floor; expand rear porch; re-side; new roof; new exterior openings; alterations; replace decking; railing; repair bluff stairs; re-side and re-roof shed and garage; new septic and drywells; new fencing at rear. Located: 1280 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application with the suggestion of a 30-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the top of the bank. There is a letter in the file received September 17, from Jane A. Nelson. Basically the letter supports the plans. It lists four questions, points that should be clarified. Number one, the line measurement on the eastern side of the boundary does not match her survey. She questions the placement of the generator. The third item is she is questioning, because of the closeness of the property lines, the placement of any debris. And the forth item questions the need to trespass on her property. The Board went out and reviewed this application and our comments were that the shed should not be a habitable structure, that there is no electricity or plumbing to the shed. Other than that, it was found to be fairly straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect to the project. I did have a conversation with Mrs. Nelson and we went over those items. The owners are also going to discuss with her the options to do the best we can, once we get going with this, to keep debris off the property and stay off the property. So that will be addressed by owner to owner. And we also need to, on the 4th, we'll be in front of the Zoning Board, I'm sure those issues will come up again. You may know, we had a permit to demolish the existing house and rebuild a new one pretty much in the same location, but just a little different situation. We decided to alter that, that design. Now it's more of a significant demolition and additions and alterations, but kind of using some of the existing foundation that is there now. But we are still going to do a new septic system and drywells and the standard requirements. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there gone anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I had, in the field, I had a concern for the shed. And that the shed is, I know, a pre-existing structure. It's probably been there 30, 40 years. It's been there a very long time. But given its proximity to the wetlands, it's immediately adjacent to the wetlands, for myself, that was the only part of this project I had a concern about. And I'm just speaking for myself, I'm not comfortable approving this project with the inclusion of the shed because I just think it's too close to the wetlands, and l think what will happen is, it will be Board of Trustees 26 September 19, 2012 completely resided and new roofing and probably new windows. It will be rebuilt and it will be a rebuilt structure that we are now permitting, extremely close to the wetlands. That's just my, I'm just speaking for myself. MR. SCHWARTZ: Well, there is a CO for that structure from the Building Department. And we, the plan was to reside and reuse it, just so, we are not going to rip it down and rebuild it. Probably put a new piece of plywood on the floor because it's pretty rickety. But it's just strictly for storage. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion we approve this application as submitted.. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Discussion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Go ahead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any conditions on that shed in your motion? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I stand corrected. Trustee Bergen is right. I make a motion that we approve this application with the condition that the shed not become a habitable structure. No electricity or plumbing. MR. DOWNING: I'm Richard Downing, the homeowner. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, the public hearing is closed to comment. We have taken comment already. We are in a motion on the floor to be voted on. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee Bergen, nay). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm a no. Just because of the shed. Again, the rest of the project, I have no problem with whatsoever. TRUSTEE KING: Number six, En-Consultants on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE, INC. requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 294 linear feet of low-sill vinyl bulkhead (including +/-34' and +/- 15' returns) along shoreline of eroding embankment; dredge approximately 600 cubic yards of sand/silt spoil from existing +/-5,620 square foot basin area, including area of Phragmites at head of basin, to a maximum depth of-4'MLW (-3'MSL); place approximately 91 cubic yards of spoil in un-vegetated area behind proposed low-sill bulkheading for planting with Spartina alterniflora (12" o.c.) to create approximately 2,195 square feet of intertidal marsh; and place remaining spoil, approximately 509 cubic yards, in spoil disposal area in existing pervious parking area to east of basin. At head of basin, construct +/-59 linear feet of high-sill bulkhead, including a +/-33' primary section that will front and support a proposed 20'x26' concrete boat launch (with 4'x12' steel pad) and +/-14' and +/-12' seaward sections on each Board of Trustees 27 September 19, 2012 side of basin that will tie into +/-7' sloped sections of wall to connect and transition the high-sill bulkhead into the proposed low-sill bulkheading; and construct two (2) 12' angled landward returns off ends of+/-33' primary section. Along seaward side of low-sill bulkheading, install S wide service staging floats with a total length of 242 linear feet; two (2) irregularly shaped landing floats, each approximately 5' to 6' wide and 13' to 14'long; and two (2) 3'x15' ramps. (These floats will not allow for the expansion of the marina use because they will not provide any permanent docking space for customer boats but only for temporary staging activities associated with the preparation and servicing of customer boats prior to launch and delivery to the customer for use). To facilitate installation of the proposed boat launch, relocated existing 10'x17' shed a minimum distance of 75' from wetlands and relocate an approximately 10' wide section of existing boat racks from west end of boat racks to east end of boat racks. Located: 2402 Camp Mineola Road Ext., Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP, and all intertidal construction and excavation requires installation of a silt boom. And that would be used in areas where it's practicable. The Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application and recommends a detailed study of the impacts this project will have on-the environment and surrounding areas. The study should be conducted by an independent consultant. Those are the recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Council. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. HERMAN: Yes. Rob Herman of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant Strong's Marine. This is an involved project, so I'll give a brief presentation to the Board. As Jim noted in the beginning of the meeting, I'll keep it less than five minutes. This is a project that Strong's Marine has been considering and evaluating probably for more than ten years. Currently when customers request their dry dock boats, a.forklift must pick up the boat from a rack located on the north side of the marina, adjacent to the basin that is the subject to our application, and transport it 300 to 400 feet through the customer parking. lot, across pedestrian traffic and to the launch pad located on the south side of the marina, creating safety concerns with the marina, noise issues for neighboring properties and certainly a lot of wasted fuel. By establishing a temporary service staging area in the basin adjacent to the racks and establishing a new launch pad at the head of the basin, a remedy will be provided for all those concerns. Also occurring at the same time is the gradual and chronic erosion of the shoreline which forms the basin, which is evidenced by the shoaling and narrowing of the basin itself as well as the shoaling of the outside navigational of James Creek, which is used by the public. Therefore, an ideal and arguably rare opportunity presents itself for both private and public Board of Trustees 28 September 19, 2012 interest and benefit are simultaneously provided, as a low sill bulkhead can be constructed along the shorelines forming a size of the basin to, (a) stem the erosion of shorelines, and thus both make the basin usable for the proposed service staging area and provide the peripheral benefit of reduced shoaling of the adjacent public waterway. And (b), allowing for the establishment of over 2,100 square feet of intertidal marsh where no vegetated wetlands currently exist, an obvious environmental benefit, and a benefit to the Town under the Town's wetland law. As the marina would have no financial incentive to invest in the erosion control and wetland creation without the ability to establish the docking area, the project definitely represents the rare occasion where a private property owner is incentivized to improving environmental conditions for the benefit of all. It is worth noting in that regard that since we introduced this concept to the Board nearly a year ago, when we met the Board at the site, the marina's original design called for wider by 15-foot center area, to maximize use of the basin. Enduring more than ten months of design with myself and with Jeff Butler, the project engineer, who is also with us tonight, the design is ultimately modified to provide the minimum use of the basin for the staging activities for the marina, that would still make the project worthwhile for them while maximizing the area for marsh habitat creation, thus providing greatest public benefit at the same time. A true compromise. And because the project not only enhances town wetlands, but also enhances the safety and efficiencies in existing established water dependent use, the project has the added virtue of being consistent with the goals of the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. So we are quite happy to see that the LWRP coordinator agrees with our position in his recommendation to the Board that the project be deemed consistent. All the design and construction specifications of the project are detailed in the engineering plan by Jeff Butler. If the Board has any specific questions in that regard, we are here to address them. I did want to mention for the record that the an additional tax map number should have been added to the application because the marina is basically broken into two tax map numbers. So the north side of the property is district 1000, section 122, block 4, lot 44.2. And because of the addition of that second tax lot, there was one neighbor who got a short notice, which was Ernest Wilsberg, who is adjacent to this piece, but we sent that by certified mail, also by Fed Ex. Jeff Strong spoke to Mr. Wilsberg's son and we did get a green card back already, which I handed up to Liz, along with the overnight mail receipt. If the board does have any other questions, again, we are certainly happen to respond to them. Jeff Strong and others are also here to support the,application. And if you have any questions from any of us, again, we are here to answer them Board of Trustees 29 September 19, 2012 TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Is there anyone else here to speak on this application? MR. WILSBERG: James Wilsberg. I just want to know if the neighbors adjoining this project on Ole Jule Lane were notified? Opposite the basin. TRUSTEE KING: The people opposite here on the opposite side of the canal, were they noticed? MR. HERMAN: There are owners on the other side of James Creek who are not required legally to be noticed because they are not adjacent to the property. TRUSTEE KING: I think the code says adjacent property owners. MR. WILSBERG: They'll be affected. MR. HERMAN: Right. And to that point, Jeff Strong did go over personally, and Jeff will have to tell you who he actually spoke to, but those people on the opposite side of the water who were not required to receive a legal notice, Jeff went over there personally with a copy of the application, the information, photos and all that, to let them know what was going on. Because those are the people who, again, are across the water, so not an adjoining owner opposite the road, but they are opposite the basin. So they were notified directly. MR. WILSBERG: That's hard to believe. The traffic will be right in front of their property. The channel is only 50 feet wide. MS. HULSE: Sir, they are not legally required to provide that notice so it's really not relevant to this discussion. MR. HERMAN: Jeff, do you want to let them know, just who you did speak to? MR. STRONG: Jeff Strong, president of the property. I totally understand the concern. Um, it was brought to my attention that legally we did not need to notify those people but just because we tried to be a good neighbor, the two people who we think would most potentially be impacted by that concern that was expressed, was Edna Schiedel (sic), who is diagonally across, and Carla DeGredenza (sic), who directly across. Both of those people were met with by me twice. Once back almost a year ago when we met with the Trustees and the DEC to consider the possibility of the project and what might be some of the best ways to go about it. And then of recent, once we came up, you know, with having a more detailed information and plans. MR. WILSBERG: Okay, can I speak? My uncle owns property right across there also, Harold Wilsberg, was never spoke to. My father owns two other lots there that were sold and there is houses on them now. And my father, 65 years ago, had the foresight to buy the property across from those houses. It's 200 feet on what is called it, Strong's side, that he bought because he foresaw that someday that marina could come on around, which, okay, the basin, fine, to me. And I believe strongly in growth, but what will happen down the road is there will be floating docks coming down that whole creek right to my father's property. And that has to stop. I don't know what the limit is on the marina over there; a hundred slips, whatever it is. It's Board of Trustees 30 September 19, 2012 going to continue to grow. They added floating docks on the end of that property, where Mr. Kreh (sic) owned. You know, it's just a progressive thing that will happen here. We had a 25-foot right-of-way through that property, whatever happened to that? The boat racks are sitting on it. Taxpayers of Ole Jule Lane pay the taxes on that. If you add up the square footage, it's half an acre. 25 feet wide by a thousand feet long. And this property, I could show you, it has a 25-foot right-of-way to it that my father paid taxes on for 65 years, and I don't see accessibility to it. You see what I'm talking about, Mr. King? Can I show you? (Handing). And it's, they mistakenly showed it on their drawing here. I'm sure they didn't want to show it, but it's on there. If you look with a magnifying glass. This drawing here, on their drawing shows the right-of-way. TRUSTEE KING: This is the basin we are talking about now. MR. WILSBERG: Yes. (Inaudible). MS. HULSE: This is a public hearing. Everyone has to hear and Mr. Galante has to be able to take the.Minutes, sir MR. STRONG: If the Trustees would like, I could add some further information to those concerns. MS. HULSE: Just wait a second. I don't think he's finished. