Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-04/17/2013 James F.King,President 0f. so.. Town Hall Annex Bob Ghosio,Jr.,Vice-President h0 l0 54375 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Dave Bergen Southold,New York 11971-0959 John Bredemeyer G Q • a0 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Michael J.Domino O Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 0: 15,910 M AY 1 n6 2013 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Sddthold Town Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:30 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Robert Ghosio, Vice-President Dave Bergen, Trustee John Bredemeyer, Trustee Michael Domino, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 8, 2013, at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at 5:30 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, May 15, 2013, at 5:00 PM TRUSTEE KING: Before we get going, we have a couple of cancellations and postponements. Page 12, number 26, JAMES A. & NANCY W. CLOUS request a Wetland Permit to rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged fixed pier and to extend it from 22' to 40'to move the docks to deeper water; add four new 12" pilings set apart from the floating docks (two on each side of the floating docks); a 3'x20' seasonal ramp; and two 6'x20' seasonal floating docks; rebuild and/or replace the existing storm damaged stairs to beach, and stairs from top of bulkhead to fixed pier and related pilings; and to repair the existing 100' +/- long storm damaged bulkhead by replacing the top cap-boards and approximately 15' of a 44 transverse beam on the bulkhead where the fixed pier was ripped off in the storm. Located: 3805 Bay Shore Road, Greenport, has been postponed. Board of Trustees 2 April 17, 2013 Number 27, Mark K. Schwartz, Architect on behalf of 8925 BAY AVE, LLC c/o ANTHONY LOMANGINO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new tennis court at side yard of existing house; tennis court to be partially cut into ground 2 feet; tennis court to have wall and fence; drainage and drywells to be installed for tennis court. Located: 8925 Skunk Lane, Cutchogue, has been postponed. We won't be addressing those. On page 11, number 24, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of PETER & MARISA PATINELLA request a Wetland Permit to raise the existing house and enclosed porch; demolish existing foundation; construct new concrete block pier foundation and lower house onto new foundation (finished floor to be approximate elevation 9.0'); replace wood decks and stairs; new outdoor shower; install several new windows and exterior doors; interior alterations; and install two 2' deep x 8' diameter drywells. Located: 475 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. That was found to be non-jurisdictional, so we won't be talking about that one. And I think that's it. We'll set the date for our next field inspection on May 8th at eight o'clock in .the morning. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next meeting, do you want to do 5:30 again like we have been doing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's fine with me. TRUSTEE KING: Rather than 6:00, and have our work session at five o'clock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That will give us a little more time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We have Wayne Galante here taking down what everybody says, so if you have testimony to make later on in the evening here, please come to the microphone and identify yourself. If your name is difficult, please spell it out for him so we can get it on the record correctly. Our legal advisor Lori Hulse will be a little late. She will probably be here in another hour. And from the CAC, don't see anybody yet but I think Derek Bossen will be here from the CAC. That's the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do many of the same inspections we do and they give us their recommendations. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2013. A check for $29,963.73 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: Board of Trustees 3 April 17, 2013 RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, April 17, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: TRUSTEE KING: They are listed here as follows: Barbara Kelsey - SCTM# 128-6-2 Matthew D. Volpe - SCTM# 80-5-1.1 Phyllis Sousa - SCTM# 51-6-32 John Abbott- SCTM# 126-5-1 Lucia & John Sica - SCTM# 31-14-9 Mildred David - SCTM# 137-1-3.1 Bramson Family Field, LLC - SCTM# 31-14-4.3 Ruth Ann Bramson Spousal Limited Access Trust- SCTM# 31-14-4.5 Thomas J. Aprea, Jr. - SCTM# 37-7-9.1 Stephen Dimeglio - SCTM# 97-6-8 Susan Norris - SCTM# 115-9-4 Fishers Island Development Corporation - SCTM# 9-8-7 Daniel T. Christianson - SCTM# 115-12-17 Alan A. Cardinale - SCTM# 111-9-6.2 Alan A. Cardinale - SCTM# 111-9-6.3 Peter& Marisa Patinella - SCTM# 31-17-13.5 Bernadette M. Hogan & Jonathan Zavin - SCTM# 86-2-4 David C. Esseks & Kathryn R. Stokes - SCTM# 64-1-14.7&14.8 . James & Janet D'Addario - SCTM# 136-5-4 Laurie Kratochvil - SCTM# 52-2-32.4 Patricia Walker- SCTM# 52-2-33.1 Sean Fahey - SCTM# 71-1-14 Linda S. Sanford Trust - SCTM# 81-3-15.3 Naomi Mullman - SCTM# 53-5-12.6 Elissa Jo Kaplan c/o Evan Kaplan - SCTM# 111-15-8.1 Rochelle Byrne - SCTM# 122-4-43 Mattituck Park District- SCTM# 126-6-17&18 Bruce Rothstein & Sarah Rothstein - SCTM#26-11-11 Maureen Massa &Alan Schweitzer-SCTM# 52-2-23 Grace Burr Hawkins SCTM# 10-4-10 430 WSD LLC c/o Peter Cosola - SCTM# 80-5-2.1 TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). IV. RESOLUTIONS -ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under Resolutions and Administrative Permits, number one, Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq., on behalf of HOWARD & JANET BROWER request an Administrative Permit for a small Board of Trustees 4 April 17, 2013 expansion and to repair or replace existing ±920 sq.ft.; and construction of a ±112 sq.ft. second-story deck. Located: 1170 Eugene Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed and found to be exempt under the LWRP. I did go out and look at this. It's a pretty straightforward application. The work is needed. So I would make a motion to approve this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, JOSEPH LAVELLE requests an Administrative Permit for the existing +/-50' split-rail fencing on the north side, and +/-150' split rail fencing on west side of property; to remove selected trees and grind down the stumps; trim tree branches throughout property; replacing a +/-3' wide slate walkway with +/-3'wide steps; and for a 1.0-year maintenance permit to trim the phragmites on an as needed basis. Located: 3500 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck. The Board reviewed the proposal. I believe it's consistent with our Board policies concerning control of undesirable vegetation and phragmites, therefore I would move to approve this application, noting that it is consistent under the LWRP by virtue of the Board's review, and it's consistent with the Town's wetland ordinance. I move that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I would like to make just one correction, it's not in Cutchogue, it's in Mattituck. V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: What we try and do under Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments, we go through these, if there is nothing controversial and they are just a simple transfer or whatever, we try and lump them together so we don't have to go through each one. It saves us some time so we can move things along a little quicker. So I would like to make a motion to approve under section five, numbers one through nine. They read as follows: Number one, MICHAEL GILL requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #635 from John Gutleber to Michael Gill, as issued on October 19, 1988. Located: 1325 Luptons Point Road, Mattituck. Number two, STEPHEN DIMEGLIO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#1563 for the existing +/-87' fixed catwalk with 2'x8' bench seat extensions on each side of the seaward end of the catwalk. Located: 755 Harbor Drive, Cutchogue. Number three, ALFONSO MARTINEZ-FONTS, JR., requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#1947 for the existing 3'x32'4"fixed catwalk, 3'x12' ramp, and 18'x5' floating dock, and to replace the ramp and the two piles for the Board of Trustees 5 April 17, 2013 float. Located: 35 Haywaters Road, Cutchogue. Number four, Garrett A. Strang, Architect on behalf of GEORGE VAIL requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7531 to construct an addition onto the existing dwelling. Located: 50 Oak Avenue, Southold. Number five, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of CHARLES RODIN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #5000 to add safety railings along both sides of the fixed dock and ramp. Located: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue. Number six, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MURRAY GAYLORD requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7923 for a 22'+/-x22'+/- parking area surrounded by Belgium block curbing; a ±1.0'W x±11.51 x ±2.5'H landscape retaining wall and three 3' high stone piers; a ±125 sq.ft. bluestone landing; ±35 sq.ft. bluestone slab steps; and bluestone stepping stones leading from the proposed steps to dwelling. Located: 765 Beachwood Road, Cutchogue. Number seven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KAREN & MICHAEL CATAPANO requests an Administrative Amendment to modify the language in Wetland Permit#8016 to read as follows: Retain the existing 14'x20'1" upper deck with railing and a gate to the beach stairs. Located: 7325 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number eight, JAMES ORIOLI & SUSAN MAGG request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#6352 for the as-built pool, pool drywell for backwash, and as-built 10'x10' pergola; and the planting of (4) four oak trees each 6" in diameter. Located: 495 Halls Creek Drive, Cutchogue. Number nine, JAMES ORIOLI & SUSAN MAGG request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#4559 to include one (1) 6'x20' floating dock or jet ski float; one (1) 3'x12' ramp leading to dock; cut back existing fixed catwalk approximately 12' to have end of catwalk even with water line, not to extend beyond the edge of marsh; remove existing walkway through non-disturbance(buffer; lights on catwalk to be located at the beginning and the end of the structure; re-vegetate non-disturbance buffer area with local plantings and subsequently maintained. Located: 495 Halls Creek Drive, Cutchogue. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said, we reviewed all these. We have looked at them. I don't think there are any here that have any problems. A couple of them were from a stipulation from a violation that was taken care of. So I would make that motion, one through nine, to be approved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Under the same section, number ten, NEW SUFFOLK WATERFRONT FUND requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7950 to temporarily relocate the "Galley Ho" building to a stable area on the property; new permits will be Board of Trustees 6 April 17, 2013 applied for when the building is ready to be moved to its permanent location. Located: 650 First Street, New Suffolk. guess they'll find a permanent location for it. We just would like to see a row of hay bales on the seaward side, and there is to be no actual use of the building because it's just a temporary storage area for it. So it's not to be used as a restaurant or snack bar or anything like that while it's in its temporary location. And they have to come to us now for permits for the permanent spot that they'll put this in and the work they'll be doing. They'll need to apply for a wetland permit for that action. But this is just a temporary measure. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular hearings go on to public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: AMENDMENTS TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number one under amendments, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DAVID C. ESSEKS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit#5974 from Jennifer & Philip Stanton to David C. Esseks, as issued on August 18, 2004, and Amended on May 18, 2005, and Amended again on December 16, .2009; and for an Amendment to Wetland Permit#5974 to maintain the original "L" configuration of the floating dock; and install two (2) mooring pilings (8.0") with Slide-Moor Systems off of the seaward end of the floating dock. Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. This has been found to be consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because the pilings may prove to be a navigational hazard. The floating dock currently sits on the bottom and questions the need for additional pilings. Now, that was, that goes back to the original. And this was for an amendment to maintain the original "L" configuration, and I believe that was just at our suggestion. We went out the second time around, our question was to show the location of the slide mooring. Which one is -- Bruce, do you want to review this, the slide mooring? MR. ANDERSON: The slide mooring is no longer part of the application. It was something that was in the Trustees office some time ago, and I believe Chairman King suggested that. But we won't be using it in this application. We seek to tie off the bow of this boat in two directions. TRUSTEE KING: You still want to go for the original tie-off Board of Trustees 7 April 17, 2013 piles? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I do. And I have some exhibits to hand up to you, that hopefully will make this pretty clear. And I went out on the creek, Town Creek, this week. And I went up and down the creek and I photographed all the piles in this creek. Then went back and I checked them against the permits. Now, I don't -- I did not include every piece of paper in every permit file. When I say permit file, I was using your computer files. But what I found was that we had ten different properties out there, any number of exterior piles on lots of circumstances without, eight of which received approvals from this Board. Two that we could find none. And really no evidence of any navigational issue. We don't believe there is a navigational issue here. So piles up and down Town Creek are quite common. They are routinely permitted. There is no evidence of any environmental harm nor is there any particular evidence, any evidence, of a navigational harm. If anything, the mooring field, which goes down the middle of the creek, to me, would present the greatest navigational impediment. But understand you are in a creek and are not supposed to be going more than five miles-per-hour anyway. So I don't even believe the mooring field which goes down the middle of this creek had any significant impact to navigation. And I note that everyone in this area seems to be living in harmony, many of which already have piles. I can't imagine there is any real issue with this application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are questioning, Bruce, is on the Stanton property, what we had approved previously, versus what, is depicted in the photograph. That's just the conversation that is going on up here. MR. ANDERSON: I have no comment on that. By the way, we do have sufficient water, so I don't think there is a depth issue as well. I don't see that as a significant issue. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So basically, so what you are asking for, just to review, is going back to -- an amendment to go back to the original "L" configuration and install the two mooring piles. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Well, how does the Board feel about that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The picture appears to be worth a thousand words here. It seems to be tucked in. I guess the question is the extension of the property line, the extension of the property line on the easterly side, that the boat is not extending beyond the extension of the plot line. MR. ANDERSON: I can answer that. That is if you were to extend the property line out into the water to where the piles would be, in a straight line fashion, put it this way, the dock from the property line extension would be 57 feet from that extension. So we are not significantly close to any property line as extended. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bruce, the Stanton docks, there were more than one. We have been to all of them over the course of time. This one is being transferred to them or was transferred; yes, you Board of Trustees 8 April 17, 2013 want to transfer it from Stanton to Essex, so this is just some discussion as to which one is which. MR. ANDERSON: I'm guessing you are referring to the westerly dock. It would be west of the other docks, correct? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, east. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the objection, or one of the objections, had been that over the discussions that we have had on these docks, is they have come in, was we were looking to remove pilings. And now we are back to adding pilings. And I think that's one of the issues that we have, or one of the concerns that we have. MR. ANDERSON: I don't know why we need to remove piles if they are not causing harm. I have not heard a case for environmental harm nor do I believe there is a case for navigational harm. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just to support what Bob was saying, what is listed there is the Stanton property, there was an adjustment made to that dock so that mooring piles at least were reduced in numbers if not reduced all together, and the Mauri property and Fitzpatrick across the way are, I'll say recent within the last couple of years, you'll notice there is no mooring piles with either one of them.-So just in support of what Bob is saying, we have made an effort over the last few years to try to decrease the frequency of these mooring piles in this creek. TRUSTEE KING: We did one just last month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't have a huge issue showing the vessel, and it's tucked in so far. I think better to have the vessel secured and not working so much. I don't see where there is an application specific for pilings in relation to vessel size, and the vessel is shown. I'm not particularly -- I think it's good to minimize where possible, but the applicant has made this a request to amend for a specific purpose. It seems to be behind the other docks in the area and not an issue for navigation or water depth. I guess maybe we should move it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm of a similar feeling, disposition. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would someone like to make a motion? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, noting that it's basic notions of navigation and water depth are met, and it's basically tucked in, even with the vessel. It's more landward than the immediate adjoining, the property to the east. I would move that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Let's do a roll call vote. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Domino? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bredemeyer? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: Trustee Bergen? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Aye. TRUSTEE KING: I'll vote nay.' Trustee Ghosio? Board of Trustees 9 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Nay. (Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, nay, Trustee Ghosio, nay). TRUSTEE KING: Motion carries, three to two vote. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BARBARA KELSEY requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8058 to reconstruct a 10.2'+/-x24.5'+/-W (200 sq.ft.) deck between the bulkhead and bluff staircase. Located: 400 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The Board did go out and look at this. It was reviewed originally and found to be consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. All of the area between the upper bulkhead, which was approved --this was last meeting -- and the primary bulkhead, will be non-turf, first of all. Secondly, the plans for the deck was included in that original plan, but I guess we didn't add it or it was not added as a private description. So this for us is sort of a housekeeping measure. I believe it complies with your regulations and your practice in all respects. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to speak for or against this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Suffolk Environmental on behalf of Barbara Kelsey as described, as it has been deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number three, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MATTHEW D. VOLPE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8071 to construct a 6' tall x 55 linear foot long vinyl retaining wall set 8' landward of bulkhead. Located: 1700 Oak Drive, Southold. The project was originally considered consistent and exempt under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make an inspection and does not have a recommendation. The Board reviewed the project. It seemed very straightforward. And we just had one question, that was whether or not there was consideration to have returns and whether it Board of Trustees 10 April 17, 2013 was going to tie into the existing walls of the neighbors. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the owner. We do have a return proposed on the, I guess you would call it the northwest side of the property. On the opposite side of the property, the neighbor next door, Casola, also has a return. We'll tie into his bulkhead; his upper retaining wall, I should say. They'll both connect through, so our return is not needed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That addresses our concerns about the returns. It was not clear when we were there. I figured we should ask. Any other questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it's straightforward. Does anyone else have any comments with respect to this application? (No response). Hearing none, 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 would make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JOHN & EMILY BREESE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7200 for the storm damaged part of the dock; replace 6'x9.6' wood dock with 4'x18' wood dock which will enable to use shorter aluminum ramp; replace 28' permitted aluminum ramp with 20'x30" aluminum ramp; add two (2) tie-off piles on east side; relocated existing float. Located: 3698 Pine Neck Road, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application. The Trustees inspection on the 10th is concerned that -- remove all the pilings except for the two that are being relocated. In other words relocate the ones that you are requesting and remove the remaining pilings. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Breese. The plan was to, the outside piles -- it's easier if I show it to you. I just want to make sure. Well, you could see them right there. Those two outside piles, the one on the left is coming out altogether. And the one on the right is being relocated closer in toward the floating dock, the way that the drawings are shown. He was in the process of doing that when the storm hit, so he was not able to continue with the prior permit. His prior permit was still in effect; is still in effect. Permit number 7200. It expires in October of 2013. But the storm hit, so at that point he realized he was going to change the design Board of Trustees 11 April 17, 2013 with the shorter aluminum ramp. So there is no problem, the pile, the two outside piles -- the inside -- I'm sorry, I don't have my glasses on. TRUSTEE KING: I could tell. You're squinting. MS. MOORE: I am. We show two piles, one at the top of the floating dock and one at the bottom of the floating dock. I don't think it's either one of those. It's when the floating dock gets reinstalled. I want to make sure, because when you say remove all the piles. TRUSTEE KING: That one there and that there. Part of the original permit, those were supposed to be removed on the original permit. MS. MOORE: I understand that. His original permit had not yet, he was in the process of changing over everything when the storm hit, so he didn't do anything. He was reapplying with this permit that will entail the relocation of that, the easterly pile. TRUSTEE KING: So they'll actually be moved landward a little bit. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's the point I want to clarify. MS. MOORE: So we are all okay? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. Anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting that the Board requests all the pilings except the ones being relocated are to be removed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Sorry, I still don't understand. Are you approving the application as submitted? Because the piles are still showing on the drawings. I just want to be sure we are following the drawing. Because when you say in your resolution says remove all the pilings, but we are actually, we have pilings shown on the plans. I just want to be sure I'm understanding you. Do you have the drawing? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I think it states on the drawing. To be relocated. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. MS. MOORE: Because what you are saying seems much broader than what you are asking for. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It was a reiteration because seeing those pilings had not been removed. Board of Trustees 12 April 17, 2013 MS. MOORE: Thank you, just a clarification. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PHYLLIS SOUSA requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#7928 for a 6' extension to construct a 4'x22' new fixed catwalk. Located: 1695 Mill Creek Drive, Southold. The original was found to be inconsistent by the LWRP. And at the time the Conservation Advisory Council looked at this the project was not staked, therefore they made no recommendations. But when we out to look at it, everything was, we were able to note that the additional six feet will not really make any undo stress on the location, environmentally wise or any other reason. So it really was not much of an issue here at all extending it to six feet. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. My name is John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting, here representing the applicant on this extension. And I know that they had, they were turned in by a neighbor that they were using treated decking, they were using ACQ decking on the dock, and we are proposing to put the flow-through decking in its place and reconstruct the dock so it doesn't come up each winter. Because they have had a lot of problems with it. So hopefully the penetration of the piling will be a little more significant and the posts will be, and we'll try to maintain it. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't see any problems with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there flow-through decking on the original permit? MR. COSTELLO: I don't think it was. What happened was, this dock had been.in there for many, many years, and it used to get knocked down almost every other winter, and I talked with Mr. Mullen, he said it was approximately, it might have been even longer at one stage of the game. They had their landscaper, who was doing some repairs around the yard, re-deck it. He just went to the lumberyard and got the ACQ decking and thought that was just the cat's meow. But it certainly could have been better. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, any comments from the Board? (No response). Any other comments from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, just noting that they'll be using flow-through decking rather than the wood decking. And that by doing that it is being brought into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? Board of Trustees 13 April 17, 2013 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number six, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of JOHN ABBOTT requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8012 to construct a 10'x15' gazebo in lieu of the approved 10'x10' gazebo. Located: 8630 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. went out and looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. RIGDON: Good evening. Agena Rigdon on behalf of Mr. Abbott. TRUSTEE KING: There it is. That's going to be removed. I went out and looked at this. I don't have any issues with it at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: As I,understand, the proposed gazebo is going to take up the entire footprint of the support structure. So there will be no additional deck around the gazebo or anything? MS. RIGDON: The structure that exists right now, part of it is missing, it was approximately 195 square feet. The new structure we are proposing is only 150 square feet. So it's actually less. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So, again, what I'm getting to, is there going to be any decking in addition to the gazebo or is it just the gazebo? MS. RIGDON: Just the stairs. The stairs and platform getting to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. RIGDON: If l could just approach, I have letters from the neighbors approving of it. (Handing). TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, Docko, Inc., on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP. C/O FISHERS ISLAND MARINA, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to dredge 8,650± cubic yards of sandy silt over 63,000± square feet, with a T over-dredge allowance of 2,400± cubic yards by clamshell bucket for open water disposal; including the temporary removal and subsequent reinstallation of floating docks A & B as necessary to facilitate dredging. Located: Central Avenue, Southwest Corner of West Harbor, Fishers Island. This is for a dredging project at the marina. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. NIELSON: My name is Keith Nielson, with Docko Inc. I have prepared the application before you tonight and I'm making a Board of Trustees 14 April 17, 2013 request, respectful request, for your approval of this project. I know that we have looked at the site together a couple of weeks ago and during the initial application that was made three years ago. We have, since the original application, have gone through and obtained the consistency determination from the New York Department of State. We have obtained the New York DEC permit and the Connecticut DEP permit for disposal of the dredge material in open water of Long Island Sound at one of two different locations. And so now that the other permits have been obtained, we would like to revalidate, actually get the new permit for the project from your perspective so we can go to the Corps of Engineers for their final determination. It's been a pretty extensive project because the process involves dredging from New York waters and disposal in Connecticut waters. We have reviewed, the LWRP, I know there were some concerns about this expressed earlier, but I believe that the LWRP is pretty clear about supporting water-dependent uses and maintaining development in properly designated areas zoned for this type of use. This is a long time historic docking center for Fishers Island. It has been operated in a very similar configuration to what exists now since the 1930s, and will continue to be used that way. The issue is that during the winter and with some of the heavy winter storms that we have had in the last decade, sediments have accreted in the basin to the point that many of the boats are marginally clearing the bottom at mid to low tides, so there is frequently sediment disturbance and redistribution, re-suspension, during the course of boating operations. The purpose of the project is to restore navigable depth to the entire basin. As you can see, the dredging goes progressively from shallow waters near shore to deeper waters out along the end of the pier. So the DEP permit and the DOS consistency determination are based on the drawings you have before you tonight. I'd be happy to answer any questions, and do have a letter I would like to submit to the file for you tonight. This is the original. I have copies for everybody. If I can just make a couple of other comments. This is a dredge plan that was created by the US Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1960s, and it shows dredging the channel into the southerly end of West Harbor and Pirates Cove, as well as the dredging of the area over at yacht club and marina over here, on West Shore of West Harbor. The drawing that I have colored up here a little bit so it would be easier to understand is really an embellishment of the drawings you have in front of you in your application. This is the area where water depth two to three feet and will be dredged to four. This is the area we are at about five feet, will be dredged to six, and this area in here we are at two to three and will be dredged to six. This is the area where the sea stretcher operates in the northwest corner and this is the area where most of the large boats, larger boat Board of Trustees 15 April 17, 2013 activity would be. And so, like I said, if there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Are there any other comments from anybody? (No response). Board comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would concur that given the concurrence from DOS, that I would certainly think would address the local LWRP inconsistency. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council didn't make an inspection, so there was no recommendation from them. We have looked at this for quite a while now. One of the concerns was contamination. I know there is no haul-out facility here, so can't see that being a huge issue. MR. NIELSON: I can address that to an extent. The Connecticut and the New York approvals, I should say the Corps of Engineers approval for both the New York and Connecticut process have indicated they would like to have the area from in,and around the sailing dock dredged first and capped by the remainder of the material, which was uncontaminated. So they have recommended a capping sequence for the project. TRUSTEE KING: This open water disposal will take place in Connecticut waters? MR. NIELSON: Right. TRUSTEE KING: That was my only concern. We have no control over what they do in Connecticut, really. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: I know there is instances in some dump sites they found high incidents of shell disease in crabs and lobsters, but nobody has been able to prove that caused it. It's just a fascinating coincidence in all these dump sites there is a high degree of shell disease. If there are no other comments from anybody, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the stipulation there will be no open disposal of dredge spoils in New York waters. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of LUCIA & JOHN SICA request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace 89 linear feet of bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in the same location as existing, and raise the bulkhead elevation +/-1' to match neighboring bulkheads; provide 60 cubic yards of clean sand fill behind bulkhead. Located: 12860 Main Road, East Marion. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent, with the recommendation requiring a landscape buffer landward of the bulkhead. The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed and supports the application with the condition of a Board of Trustees 16 April 17, 2013 non-turf buffer and a return on the east end of the bulkhead. Like I said, the Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I have no problem with the ten-foot non-turf buffer. I just got a review on the east end. I thought the bulkhead on the east end of this was fairly new that we were tying in to. And, it is. So it's a fairly new vinyl bulkhead that has been recently installed, it looks like. My client did not request a return so I can't speak for him if he wants to spend the additional money to put in a return, but we are tying into an existing vinyl bulkhead that looks fairly good. So I can't agree.to a return. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If I'm not mistaken he was the one who told us he wanted the return. TRUSTEE KING: He said he wanted to further protect his property in case there was a failure to the east of him. MR. PATANJO: My client would like to accept the terms of a return on the east side of the property and a ten-foot non-turf buffer. How long should we make this return; 12 feet? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He wanted a substantial return. He was very concerned. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He was up like around where those bushes are. MR. PATANJO: 16-foot return? TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we make it 15. It could always be amended if we have to make it longer. MR. PATANJO: Is Mr. Sica here? MR. SICA: Right here. MR. PATANJO: What kind of return would you like, Mr. Sica? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Mr. Sica, if you would just step up to the microphone, sir. MR. PATANJO: Can I propose putting a corner piece in there, if we did want to tie into it we can always and back with an amendment? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we are talking about, sir, is you could either put a return on the permit now, or if you would like to, just issue -- hopefully. I can't speak for the future here, but possibly issue the permit without a return, in which case if you wanted to install a return at a later date you would have to come back for an amendment to the permit. MR. SICA: What I would like to do is put a return in. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to make sure, since you are the applicant, that you are clear on that. MR. SICA: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We noted in the field the adjoining property, that bulkhead had been replaced recently. But we understood the concern that still even when the bulkhead is replaced, if it does fail and there is not a return, there is the opportunity for your property then to be lost and your bulkhead to fail. So it is something that a lot of people do look at, even though a new bulkhead has been put in, a return also. It's up to the individual whether they want to go for that Board of Trustees 17 April 17, 2013 or not. This bulkhead is being raised, I believe, one foot from the height that was previously, so it will match the neighbor's. And we had talked in the field about the addition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer to this. Is there anybody else in the audience who wanted to speak for or against this application? (No response). If not, any other comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, 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 Jeff Patanjo on behalf of Lucia and John Sica with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer is installed immediately landward of the bulkhead. And it was deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. MR. PATANJO: Do you need revised plans? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: We can draw the buffer in. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number three, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of HAY HARBOR CLUB requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to reconstruct and realign a 5'x105' dock which was destroyed by Hurricane Sandy by constructing a 5'x30' elevated timber walk; a 4'x100' timber walk on grade and to remove and dispose of existing wood walk and to connect proposed walk to existing walk as required. Located: 990 Fox Avenue, Fishers Island. The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make an inspection. The LWRP noted that this project exceeds the current 200 square foot standard for open constructed catwalks under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area ordinance. And the Trustees have been to the site. This proposal, I believe, would basically allow the reuse of a water dependent use. I know it's been in use at least for the 35 years I have been going to Fishers Island. That's important because it trains young people in swimming and safe boating. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JUST: Good evening, Glenn Just from JMO Consulting. I think when we met on the site there two weeks ago, it's pretty straightforward. This new catwalk or fixed dock will go over uplands instead of the rocks and intertidal marsh as it did there earlier. I think it's a win/win for everyone. TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was an improvement over the original. You are moving everything landward. I didn't have any issues Board of Trustees 18 April 17, 2013 with it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think anybody had any issues with it. It seemed to actually get, the old structure was out where it would impinge on the high marsh that was trying to poke through. MR. JUST: Again, that dock is for swimming access. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right, it's the swimming dock for the Hay Harbor Club where they give swimming lessons for a goodly number of island residents that end up there, and young people have had the opportunity to learn how to swim. Any other comments? Board members? (No response). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 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 the application noting that the return of the dock structure here makes whole a water dependent use that is historic in use and is very beneficial to the community on Fishers Island. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of BRAMSON FAMILY FIELD, LLC requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 112' of new retaining wall; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 275 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing. Located: 12042 Route 25, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application, recommending however that the Trustees identify the exposed pipes as shown in the photograph. The Trustees inspected this property on April 10th and noted that it was a straightforward project. The pipes seemed to be disconnected or not in use. We did examine that. And we recommended a ten-foot non-turf buffer. Is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. I'm representing the Bramson's, Mr. and Mrs. Bramson, on the next two applications. Both jobs are similar. It's a smaller upper retaining wall. And basically there is a setback and a natural beach area that going to be left 16 foot behind the bulkhead. Un-vegetated. They have a little vegetation on it. It's to be left alone. But they are trying to stop the splash-over scour that occurred in the last storm that cuts the bank considerably. There is a couple of existing pipes there. There is an old clay pipe that I don't know when it was installed but it's not connected now, but it did go through one of the old creosoted Board of Trustees 19 April 17, 2013 bulkheads, but it doesn't go through the new sheathed bulkhead that Larry Tuttle did for the Bramson's several years ago. But the splash-over on the last storm, Sandy, when the wind turned southeast, it was no damage when it was northeast but when it turned southeast, they got clobbered and they lost a considerable amount of fill. They originally wanted to put the bulkhead, the retaining wall 12-foot back, and in order to reduce the cost and the potential of additional scouring, I suggested 16-foot, and they agreed to do that. It's less fill, less expensive and more protection. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Before we go any further, I just want to note that the properties are basically the same property, for the application for number four and number five. So whatever is being talked about now is also going to be stipulated as to number five, in number five, so I would recommend opening both and the rest of the testimony be on both at the same time. MS. HULSE: That's what I just told Jim. MR. COSTELLO: It was just separate deeds to the property. MS. HULSE: You have no objection to considering them both at the same time would you? MR. COSTELLO: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So now they are both open. Number five reads as follows: Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of RUTH ANN BRAMSON SPOUSAL LIMITED ACCESS TRUST requests a.Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 142' of new retaining wall with 10' return at northeast end; fill void area landward with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 275 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing; existing wood platform and stairs at southwest end to be modified as needed to accommodate new retaining wall. Located: 12042 Route 25, East Marion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: For the record, number five is also consistent and the Trustees have the same observations and same requests. Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? MS. KUSA: I'm Debra Kusa and I live adjacent to the Field property, Bramson Field property. And I just wanted to ask Costello Contracting, Mr. Costello, how we are going to assure we are not compromising the foundation which is basically adjacent, you know, the boathouse. And what are your ideas there? Because quite honestly, I see these pilings but I'm not sure how close they are going to go and how that will affect my poured cement foundation on my boathouse. MR. COSTELLO: First of all, it won't affect any adjacent neighbor because they'll be 6x6 posts and they'll just be driven into the ground, because they are not going to be jetted in or disturbing the foundation of the adjacent property. MS. KUSA: It says 8x8 on your drawing, sorry. MR. COSTELLO` 6x6 posts. MS. KUSA: Backing piles, 8x8. MR. COSTELLO: Backing piles are eight inch. That's another eight foot back. That's 24 feet back from the bulkhead. That's in the r Board of Trustees 20 April 17, 2013 ground where you don't have a foundation. MS. KUSA: Right. There is about three feet between the adjacent property and -- so you don't feel any of this will disrupt the poured cement? MS. HULSE: Ma'am, could you please address your comments to the Board. MS. KUSA: Okay. So does Mr. Costello feel this would have any effect on the poured concrete foundation? MR. COSTELLO: I will contact you personally outside of this Board meeting. MS. KUSA: Because I called today, I didn't really want to have to come down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you could just let him finish his answer. We can't record two voices at once. So for purposes of the record, one person speaks at a time. MR. COSTELLO: I'll contact the adjacent neighbor and assure her we won't interfere with undermining --we are not going to excavate to any degree. We are excavating about a foot, and we are going to put the backing system in. What we'll do is bring in additional fill. The additional fill is going to make her property and foundation more secure, because some of that scouring that has removed the fill, we'll put the retaining wall in and elevate it approximately three feet more than it is now, which does re-enforce the foundation instead of lessen it. MS. KUSA: So the fill is landward of the new retaining wall only? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. MS. KUSA: Okay, so we can talk. That's fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close these hearings, number four and five. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the applications as submitted with the condition of the ten-foot non-turf buffer as requested. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, I missed one postponement on page six. Number seven, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of KATHRYN GRAY MELHUISH, c/o JOSEPH CHERNUSHKA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to replace a storm damaged portion (140.0± sq. ft.) of the existing dwelling; and elevate the overall dwelling (642.0+/- sq. ft. "footprint") by 2.3' to result in a first floor elevation of 8.0'. Located: 600 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, was postponed. We won't be talking about that tonight. I hope nobody was here waiting for it to come up. Board of Trustees 21 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of THOMAS J. APREA, JR., requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to maintenance dredge an area 50'x50' in existing boat basin to elevation -5.0' below mean low water removing 125 cubic yards of spoil; dredge spoil to be placed as beach nourishment landward of mean high water; supplement dredged spoil with an additional 200 cubic yards of clean trucked in sand. Located: 50 Beach Court, East Marion. If you notice in the photograph here, the basin is actually to the left of this. This is a picture from a permit application from last month. The LWRP does find this to be consistent with the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application, however there is a concern about the condition of the clean fill. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting, and we are the agents for Mr. Thomas Aprea. Addressing this basin of his, it's similar to the Gardiners Bay Homeowners Association, there is a lot of movement of sand around in that area, and his basin fills in quite frequently. And he will take the fill and he'll use it for beach nourishment above the high water mark between some of the existing jetties. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I remember, we did this two years ago, too, didn't we? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, we did. TRUSTEE GHOSIO:-So this is something that has come in periodically before the Board. When we were out there, we took a look at it. We know this gets done every so often. We didn't have any issues with it. Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to address this? Any comments? (No response). Anybody from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Under Wetland Permits, number one, STEPHEN DIMEGLIO requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x100' retaining wall; a 4' high pool fence; a 20'x40' in-ground pool; and a 1,600 square foot paver patio. Located: 755 Harbor Lane, Cutchogue. Board of Trustees 22 April 17, 2013 The Board did go out and looked at this. It was not reviewed under the LWRP so it's currently deemed inconsistent, and we will address that inconsistency here this evening. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council and their comment is due to insufficient information, such as a drainage plan, no recommendation was made. The property, however, would benefit from the installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. If I could just have a point of clarification by representative of the Conservation Advisory Council, Derek. When they are referring to, the Conservation Advisory Council referred to insufficient information, such as a drainage plan, are they referring to the drainage plan for the pool? MR. BOSSEN: Derek Bossen, Conservation Advisory Council. Yes, the packet we were given, if it doesn't have a drainage plan on it, we are like where is the drywells, where is the drainage going to go. Where is the drain water going to land. That's when we just kind of say if they are not going to give us the information, we can't approve the proposal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That's what I figured. I just wanted to get it on the record. MR. BOSSEN: Sometimes it's just lack of information on the information we are given. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DIMEGLIO: Stephen Dimeglio. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When the Board was out there, we didn't have any problems with the project, but normally when pools are installed, there is a backwash system and there is a drywell installed with the pool to address the backwash from the pool. Are you willing to include a drywell on your application for the pool? MR. DIMEGLIO: What I was informed was it's a salt water pool, that there is no backwashing in a salt water pool. There is cartridges, and with cartridges they do no backwashing whatsoever. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's correct. That solves that issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this.application? (No response). Not hearing any, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. MR. DIMEGLIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as described at 755 Harbor Lane, noting the fact that it is.a salt water pool and there is not a need to address the drainage. It would deem this to be consistent under the LWRP. That's my motion. Board of Trustees 23 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? J (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing 9'x131' timber fixed dock and 26 support piles; and to construct a 5'x76' timber fixed dock supported by 12 piles, a 4'x20' ramp with railings, and an 8'x40' float secured by 4 piles. Located: Winthrop Drive, Fishers Island. REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION AS OF 3/6/13: To remove existing 9'x131' fixed dock and 26 support piles, and to construct a 5'x52' timber fixed dock supported by 8 piles; a 4'x24' ramp with railings; and an 8'x60' floating dock supported by 6 piles. TRUSTEE KING: This is a newer description from the original. Shorten the dock more and lengthen the float. The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation has been made. It was found inconsistent because there was no LWRP review done on this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. JUST: Good evening. Glenn Just of JMO Consulting on behalf of FIDCO. I believe if you look at the plan, the plan is that dock,is eight-and-a-half, nine feet wide, 26 piles. They'll all be removed. TRUSTEE KING: Jay and I went out and looked at this. This is in Silver Eel Cove. I don't think any of us had any real issues with it. It's a downsizing of the big section, but there is an addition of floating docks. There is some eelgrass in the area but it seems to be skirted around either side of the fixed area. MR. JUST: That's because that area has been using that dock just to the left of the picture there, it's where the ferries have been coming in, I guess. I think the wheel wash is digging up pretty big in there. They'll be reconstructing the original ferry dock. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anyone else to speak on behalf of or against this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I don't think any of us had any problems with it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We had no problems with it. The eelgrass was already pushing, growth-wise, and there was nothing underneath the existing float. MR. JUST: The float will be in eight or nine feet of water, as well. It should not impact eelgrass. TRUSTEE KING: There are no other comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted and find this consistent as the fixed section has been greatly Board of Trustees 24 April 17, 2013 reduced in size. I think that brings it more into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of SUSAN NORRIS requests a Wetland Permit to construct 440' of new retaining wall; re-grade area landward filling void areas with clean trucked-in fill (approximately 100 cubic yards); re-vegetate area to match existing. Located: 2790 New Suffolk Avenue, Mattituck. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends retaining walls line up with existing retaining wall in front of the established structures. Does that mean you want it moved seaward? MR. COSTELLO: No, we'll straighten it out. TRUSTEE KING: I'm asking the CAC. You wanted it lined up with the existing? MR. BOSSEN: The Conservation Advisory Council is asking for a unified front along bulkheads and retaining walls so when there is a splash we don't have perpendicular angles that increase the wave action and thereafter endanger the properties that exist that are being protected by bulkheads and retaining walls. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be kind of tough to do. MR. BOSSEN: Perhaps more of an angle -- TRUSTEE KING: The plans show it's almost like a 45 degree angle. It's not a 90. Where it goes out in front of the beach house and covered deck. The only way to get a straight line is put them seaward of what the plan is. MR. BOSSEN: I think, I believe it being a retaining wall and not a bulkhead, there are some members of the board that felt strongly about it. That's why it was put in our recommendations. TRUSTEE KING: We don't have any issues with it. I looked at this myself. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello, Costello Marine Contracting. We are the agents for Susan Norris on the installing this retaining wall. One of the reasons we went out and went around the building is because the cost of moving the building, and you can build it sufficiently so it's not going to affect -- it will probably, on occasion, depending upon the storm, the severity, there will be some degree of over-splash, but hopefully it will only damage the vegetation or the grass and nothing else. TRUSTEE KING: I looked at it. I didn't have any problems with it at all. Another one of these, the main bulkhead is fine but it all got eroded behind it. Is there anybody else in the audience, any comments on this application? (No response). Board of Trustees 25 April 17, 2013 I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, and find it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number six, August H. Muff, R.A. on behalf of BERNADETTE M. HOGAN &JONATHAN ZAVIN request a Wetland Permit for the existing 3,477 sq.ft. residence with 550 sq.ft. wood deck; a 6'x40' fixed wood dock; 5'x25' hinged ramp; and 6'x20' float; and for a proposed outdoor basement entrance (48 sq.ft); a 120 sq.ft. deck addition; and for a 8'x8' hot tub on deck. Located: 3005 Wells Road, Peconic. The sort of updating and obtaining a wetland permit ordinarily would be considered an activity that is consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council though, however, did have some questions, due to insufficient information, such as a drainage plan and no record on the drawings of the sanitary system, no recommendation was made. The Trustees, during the course of our field inspection did find that the line drawing submitted did not reflect the actuality of the measurements of the dock in place, so that was problematic for the Board. The dock that is there in no way is reflected on the plans. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. MUFF: For the applicant, August Henry Muff, architect. The dock was not in the water at the time I measured it. So I can update the plans to be more accurate. The ramp and the float were laying on the side, sort of landward of where that swan is. Certainly with respect to the sanitary system, I can add that to the plan and show any other drainage issues that the Conservation Advisory Council requires. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Additionally, it was an omission on my part, the Trustees were concerned there were no gutters and leaders to drywells, so that is a requirement now, under separate Town Code section, retain drainage on site as well, is something we always ask as part of our wetland permitting. MR. MUFF: My client has recently replaced the gutters and I'm sure he would be more than willing to put in drywells for roof runoff. Is that for a two-inch rainfall? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Typically, with questions specifically about the engineering of it, you can check with the Town Engineering Department. But it's my understanding two-inch rainfall is more than adequate. That's been the standard. TRUSTEE KING: What was the length of the fixed dock we had? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The measurements that we had, I don't think, Board of Trustees 26 April 17, 2013 I'm not sure if the length was at issue. It was six-foot wide for the fixed dock, but then the ramp we had at three-foot wide, but the plans showed five. Then there was actually an additional portion of the ramp that was on a separate float that was essentially nine-foot square, and then the float itself, which is depicted on the plans as being 20 feet was essentially 19, but the width, which I think we had it at five feet, which was different than the six feet. So it was at variance to some degree with what was there from the plan. For whatever reason, I don't -- I think the length was essentially the same as what was on the plan because I didn't overwrite the plan. I was the one who was writing the field notes. I don't see any notation that the length of the fixed portion, I believe, was as it is on the plan. Is there any other questions or concerns? TRUSTEE KING: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What we have out there is two floats, actually, right now. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the new plan will reflect the removal of one float, so we'll only have one float remaining. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. That would be something we could ask in the permitting phase. Ordinarily the Board only allows for a fixed catwalk, a ramp and a single not to exceed 6x20 float. MR. MUFF: So it would be the removal of one of the floats. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. The approval of the described, what is described in the application here, would result in the removal of that other float. I just want to make sure you understand. MR. MUFF: Understood. TRUSTEE KING: It will make it an issue of getting from the catwalk to the float. He'll need to extend the dock or get a longer ramp. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They have a 5x25 hinged ramp is what is proposed, what is described here. In other words with the location of that float out there, the ramp will not reach that float. 25 foot float. MR. MUFF: The two floats make a "T", if I remember correctly, and the ramp lands on the first float. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. What's the length of the existing ramp? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The existing ramp is, well, the measurement provided is 25 feet includes the nine-foot float, so which it sits on. We did not take a separate measurement of the existing ramp separately. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So it included the float is what you are saying. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So they would have to build a new ramp that would be 25 feet long. Because the existing ramp is -- right. So they'll have to build a new ramp. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 27 April 17, 2013 MR. GORDON: Bill Gordon, I am the next door neighbor to the existing property. We did get the notification, we did not get to see the plans. So it was not clear to me about the size of the dock. I guess our concern here, since we have lived there for, you know, 13 years, is there is a hot tub up on the deck. The deck now gets extended, it's high, the hot tub goes to the end of the deck and it's kind of right in.our property. And it creates noise and late at night. I don't necessarily have a problem with what they are doing, but if they were to do that, we would ask there be some appropriate screening, if that's possible. Because right now the deciduous trees, you look right through, the hot tub would be pretty much 12 feet closer-- if that's where it's going to go --to our porch and our bedroom. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would be up to the applicant. Ordinary and usual maintenance of ornamental things for screening would not actually have to be in this permit that we write but if the applicant was agreeable and could work out something neighborly, I'm sure we would have no problem with that. That could be done outside the scope of the wetland permit. MR. GORDON: Do you know where the hot tub will be located? MR. MUFF: If you look in the photograph, just to the right of the furthest set of sliding doors. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's where it is now. You are moving it where? MR. MUFF: To the right of the sliding doors. MR. GORDON: It would go on the new deck. MR. MUFF: If you like, I could come up and point to it on the photograph. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. MR. MUFF:,(Indicating) The plan was to extend the deck, this existing deck out to, I think it's one foot to the edge of the house. We'll relocate the deck here because the Zavin's and Mrs. Hogan, they don't have anywhere on this deck to put a dining room table or picnic table to have dinner. So they wanted to relocate it to that end. MR. GORDON: And I see that. So I'm just saying, I know, living with a hot tub for a long time, I understand. We don't have one. But I would like to see some kind of screening so that it buffers the sound. Because that deck is high relative to our house and it will come right down and hit in our bedroom and our porch. And I can't tell what is happening with the dock. Are you extending the dock? TRUSTEE GHOSIO' It will be the same as what is there. MR. MUFF: It's not getting any bigger, for the record. MR. GORDON: I even understand why you would want to extend it. But some kind of screening would be -- MR. MUFF: I have a clarification from the Board. The screening shrubs would not have to get a permit from the Trustees? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Usually, placing ornamental shrubbery is not a permit requiring exercise. In and around the house. That doesn't mean you can clear or cut or scrape in connection with the wetland in in that shrubbery, but in the confines of Board of Trustees 28 April 17, 2013 the established lawn area around the building it should not be a problem. MR. GORDON: Thank you. MR. MUFF: Very good. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Additional questions or comments? (No response). Hearing none, 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 with the stipulation that a new drawing be submitted that shows the accurate dock dimensions and that the dock be limited to no more than a single float of 120 square feet of 6x20 or whatever. Accordingly. And that we have gutters, leaders and drywells depicted on the same plan submission. This would bring this project into consistency with the LWRP. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MUFF: One additional question. Do I submit the plans back to the Trustees? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, to our office. MR. MUFF: Very good. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number five, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of THOMAS DOWLING requests a Wetland Permit to remove all portions of dilapidated timbers/old bulkhead and reconstruct a 189' navy style bulkhead in-place of existing utilizing vinyl sheathing; to reconstruct a 39' return and an 11' return, both with vinyl; to dredge area 10' off bulkhead, in boat slip to a depth of -4 fALW; resultant spoil (approximately 75 cubic yards) to be used as backfill for new structure; to reconstruct 3'x40' timber walk using untreated lumber; to install a cantilevered 4'x6' platform, 3'x12' ramp, and 6'x20' float secured by (3) 10" piles; to install electric/lighting to existing flagpole; to install an irrigation line to boat basin; to install pervious path with stepping stones at existing 4' path to boat basin. _ Located: 1200 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency, the LWRP coordinator writes that the proposed action to install cantilevered 4x6' platform, ramp and 6x20' float is inconsistent with stated policies. The Conservation Advisory Council found this, voted to support this application. . The Trustees visited the site on the 10th, and I'm going to ask Trustee Bredemeyer to read his notes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you, for the compliment. I really wanted to be a medical doctor, but it didn't work out. The Board, we met in the field with the young lady from DKR Shores and we were trying to discuss as a Board some of our Board of Trustees 29 April 17, 2013 concerns that we might possibly downscale the project. My notes ran accordingly to try to distill what the discussion was in the field with the hopes that you were going to return to the owner and discuss with them whether they could come up with downscaling. I think the Board as a whole felt that the project might be able to be downscaled, not only saving the owners considerable construction cost or some construction cost and then allow for some wetland to possibly reestablish in the vicinity. What we did discuss at that time, the 26 feet of the northerly bulkhead might be installed as a low sill bulkhead employing helical screws as backing and that there would be no deck at that point, no decking or catwalk adjacent to that piece of the bulkhead. And that the remaining portion would be, that would be flow-through decking. It also recommended that a low sill bulkhead on the waterward facing and on the west side where there was both a piece, I guess, would be the north side facing, and a return on the west side, could possibly employ a low sill bulkhead. Again with helical screws to limit the damage to the wetland or construction. And those were my notes. MS. RIGDON: I did discuss this with Mr. Dowling. He's okay with reducing the scope of the project. I did actually hand deliver modified plans. I'm not sure if you had a chance to review them, so I brought some with me. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What was the notation on the consistency? We'll actually be restoring the tidal wetlands. MS. RIGDON: If you could notice, I added sheet 606, the last page, which is a typical section of a low sill bulkhead in those areas we discussed. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any questions or suggestions from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's pretty much what we discussed when we were out there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes. It conforms to our request and it just goes along way to bring in quite a substantial amount of intertidal vegetation in an area where it flourishes, so this actually would be a net gain of intertidal vegetation. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of stone walkway are we talking about? MS. RIGDON: We had discussed crushed gravel with stepping stone, bluestone pavers. That will be pervious. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any other comments or questions from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Make sure you note that the walkway will be pervious. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have one question. I'm just trying to digest these plans that have been submitted here tonight. MS. RIGDON: They are very complicated, sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The side of the bulkhead that contains the proposed dock and ramp, is that being maintained at the same length as it currently is or was that shortened at all? MS. RIGDON: If you look at sheet 206, that 26-foot section we Board of Trustees 30 April 17, 2013 discussed will be low sill with no walkway. And then it will raise up to its regular height which it is now and encompass that area of walk that would be through-flow. And that would be the staging area for loading the boat, fishing equipment, coolers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. That answered my question. MS. RIGDON: No problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what we had proposed out in the field. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further questions, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. RIGDON: I just want to thank the Board for meeting me out there. Thank you. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the new plans dated revised April 10, 2013, noting that the changes will address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this what is described on the new plan? MS. HULSE: You have to re-do your motion. It's not the same. TRUSTEE KING: It's on page two, there is a description on the new plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Better withdraw that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll withdraw the motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as described: The applicant proposes to remove all portions of existing dilapidated timbers bulkhead sections, to reconstruct inplace a 26-foot section, 27-foot section, 17-foot section, 29-foot section and a 28-foot section of bulkhead at the same height as the existing using, utilizing vinyl sheathing; construct a 26-foot section, 36-foot section and 39-foot section return with low sill.vinyl bulkhead to utilize either helical anchors or double pile sea wall in these areas; to dredge area ten foot off bulkhead to depth of minus four foot at grade; utilizing resultant spoil approximately 75 cubic yards as backfill to reconstruct 3x28' section of the walk inplace with through-flow open-grate decking; to install.cantilevered 4x6' platform, 3x12' foot ramp and 6x20' float secured by three (3) ten-inch piles; and to allow a four-foot wide pervious gravel stepping stone pathway to the boat basin; to allow for existing water and electric to be activated to the boat basin and for flagpole lighting; and to reactivate water to cut irrigation to be directed landward to the lawn areas only. That's at 1200 Broadwaters Cove, Cutchogue: That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number six, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of DANIEL Board of Trustees 31 April 17, 2013 T. CHRISTIANSON requests a Wetland Permit to replace 31.5 linear feet of 36"wide existing timber catwalk using non-treated lumber and thru-flow decking over the wetlands; the existing additional catwalk, 36"x12.5' ramp, and 6'x20' float to remain. Located: 1220 Deep Hole Drive, Mattituck. This is found to be inconsistent by the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And gutters and drywells installed to contain roof runoff from the dwelling. We were out at the site. We measured the dock. Just looking to confirm. Just double checking. 6x20 float; 3x12.5' ramp; 4x17 catwalk; 431.5. Okay. Six inch piles We did note on the conditions needs six inch piles, add to the plans a small bench on the north side of the catwalk. There was a small bench out there, kind of overhanging off the side. It says here we need measurements of the existing fixed dock portion. There is a note on the notes. Anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I can make any plan revisions you need with regard to adding a small bench. Are we clear on the size of this? I measured it myself in the field. The portion that needs to get replaced, which is nothing more than removing and replacing what is there and is damaged, as you saw, and also making it better by adding flow-through decking over the wetlands area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks consistent. We measured it while we were there to make sure it was the same as what you wrote. MR. PATANJO: Good. So this application is nothing more than replacing and making better something that is existing, was functional, was damaged due to the storm. It does have an old previous permit number, 1103, attached to it. So if there are any other comments or concerns, 1 do have Mr. and Mrs. Christianson here to answer any questions. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we had any issues. Just six-inch piles through the wetland area. We don't want to use eight-inch piles through the wetland area. Just small piles through the wetland area. We used to go 44 but that's kind of too light. MR. PATANJO: Sure. TRUSTEE KING: But the six-inch does a good job. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll just ask you to include on the revised plans the six-inch piles as well as the bench. MS. HULSE: And the measurement on the fixed dock. MR. PATANJO: Sure. What measurements? Because I have everything pretty upon much other than existing dock to remain. You want that portion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The existing dock to remain had no measurements. MR. PATANJO: Add dimension on that, sure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Other than that, any other comments from the Board? (No response). Any comments from the audience? Board of Trustees 32 April 17, 2013 (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the stipulation we get revised plans showing all the appropriate dimensions and as well as six-inch piles. The open-grate brings it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of MILDRED DAVID requests a Wetland Permit to replace timber 4'x76' catwalk; 3'x12' aluminum ramp; and 6'x20' floating dock; new catwalk to have thru-flow decking over wetlands and remainder to be untreated lumber. Located:.3825 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP. And the Conservation Advisory Council states the project was not staked, therefore no recommendation was made. The Trustees did go out and looked at this in the field and we also noted that it was not staked. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. And I don't remember staking it. So it probably wasn't staked. There are, however, existing piles that were out there that, the only really things that are remaining from the previous dock that was there, standing to use as a reference point. That, as you can see on the plan, I do have those piles to be removed. But I did not stake the landward side of the float. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since this, what is proposed here, goes out beyond those two pilings, we really do need to see it staked so we can give it an appropriate review. TRUSTEE KING: The seaward side of the float. MR. PATANJO: Okay, are there any other things that should be addressed, any other comments or concerns? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just refer you to the Town Code when it comes to docks and to make sure the application complies as best you can with all the, everything we described in the Town Code docks. Are there any other comments from the audience? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL.AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just make sure it's staked for our next field inspection date. MR. PATANJO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number eight, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DAVID C. ESSEKS & KATHRYN R. Board of Trustees 33 April 17, 2013 STOKES requests a Wetland Permit to construct a non-habitable 748 sq.ft. garage; a non-habitable 480 sq.ft. workshop; an 800 sq.ft. swimming pool; a 2,120 sq.ft. terrace; and pool fence; with required subsurface drainage structures. Located: 522 Town Creek Lane, Southold. This project, the garage is non jurisdictional and we would take out the swimming pool, it too is nearly non jurisdictional. And since there is really no undue influence of the wetlands would be purported because it has a plan for drainage, we', thought that this possibly could be processed as an administrative permit. would note that the Conservation Advisory Council, it was not staked when they were in the field.We had taken measurements. It was almost 90 feet from the wetland. And this sort of project would be ordinarily consistent with the LWRP, for its location so far from the wetlands. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application. MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels from Samuels & Steelman Architects. The drywell we have to drain the driveway is the only thing actually in your jurisdiction. But it was, so we thought it was appropriate to come here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the Board? (No response). I don't think there were any concerns in the field. We did tape it off. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing that I recall was we had talked about a row of hay bales and also a drywell for the pool backwash. MR. SAMUELS: This is a salt water pool. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay.. This really can be considered as an administrative permit, with the addition of a row of hay bales, because so much of it is really non-jurisdictional for us. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? (No response). Does the Board want to entertain a refund of any of the permitting fees? We have to put that in the resolution or put it as a separate resolution. We had performed inspections of Conservation Advisory Council, so we did go out there. Do you want to refund $100 on the permit fees; something like that? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Amend it from a full wetland permit to an Administrative Permit with the addition of a row of hay bails and we have to decide on a plan of where they are to go. MR. SAMUELS: How about on the hundred-foot line. Out of your jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That would work, at the hundred-foot line. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That allows you room to do the work? MR. SAMUELS: Yes, it does. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You already have that on the plans. I didn't notice that. All right, any further discussion? (No response). Hearing none, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak to Board of Trustees 34 April 17, 2013 this application? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted, noting that the project better fits the description as an Administrative Permit and would request $100 fee be returned of the wetland permit fees. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Would that be the proper-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't know if that's the proper amount. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you want refund the full mount? We had inspections, both Trustees and Conservation Advisory Council have already made inspections. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's the administrative fee? MS. CANTRELL: $100. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Adjust it from a wetland permit to administrative permit and appropriate refund of fees that reflects that adjustment. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There you go. MS. CANTRELL: Current administrative permit application fee, $100. Current wetland permit application fees $250. TRUSTEE KING: We are better off with what he said. I didn't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All right, I made the motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The motion as proposed -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: $100 refund because we made a field inspection. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number nine, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of JAMES & JANET D'ADDARIO request a Wetland Permit to demolish existing residence and construct new two-story frame residence with new sanitary system and detached garage. Located: 8860 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application, requesting a 15-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees noted in their inspection on the plans that it shows 15-foot non-turf buffer. And there were no other comments. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects. The front of the new household would be in the middle of that existing house, so it's moving back to the required 75 feet from the bulkhead. And I just gave Liz some dimensions that you guys wanted, which I think are all fine. 14.6% coverage. No variances required. We'll have the Health Department as soon as we have your permit. I just gave her the DEC's permit. TRUSTEE KING: Do we have any issues with it? Board of Trustees 35 April 17, 2013 (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted,.noting that it satisfies the conditions of this Board and policies of this Board and therefore addresses the inconsistency of the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten and eleven are the same applicant, two different addresses. As I remember, they are right next to each other, aren't they? We can open them both at the same time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is such an extensive difference between the two, we should do them individually. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number ten, William Goggins, Esq., on behalf of ALAN A. CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing bulkhead and returns; remove lower retaining wall and returns; replace with 100' vinyl bulkhead with 16' sloped returns in-line with adjacent property; repair inplace/in-kind existing upper 100' wood retaining wall; repair in-place/in-kind existing middle 100' wood retaining wall; install 4' staircase and platform to beach; install +/-200 cubic yards of clean fill; remove all wood and debris off-site. Located: 4125 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. So we are talking about 4125 Nassau Point Road. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application' because the site plan is inaccurate. A second set of steps should not be constructed on the slope. The elevation of the bulkhead was not provided and the bulkhead should align with the bulkhead on lot 24 to avoid an acute angle. I just read the Conservation Advisory Council report. This is the wrong one. Excuse me a moment, Bill. This is the gazebo one. Okay.The gazebo one. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the plans for 4125. See if there are two sets of stairs. (Board members perusing plans). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is 4125 but the Conservation Advisory Council says 4365. Let me just double check something here. It's just a little bit of paperwork issues here. MR. GOGGINS: 1 have all night. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once again, we are talking about 4125 Nassau Point Road. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to Board of Trustees 36 April 17, 2013 support the application because the site plan.is inaccurate. A second set of steps should not be constructed on the slope. The elevation of the bulkhead was not provided and the bulkhead should align with the bulkhead on lot 24 to avoid an acute angle. It's been found to be inconsistent with LWRP. While we were out there, our notes were that this is pretty straightforward and everything seemed okay. Is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. GOGGINS: My name is William Goggins, I'm the attorney for the applicant 13235 Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Whatever questions that the Board has, I'm willing to answer. It's a pretty straightforward application. Everything is pretty well detailed on the survey. All of the decking and so forth is on the 4365 parcel. Number 11 on the docket. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the tax map number? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The tax map number should be 111-9-6.2 MR. GOGGINS: 6.2 and 6.3. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Both tax map numbers are on the same set of plans that goes only to the property with the gazebo. So the question is do we even have a set of plans for 4125 Nassau Point Road? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Because on the gazebo they had the 6.2 tax map. MR. GOGGINS: You should have both sets I have both sets. I have this set that has the house on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN:That's it. That's 4125. That's the survey. MR. GOGGINS: That does not have the gazebo. That's on the property next door. TRUSTEE KING: We have about five sets of plans that show the gazebo on it. MR. GOGGINS: You don't have this? TRUSTEE KING: Let's put it this way, we can't find it. Not that we don't have it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the county tax number on this? MR. GOGGINS: This is 6.2. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: 6.3 is the gazebo. You see they transposed -- MR. GOGGINS: 6.2 is the gazebo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what you just handed me is tax map number 6.3. MR. GOGGINS: Right. And this is 6.2 has the gazebo. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Here you go. We have it. MR. GOGGINS: Then there is a third set plans is the building plans shows the side-view and the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So the description does not have the gazebo on the 6.2, it has it under 6.3. MR. GOGGINS: I didn't draft the application. The Cardinale's did. They just hired me to come in. We can amend it un pro tunc. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The reason I wanted to see this is in the Conservation Advisory Council's comments it had mentioned a Board of Trustees 37 April 17, 2013 second set of stairs, and there isn't any on this property. MR. GOGGINS: There is none. And the Conservation Advisory Council also indicated they want a consistency of the bulkhead, which you really can't because one neighbor's bulkhead -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would just step back to the microphone so we can get it on the record. MR. GOGGINS: The bulkheads are inconsistent in that area. The neighbor to the north was out and the neighbor to the south was closer landward. So it's, I guess if you want to make it consistent, the Cardinale bulkhead would have to be diagonal at probably a six foot slope. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Derek? MR. GOGGINS: Which would take away their property. MR. BOSSEN: The CAC is probably more of a paperwork confusion. It looks as though the plans that we have for the one property it shows the house but it asks for the stairs. If is there no stairs being put on the property with the house on it, we didn't have a problem with that. We saw it as two sets of stairs being installed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The transposing here of the tax map numbers think is what created the confusion. MR. BOSSEN: And that's where a lot of our comments are coming from is the confusion of that paperwork. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bill, a question for you. It appears as though what they're doing is removing the existing storm damaged bulkhead completely, moving back so that what was the first retaining wall will now become the primary bulkhead for the property. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: With two retaining walls above it. MR. GOGGINS: That's right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. MR. GOGGINS: Because there is about a 60-foot slope from the top of the bluff down to the top of that-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: So while we have not gotten to the next application, this proposed new primary bulkhead will meet the other bulkhead of the property we are about to address to the south. MR. GOGGINS: Correct. So if we could talk about these applications together, that might be helpful. The bulkhead will be the same. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The Board doesn't want to open up the other application. Any other comments? MR. BOSSEN: Which property are we talking about; the one with the house or the one with the pool? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The one with just the house. MR. BOSSEN: The one with just the house, the plans show at the bulkhead line, that's the acute angle that the Conservation Advisory Council was concerned about. Our concern is that those right-angle bulkheads create a slew spot for destruction of bulkheads, and if you pick a point farther down the line where Board of Trustees 38 April 17, 2013 you can make it more of an angle to meet that point, you don't have the acute angle and that box that is created, that creates scouring. TRUSTEE KING: Bring it in on a 45. MR. BOSSEN: That would solve that problem and reduce that boxed-in affect that would tear that wall right out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's on the north side. MR. BOSSEN: The plan I have looks like the north end of that plan. TRUSTEE KING: We have done that before. It seems to work out pretty well. MR. BOSSEN: Anything to reduce the impact and increase the integrity of the bulkhead is what we are trying to accomplish. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you see, Bill, on the north end, when you remove the existing bulkhead, it's going to create almost a return from the neighbor's bulkhead at a right angle, so if we bring that in as a 45, you'll be creating a spot where it won't be as liable to have erosion than it is currently. MR. GOGGINS: That's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So we'll need a set of revised plans indicating that. Do you want to draw it? TRUSTEE KING: It's a simple 45 degree angle. I can draw it on. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you, Derek. MR. BOSSEN: No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have the right paperwork here. We have the right plans, we have the 45 degree angle. Is there anything else we need to address on this? (No response). Are there any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just real quick. I notice on the description is a four-foot staircase and platform to the beach but I don't see that on the set of plans here. MR. GOGGINS: It is. It says proposed four-foot wide stair. It's on the plan with the pool. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't see four-foot wide stairs either. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Come on up, I'll show you what we are looking at, Bill. MR. GOGGINS: That's the wrong property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's on the description MR. GOGGINS: That's the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, and here is the waterfront with the new 45 degree angle we talked about. And there is no stairs, yet here in the description there is a set of stairs. MR. GOGGINS: Really. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would think they would want a set of stairs for beach access. MR. GOGGINS: For the other property, correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You don't want a set of stairs for beach access for this property? MR. GOGGINS: We do. We want it for both. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then we'll need a new set of plans to show where Board of Trustees 39 April 17, 2013 the stairs are going to go, and the 45 degree, okay? MR. GOGGINS: All right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does that make sense? MR. GOGGINS: It does. It does. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Drawing a set of stairs, 300 feet whatever it is there, could end up out of place. Okay, are there any other comments or questions? MR. GOGGINS: Yes. This is subject to putting the 45 degree and the set of stairs, I was wondering, if you are going to approve it, if we could have it subject to submission, because they want to get moving on'getting the work done. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As soon as we get the plans, you get the permit. Well, that's a lot of pressure, I know. Anybody else? (No response). III make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted noting they'll be creating a 45-degree angle on the north side of the new bulkhead to match up with the existing neighbor's bulkhead and adding, like we said, on to the plans, that 45-degree angle and also putting on the plans the proposed four-foot stairs. Once we receive the new drawings, we can issue the permit, assuming that we approve this. By doing so, I find it to be consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. GOGGINS: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eleven, William Goggins, Esq., on behalf of ALAN A. CARDINALE requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing bulkhead and returns, remove lower retaining wall and returns, replace with 100' vinyl bulkhead with 16' sloped returns in-line with adjacent property; repair in-place/in-kind existing upper 100' wood retaining wall; repair in-place/in-kind existing middle 100' wood retaining wall; relocate and install existing 20x40' wood deck and 10x10' gazebo; remove existing and install 4' staircase and landing from arbor to deck; install 4' staircase and platform to beach; install +/-200 cubic yards of clean fill; remove all wood and debris off-site; and for the existing 25x50' swimming pool, 10x28' pool house, pool fencing, slate patio, walk and stairs,rock wall, and arbor. Located: 4365 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This property is right next to the one we were just discussing. This is the one with the gazebo. The Conservation Advisory Council