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to figure out where is this northerly tie line? Can you point that out? MR. STRONG: May I show you that? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. MR. STRONG: When the facility was rezoned back in 1995, and our neighbors were all involved in helping us get that done, so there were concerns by the neighbors and ourselves, they were making sure to be able to address the concerns Mr. Wilsberg has raised. So before I answer where the tie line is -- TRUSTEE KING: I see it now. I got the tie line. MR. STRONG: So it runs right to the very northerly edge of that - basin..And the reason why that was done is during part of the negotiations or give and take for our rezoning, and to address Mr. Wilsberg's concern, we had put in a stipulation, if I could just read that says: There shall be no dockage north of the northerly tie line of the property along the dredge canal. So as part of the deed and covenant, when we got the zone change, we gave up our right and ability to be able to do that. And we acknowledge that. It was acknowledged clearly here. TRUSTEE KING: You can only have dockage in this little basin. You can have no dockage in the creek north of this tie line. MR. STRONG: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: That clears some of it up. MR. WILSBERG: I have one other concern, if I could speak. The residential property of Mrs. Strong, which butts up to this property that my father owns, is being used for boat storage and trailers and everything else. The big concern over on Ole Jule Lane's side, it's an eyesore. He's, you know, I know what a marina is, with the shrink wrap and all that, and in the winter time of course the oak trees drop their leaves, and you are Board of Trustees 31 September 19, 2012 looking at shrink wrap. That's why none of the properties, especially one that just sold there, took two years to sell, and the guy gave it away, because nobody wants to look at it. I would suggest it would make people help if that whole line to the north side was bermed and you threw up some blue Spruce, 20 footers, just block the view of this, you know, you. know how tall those boat racks are. I don't know how they got there in the beginning, but it's an eyesore. TRUSTEE KING: I think the focus tonight is on this basin and I would like to stick to that. MR. WILSBERG: What about the right-of-way of 25 foot? How does that work out? MS. HULSE: It is not relevant to this hearing, sir. TRUSTEE KING: It's not relevant so what we are looking at tonight. MR. WILSBERG: It has to do with that property that is there to get accessibility. MS.. HULSE: It sounds like an civil matter, sir, and not properly for this Board of Trustees to consider tonight. MR. WILSBERG: All right. Well, my main concern was to make sure the marina doesn't keep coming down that creek. TRUSTEE KING: They are prohibited by that from this, with the zoning issue. MR. BURDEN: Rich Burden, 2800 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. I just wanted to know where this is exactly. Because maybe I don't understand it exactly. Because I was here the night, the doctor, the dentist from part of this town board, when they passed a law, I was under the impression it was going to be 50 or 25 feet wide and then when it finally came down to the vote it started at five feet and ran to 25 feet at one end. And there was, what happened was the racks were allowed, but there had to be an easement. And there were trees there. I mean, over the years, there were plenty of trees there. And Mr. Strong used to store all his floating docks down in that basin. Technically, illegally, the way I understood it, but they were there for the winter time, and then bought them back around and put them in their proper places. But that was supposed to be, maybe I'm wrong, Jeff, that was supposed to be kind of like a wild forever. You gave up the right to develop that when you gave, when we gave you the racks because it was five to 25 feet, I thought it was supposed to be, Dr. Luzuski (sic) it was supposed to be 25 feet wide the whole length of that piece, then when the vote actually came down he didn't realize he voted on 25 feet or 50 foot wide that ran to five feet. And that was supposed to be, for the racks, you gave up development on that side. That was the impression we got that night. So now we are coming back with something totally different that we are not aware of. But I remember the vote, because there were a lot of people there that night. And he's exactly right. If you go down there in the wintertime you look across the street or across the creek, you have three-story high boats all wrapped and shrinkwrapped. There were trees in front of that. Board of Trustees 32 September 19, 2012 Now there is gravel, it's all paved. I don't remember that being part of it either. MR. STRONG: I can shed some additional information if the Trustees so desire. TRUSTEE KING: It's really not relevant to the issue we are looking at tonight. MR. BURDEN: Okay, maybe if someone can just explain to me the part that we are talking about. Maybe I'm on the wrong piece. I'm thinking this is where it meets James Creek and comes back around. Is that right? MR. STRONG: If I could reiterate about the scenic easement that Mr. Burden has in question, if you would like. Just for clarity purposes of everybody. TRUSTEE KING: Bring it on. MR. BURDEN: Maybe I'm not aware of where it is. MR. STRONG: It's all right. I would rather have everybody know the facts. Most of what Mr. Burden illustrated, I agree with. So what was approved is the scenic easement that he was making reference to, which is made clear on either the east side and the west side of the property. And the purpose of the tie line being here was it was made clear during all of those conversations that these easements would remain. We would not be able to have dockage north of the northerly tie line, but it was our intent at some stage of the game to be able to maintain the use of that basin. So he is mostly correct in what he's saying that way. But not relative to where the project is. MR. BURDEN: So what we are really saying with that map is that he's going to pass through the part that he's not supposed to do, but he'll be behind it to do everything, but then he'll pass through that area that is supposed to be wild. That side was not supposed to be developed. That's really what it comes down to. Now we are using a technicality that there is a body of water that, for whatever reason, I don't remember it being that deep, just so you know, that that map shows. But now that is used. So now we'll drive the boats or craft or whatever we'll use it for, we'll drive through that section that is not supposed to be used. TRUSTEE KING: You mean for accessing? MR. BURDEN: Yes. There is a line there. A line technically ran across the water right there. So now you are saying that's a waterway. So technically that doesn't count. TRUSTEE KING: In looking at the plans, access, this will be bulkheaded on this south end of the that. MR. BIRD: I would have to look at it. I'm really not -- MR. HERMAN: Jim, I'll agree at this point we are getting off track. The language of the legal decision is clear. It reads, quote, that there shall be no dockage north of the northerly tie line of the property, parenthetically, along the dredge canal. a„ There is nothing that would prohibit anyone from the public or the marina from operating a boat in that waterway. We all went out together with the Trustees on.that waterway. So that point was negotiated by Jeff for the sole purpose of preserving his Board of Trustees 33 September 19, 2012 right to act within this basin south of that northerly tie line and forfeited the dockage outside. MR. BURDEN: That basin wasn't that big. TRUSTEE KING: It I,can just show you this. This is going to be bulkheaded across here. And this will be access coming in this way. They won't be coming in there from. Travel is coming in through here. This shed is being relocated over here, to get it out of the way of accessing here. And I believe one section of this rack will be removed so they can have access to this bulkhead for launching boats. MR. BURDEN: Okay. And then they'll proceed through a part that was supposed to be wild forever because there is not supposed to be bulkheading. So now we'll have boat traffic, which is not a problem, but this was supposed to be wild forever and now you are saying it's a waterway, so there will be free access. And the next thing you know there will be boats tied up here. TRUSTEE KING: From what I have seen of these drawings and what we see here, they are restricted from no dockage north of the tie line. It doesn't mean you can't use the waterway. MR. BURDEN: Okay, it's a technicality. MR. HERMAN: It's not a technicality. The public can use it, the marina can use it. It's a public waterway. TRUSTEE KING: We have too many discussions going on here. One at a time. Please address the Board. And I want to focus on what the project is being presented to us today, not what is being grown in somebody else's property or use of property for boat storage. I don't want to get into that. MR. BURDEN: I don't have anything else to say. I believed that when this was done that that side was going to stay pristine. And now it's not going to stay pristine. You'll actually pass through an area that was supposed to stay pristine.The imaginary line stops at the shoreline and you are saying people can use it back and forth as a waterway. But there was not the original agreement. The original agreement was that area there and people tying up and bulkheading and whatever, was supposed to stay pristine. So now you are saying the line stops on the shoreline on both sides can use it for something else. That, originally, just so you know, if you go back and look at the original records, was supposed to 50 feet wide running the whole length of that property. MR. HERMAN: Jim, just for the record, we just submitted to you the official record. MR. BURDEN: Well, that's not how the vote came down. MR. HERMAN: It's on Town of Southold letterhead. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want this back? MR. HERMAN: No, I'd rather that stay in the file so it remains part of the record. Because our intention is not to dismiss the issue. As Jeff already stated, it's a valid concern. It's a legitimate concern. It is a crucial foundation to the application, which is supported by the document from the town. I mean, Jeff can testify further on it, if the Board wants, but it Board of Trustees 34 September 19, 2012 seems that the record should be clear on that topic. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Wilsberg, these are yours. Would you like them back? MR. WILSBERG: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I apologize; I didn't see them sitting there. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else here who wants to beat this up? (No response). Board comments? (No response). We were all out there. We have been out there before. We were out there on a joint inspection with the DEC last week. In my mind it is not a bad project. These low sill bulkheads are working out very well in the Town. It increases the wetlands area, which is good. I know there are objections to people using them. The concern about the dockage along that canal is moot, according to this letter from the Town. They cannot put any dockage along there. They'll be restricted strictly to this basin. If there are no further comments, nobody wants to talk anymore about this, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, and take some of this language out, I think. There is one section in the description on page seven where it's in parenthesis: "These floats will not allow for the expansion of the marina use because they will not provide any permanent docking space for customer boats but only for temporary staging activities associated with the preparation and servicing of customer boats prior to launch and delivery to the customer for use." That can be deleted out of this. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that whole paragraph can be left out. That was just context. It doesn't describe the work. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that your motion? TRUSTEE KING: That would be my motion, with that section deleted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. HERMAN: Thank you. I want to thank the Board, I know you were out there twice in the past ten months. We appreciate your time. MR. STRONG: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of WEST LAKE ASSOCIATION, INC. requests a Wetland Permit for a 10 year maintenance permit to dredge the channel to -3 ALW and truck spoil to an upland site. Located: West Lake Channel, Southold. This was a permit application for which the public hearing was opened last month. Comment was taken and it was tabled. Just to review, this was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be Board of Trustees 35 September 19, 2012 consistent. Recommending the installation of a silt boom in areas where practicable. And it was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and they resolved to support the application. Now, the concern last month was regarding the stability or the integrity, I should say, of the bulkhead to the east and there was concern brought up as to the integrity of that bulkhead to the east. Last month I had asked the applicant to get together with either the property owner or a representative of the property owner to try to work out the issue with the bulkhead and that is a review of what went on at the hearing last month. So with that, is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes. Good evening. Patricia Moore on behalf of West Lake. Since that last meeting we have received DEC approval. It was the DEC letter, it was issued September 6, 2012, and got it shortly thereafter. So we do now have DEC approval for both the dredging and the placement of the spoils, de-watering site, that has been previously approved by this Board. As a matter of procedure, you may or may not be aware that the DEC on dredging permits now has a condition that they want to see a post dredging survey to confirm that the amount of dredging that was approved, that-the work was done in accordance with the permit. So we are aware of that and our contractor will have to abide by the terms of the permit and depth and so on. So the DEC is monitoring, in a sense, the dredging to be sure it's all done in accordance with their permit and their permit standards. What we have prepared for the DEC, we can certainly provide a copy for your files so you can put it in your records that it was complied with. With respect to the bulkhead on the east side, the property is zoned by Mr. Moy, we submitted to the Board a copy of a letter plus documents -- MS. HULSE: You can keep going. MS. MOORE: [would like for them to listen. They can't listen to both of us at the same time. I did submit for the Board and your records, we have a copy of the covenants and restrictions that were recorded and signed by the Moy's, Mr. Moy, who they covenant that the bulkhead would be maintained, and certainly that was all part of the representations that they made when they sought to get development permits for the lot that is adjacent to the inlet. So I provided you documentation there. We have been in communication with the attorney. I just saw him here today, I'm sure he'll speak. But we have not yet gone out to the field. But we have placed on, in writing, our agreement that the West Lake will pay for the.bulkheading that is West Lake-owned bulkhead. There is some, I guess confusion in the sense that Mr. Moy built in 1996 without permits the bulkhead that is within the West Lake basin. And there is additional bulkheading that goes along the inlet. We are prepared to pay for any repairs or replacement that may be necessary, associated with his replacement of the Board of Trustees 36 September 19, 2012 remaining portion of the bulkhead that is purely his bulkhead. We can work out, it would be an need for permits, obviously, to do any repairs or replacements to that bulkhead. I don't believe Mr. Moy as permits in hand, so it would be something that ultimately the Trustees would have to review and approve before that work actually got done. But it would be a joint, I want to say joint venture in that Moy would have to do his end of it and West Lake would have to do theirs. For purposes of, I guess just for the record, the Moy bulkhead, we believe, was constructed originally in the 1950's. It has been repaired twice, to our knowledge, just visually, that is the memory of Board members, homeowners in that area. But we hope that Mr. Moy will take advantage of our agreeing to essentially take on the financial burden of the portion of the bulkhead that is in fact ours. And that is all, that agreement is certainly dependent on having that work done prior to the dredging, because our concern is that, based on a 1950's bulkhead, we would encourage him to do the upgrade now rather than waiting until any storm event occurs. That being said, I think Mr. Bressler wants to speak,,. and I would like to respond to Mr. Bressler's presentation after him. Is there a question that you might have? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not at this point in time, no, I don't. TRUSTEE KING: No, we could move it along a little bit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak regarding this application? MR. SOLOMON: Michael Solomon. I represent the Moy's I just want the Board to be alerted to really what is now transpired. We ` came in last time, we advanced an argument, which we still advance, that our concern is that the Town owns the bay bottom. If the Town grants a permit for this project to take place, and these bulkheads structurally fail, that the Town is subject to exposure. And I think all of us as taxpayers in the Town, owners in the Town, it's a concern that is sincere and expressed sincerely. Bearing that in mind, last time we were here, and we still have this issue now, as to is the wall structurally sound. And I know, Mr. Bergen, you raised last time, just by looking at it, you had concerns as to whether it was structurally sound. This concept of who maintains the maintenance and replacement, it's words of art and it is subject to major controversies in the law. What does it mean to maintain and what does it mean to repair. But the last time we were here, the presentation is almost on the basis is that the Moy's own the entire inlet bulkhead, the whole, from this opening of the inlet to the turn, he put in, in Mr. Moy put in all that bulkhead. Now, as a proposal we are hearing, and this will be subject to further negotiation, and I don't want you to think, especially you, Mr. Bergen, you put in a good suggestion, let's talk. We are willing to talk but we are being pressed by I'll call it a time limit being dictated by the West Lake Association. They want to get this project done right now, and because of that we have to talk Board of Trustees .37 September 19, 2012 and get it done in a week or two. And it's not something that is possible. But now, all of a sudden now they are saying we'll pay to replace the 90-foot of dock that Mr. Moy put in, which is now our dock. So all of a sudden what they are doing is acknowledging, for the first time, that 90 feet of that bulkhead, they are claiming, I'm not even suggesting who owns it. I know Mr. Moy permitted, or if he didn't permit it, he put it in. But the fact is he installed -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just a point of clarification, you twice referred to it as a dock. MR. SOLOMON: Bulkhead. My fault. So now there is an acknowledgment that the association has now taken ownership of the 90 foot of bulkhead that Mr. Moy put in. Now as a sense of generosity they are willing to replace the 90-foot of dock that Mr. Moy put in and somehow that is a concession to Mr. Moy. And now for the first time they are asserting that maybe Mr. Moy doesn't own what he put in. It is also an interesting side note for the first time in 30 years, that the property that is designated on your map as a private road to West Lake Drive, it's a private road on the map, was mowed for the first time by a West Lake representative in the last 30 years. Now, as a legal proposition, that means a lot to a lawyer. Why is somebody coming out after 30 years and trying to mow a lawn. Except all of a sudden now they want to assert a claim of ownership. So my point is that this issue is now running a lot deeper than it originally ran. Like all of a sudden the property that Mr. Moy has enjoyed since the 1960's is being challenged by virtue of people now mowing his property for the first time, to people indicating today to you that they own the bulkhead, which is questionable. They are willing to replace it. But what is even more of a concern is they say well then let's have Mr. Moy replace his seawall before we dredge. Well, what they are actually saying to you, to my client, okay, Mr. Moy, because I have the numbers from Costello, okay, you can spend $75,000 to give 12 owners a navigation right that use the West Lake. I mean the fact of the matter is that back area is basically a private lake to 12 homeowners. And Mr. Moy happens to have his boat there. Now I have the property owners coming in before the Board saying somebody else should preserve their bulkhead. Preserve their waterway. It's the two owners, my client and Mr. Bressler's client are now being asked it's your responsibility to keep those walls maintained so we can make sure this water will flow properly. But where this comes to, I understand you have a limited role, we believe, Costello indicated to you last time, he is concerned about the depth of the dredge. Even though you issue a permit, and a permit says, you know, minus three AWL. He says when they start dredging, depending where the moon is, where the wind is blowing, what the tide flow'isthat day, three foot can become four foot, can become five foot, can become six foot. And there is no control on any particular day. So our concern is once we get below the wall level, once we get Board of Trustees 38 September 19, 2012 under here, that we are concerned there is a good possibility that that wall, my wall and Mr. Bressler's client's wall is coming down. That being said, under 275 of the Town Code, you have the right to have the applicant pay for a consultant to come and issue a report to the Board. And I believe it's the Board's responsibility, not only to my client and Mr. Bressler's client, but it's the Board responsibility to the taxpayers of this Town, that those seawalls don't come down. Because if those walls do come down and the Town has exposure, all of a sudden it becomes an obligation of the taxpayers in addition to all the other expenses we have. So our position -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sir, I don't believe you were here at the beginning of this meeting, but what we stated in writing here, the comments are to be limited to five minutes. So I'm asking you please wrap up your comments now fairly quickly. MR. SOLOMON: Did I do four minutes and 59 seconds yet? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm not looking at the watch, but I'm just asking you please -- MR. SOLOMON: I basically, I said something last time, our concern is bringing in a consultant in to protect the town. And if this does get approved one way or other, that there be bonding requirements, insurance requirements, something that guarantees to the owners and to the Town that we have the lateral support the land taken care of, which the Town requires, and somebody responsible if that wall does in fact come down. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: I'm getting the feeling we are in a courtroom. MS. MOORE: May I address this? TRUSTEE KING: You've spoken. I want to recognize Mr. Bressler. We'll keep it short. We were not going to start these debates. All this lawyering and stuff, we don't want it. Tired of it. Mr. Bressler, you're up. MR. BRESSLER: Members of the Board, thank you, very much. Eric J. Bressler; Wickham, Bressler, Gordon & Geasa, PO Box 1424, Mattituck, New York, representing Ms. Greenfield, who is the owner of the property on the other side of this inlet. I will be brief. Mr. Solomon was most eloquent. If not necessarily brief. I will try to be brief. The issues are very simple here. And we'll start with Section 275 of the code. One of the requirements is that relating to lateral support. We are most concerned as a property owner abutting this canal that services these 12, more or less, private homes. We are most concerned about the condition of our bulkheading, which was put in after the hurricane in 1986. It's getting along in its useful life. No doubt about that. We are concerned about all the factors Mr. Solomon raised. Where the dredging is, the actual depth of the dredging, I once spent three days in the basement at building forty up at DEC arguing about water depths, moon phases and everything else. So I know that the dredging plan is not necessarily what is going to occur. And I think as a result of that and as a result of the age of the bulkhead and the Board of Trustees 39 September 19, 2012 significant dredging that will be done, combined with the narrowness of that particular waterway, it is incumbent upon the Board to require the applicant to provide to the Board an opinion satisfactory in form and in substance to the Board concerning the impacts of the dredging on the bulkheads on both sides. That is point number one. Point number two is, again, this dredging is being done for the benefit of someone other than my client. Therefore we believe that it is incumbent upon the Board, if it be advised to grant anything, that it be conditioned upon, as Mr. Solomon said, bonding, insurance. This is a problem that exists throughout this Town in various locations. Sometimes it is the associations that own at the mouth of the waterway. And that's different. In this case, and in other cases, it is my client and Mr. Solomon's client who own at the mouth. of this waterway. And that gives rise to special considerations, as the lateral support, insurance, bonding. And lastly, I would like to say, about that spoil, which is yours, in your capacity of representing us. That is your spoil. It's going purportedly to an upland site, which by the way we don't think is appropriate. One big storm and it's right back, right back in the basin. We think that ought to be placed, trucked and placed somewhere where the public good will be served. It's our sand, it's our spoil, and I think this Board should require it be placed somewhere useful. To everybody. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so you are aware, Mr. Bressler, we addressed the placement of this spoil for this application last month. So that's in the past. It's done. MR. BRESSLER: I understand that. It's not necessarily done at DEC. It's my understanding at DEC -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can take that up with DEC. MR. BRESSLER: Notwithstanding the issuance of the permit, and I say this because nothing is etched in stone. I say this because there was no technical staff review of this particular application, I'm given to understand. And there is a feeling at _. .. DEC there ought to be have been a technical staff review. And there are remedies for us to pursue to get them to technically pursue that. And I'll tell you one of the issues I think this Board ought to revisit is where that spoil goes. Especially considering storm patterns. So all that being said, the bottom line is this application is premature for consideration. The issues that are raised, both by me and Mr. Solomon, are substantial and need to be addressed. And I think it would be inappropriate at this juncture to proceed in the absence of a report and the other issues that I raised so that the owners at the mouth of this basin, who are not benefited in any way by this,dredging, at least as far as my client is concerned, are protected. Indeed I think it's mandated by the code. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else? MR. PROCOP: Tom Procop, I'm a resident, I live on the lake. Both attorneys have commented that neither of these two homeowners utilize the lake. I just would like the Board to know the Moy's have a boat docked within the lake, the Greenfield's own a Board of Trustees 40 September 19,2012 mooring in the lake, and both.of them use the lake and the canal to get out to the bay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand what you are saying, but I don't feel this is relevant to what we are trying to address here as a dredging application. Who uses it, who doesn't use it,,to me is not relevant. What is relevant here is the application before us and that is what we are addressing. MR. PROCOP: I understand. It's just listening to the emphasis put on it. - TRUSTEE KING: That's lawyer talk. MS. MOORE: Exactly. I'll give you non-lawyer talk, because I'll go through my, the points that have been raised, and I think the statements that are not quite accurate. Mr. Solomon stated that you have liability because of this. And I'll read to you what your permits say. The validity of your permits may be subject to the approval of governmental agent, authorities, the Town accepts no responsibility in applying for or obtaining such approval. The failure to obtain permits is not the Town's responsibility. Then further on, it says that the applicant does not --the applicant does by the acceptance of this assume all responsibilities for operations taken pursuant to the permit. The bottom line is the Trustees issue permits and as the DEC issues permits, it's the property owners who have the liability and it is not the Town. So as far as the fact that, Mr. Solomon's statement that the Town is assuming this liability because of the dredging, that is actually inaccurate. I believe that the arguments by both.sides is, for the most part, private causes of action that they are each trying to extort money out of West Lake to replace what is their bulkhead. That is a private matter. Don't allow yourself to get dragged into that fight. I would go back with respect to the Greenfield's, Mr. Bressler's client. The Town records, Ms. Greenfield got wetland permit#263 in 1986, the bulkheading was replaced in total, in 1987. In that permit, the conditions, if any, that are written into this permit, it's permit#263, I'll give it to you for your records, the provision is that the bulkhead is replaced inplace along the inlet side. That was done and that was a condition of that permit at the time. When you look at the plans and the cross-section that was submitted to your permit, that is in your records, it shows that when that bulkhead was replaced, both along Peconic Bay and along the inlet side, that there was significant dredging which took place along the west side of the inlet, adjacent to that new bulkhead. And there is a cross-section that shows that there was approximately five feet, 5x15 feet of dredge material or sand that had accumulated adjacent to that bulkhead that was dredged as part of her bulkhead replacement project. The spoils and the sand from that simultaneous construction of the bulkhead and dredging was used to backfill the bulkhead. So within your own records this was constructed in, it was constructed at the time with dredging that was dredged down to five feet of depth to the bulkhead line. So our application, Board of Trustees 41 September 19, 2012 which is going down less so, and has to maintain certain setbacks with respect to the DEC and the Trustees application, the permit that has been submitted, we have to maintain the right angle and the proper depth. And why I pointed out that the DEC permit these days requires post dredging survey, is to verify that in fact you have complied with the terms of the permit. So the statements that have been made that, oh, you can dredge three, you can dredge five, you can do this, you can do that. The bottom line is there will be a map that has to be submitted to comply with the permit. So that is a false statement that has been placed on the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Pat, I would ask you to please try and wrap this up. MS. MOORE` Okay. Finally, I would say, and I'll submit the permit for you guys to look at yourself. The property owners on either side, Moy and Greenfield, do not own the mouth of Cedar Beach. The individual properties are based on the map of Cedar Beach Park. They are two lots on a map, and right in the subdivision map that is the filed map from back in 1926, this canal, which at that time was probably not bulkheaded, but there was a canal nonetheless to West Lake, is showing that the properties are in fact; it's not a canal that got cut through two properties, as in other subdivisions where a manmade canal was created, this was in fact a canal that already existed and gave water to West Lake. So that is correcting that point of fact that was place on the record as well. Finally, I have a photograph for you. We had the Greenfield bulkhead was replaced in 1987. The bulkhead is, the West Lake installed in 2007, during the application for the previous dredging permit, is the low sill bulkhead, and we have a photograph of that. You have a record of it under the West Lake application from a little over ten years ago, which was for this bulkhead. So we are distinguishing between bulkheads that are West Lake bulkheads and bulkheads that are private owners bulkhead. Finally, Mr. Solomon talking about Mr. Moy's bulkhead, I'm going to place on the record the transcript that again comes from Town records when the Zoning Board hearing took place, there was ample testimony at the Zoning Board hearing by Rosenberg, who was Mr. Moy's attorney at the time, who put on the record that Mr. Moy acknowledged that the road is owned by West Lake, that as far as who has ownership of the bulkhead, there was certainly statements on the record that put clearly that West Lake, it's in front of the West Lake property. And while Mr. Moy may have installed it, it was in front of the West Lake property. And that is simply why we are offering to replace that portion. Could we have taken the position that, well, Mr. Moy built it, he should maintain it or replace it. We were trying to come to a compromise. If Mr. Solomon wants us to start fighting over that, fine. But that's a private matter. Your obligations under the wetland ordinance is simple. We are Board of Trustees 42 September 19, 2012 going to do a dredging, all in accordance with the permit, all with proper standards, and as far as the Town's liability, there is none. So, we will be properly insured and we will have properly insured contractors, and all of these other requests are just trying to add expense to an already very expensive proposition which only a few homeowners are going to be paying for because of the way dues are collected. So, or lack of dues, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: So let me put in your files so you have it, what I have just talked about. Here is the permit. And I highlighted the dredge that had taken place when that bulkhead was built. So here you go. That's one. Here is a transcript of the whole Zoning Board hearing, have fun with it, where different representations were made. And here is the association's bulkhead, low sill bulkhead with permits. That is the Moy bulkhead. Excuse me, that's the Greenfield bulkhead. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to speak either for or against this application? MR. BRENNAN: Hi, I'm Ed Brennan, on West Lake. I was here last week. Last month, rather. And time flies. Anyhow, I'm not a lawyer, so no eloquence. I am in favor of the application. I do use the inlet, and have for the past 40 years, going in and out. I have seen the bulkheads and their conditions. I was there when the Greenfield's replaced their bulkhead. I do remember with some agida the fact that they did have to dredge down five feet below mean low water right next to their bulkhead because unfortunately their contractor chose to do that while we had an incoming tide, which drew a lot of the spoils into the lake. When which we later had to clear out. So I remember it well. Point being, I think that this application has so many requirements about only going to three feet below, in the middle, leaving ten feet, I believe on each side, sloping properly. And it's been done in the past, I guess, five years. So it's not something new. The contractor knows what he's doing. He can figure out what mean low water is. The rest of it is frankly balder hooey. So if you have any other questions about the history and would like at least my biased opinion, I would be happy to provide it to you. But I just want to let you know I'm in favor. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Mr. Bressler, if you want to. Again, let me just preface this. I'm going to go out on a limb here. This is not a court of law, okay. So these legal arguments going back and forth and back and forth, you know, I am not interested in legal arguments here. What I'm interested in is information pertinent to this dredging application only. So with that. MR. BRESSLER: Let me just say the circumstances of 1986 in conjunction with the hurricane serve only to illustrate in our view, the age of the bulkhead, and its necessity for replacement at some juncture given the normal age of bulkheads. The conditions existing at the time, the amount of spoil that was deposited into the canal as a result of the hurricane and that Board of Trustees 43 September 19, 2012 which had to be removed, are not at all similar to the instant application and we think that you should look at this application on its merits as it exists today. My final point is this, while it's all very well and good that somebody has to turn in a survey as the work is done, that's exactly the fact. The work is done. And our concern is at that point, what if. We want you to show us a picture of what you did. Oops, it's not exactly what you were supposed to do. The barn door is closed. And I'll close my comments with that remark. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, very much. Yes, sir? MR. DEFEIS: Doug Defeis, 1165 Cedar Point Drive West. What strikes me listening to this public hearing is that either side seems to report their bulkheads as being in fine condition when they I want to make a point. Then they say it isn't when they don't, or retract it. I just know you guys went out there and saw with your own eyes, which is a good thing. If anything, this testimony has led to was a site visit that you could see with your own eyes. These bulkheads are going to fail. These bulkheads, by the way, were constructed across, in many instances, our property, that we have rights of way on. They definitely got a benefit from it. But here we are now, if we are being extorted to the extent that people would like us to pay for what they have built on our property, to begin with, there is something intrinsically wrong there. But I did pass high school ethics. But this is remote, beyond belief. If you built it, you signed on to living up to certain covenants, those permits are granted under those covenants, and to say in one. hearing they were good, this bulkhead is fine, and then say it isn't, is disingenuous and I think really doesn't state the facts as we know it. What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours, but I want you to pay for mine. This is not what we are - all about here. It is a community. The property owners that do reside on either side of that bulkhead have the derived a benefit of good roads, insurance, and they have not paid a dime for it. So we are trying to be good neighbors. With that -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. SOLOMON- I'll be very brief. Because this Board was submitted the ZBA transcript, I'm sure the Board is cognizant, any testimony offered in that ZBA was dealing with construction above the site and digging in a foundation. We are now talking about digging below potential foundation lines of a seawall, totally unrelated to any opinion that may have been offered with regard to traffic above. We are talking about digging out from below, thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Is there anybody else who has not spoken yet who wishes to speak? (No response). Okay, if not, just one additional -- sorry, any comment from the Board members? TRUSTEE DOMINO: It's my opinion that this application is Board of Trustees 44 September 19, 2012 premature. I was under the understanding it was tabled so that the parties could address some of these issues before it was brought back to us, precisely because we are not a court of law. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I want to do is just state for the record that the condition of permits under 275-9(f) as to liability insurance. And I'll read it: The applicant for the permit shall, before the issuance of said permit, file with the clerk a certificate that the contractor chosen to perform the work under the permit has liability insurance insuring against any liability which may arise in performance of the operations pursuant to such permit, which said policy shall name the Town as additional insured. With that, any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Just one question. Who did this drawing? I don't see who did it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are looking at the hydrographic map of West Lake channel, it's received August 1, 2012. MS. MOORE- Bob Box. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MS. MOORE: Sea Level Mapping. Sorry. As a matter of fact, I could provide for you the DEC stamped one that has Mr. Fox's -- seal on it. It's the same drawing, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of West Lake Association as described, noting as a condition 275-9(f) with regard to liability insurance. That's my motion. Any further discussion on that motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. Ordinarily we have discussion after a second, but I'll offer discussion up. I would be concerned about approving this application submitted with a ten-year maintenance given the fact that I believe I have heard sufficient discussion concerning the Board's responsibilities to protect the lateral support of land and how would we know the status of these bulkheads going forward over a ten-year period. At this point in time, you have already pointed out on field inspection based on the Board's experience in these matters that the bulkhead is already waving and we do know as a practical matter that a person on a dredge or a barge can't always control those elements of weather that we all know as people who have boats on the water that conditions they might find themselves in there can be severe cutting or alteration in that channel during the course of activities. So I would like to offer if a permit is contemplated with requiring insurance that the limitation be the activities take place on a relatively short time line:'Like the usual permitting of a maximum of two years. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right now there is a motion on the floor Board of Trustees 45 September 19, 2012 regarding the application as submitted, with the stipulation that I read into the record. MS. HULSE: Is there a second on this motion? (No response). MS. HULSE: Hearing none, it's failed. Hearing there is no second on the motion, that motion has failed. Is there another motion to be presented? TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve but make it a five-year permit and with the same stipulation, they must have liability insurance. Cut the time in half. MS. HULSE: Is there a second? TRUSTEE BERG EN:.-I'I,I,second that motion. TRUSTEE KING: All ih favor?We'll do a roll call vote. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee'Domino. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll vote no. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee'Domino votes nay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No: TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote aye. Motion fails. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We closed the public hearing part of it. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to take the matter up at next meeting, we'll hopefully have five members present. MS. HULSE: It is denied right now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's lost now, but as procedural matter they can bring it up next month. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You made a motion to adjourn? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: This is a first for me. MS. MOORE: Can you tell us what is going on? MS. HULSE: The application was denied as written. And the meeting was just adjourned. Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED r James F. King, President JAN 2 2 2012 Board of Trustees Qae Sout Id Town C rk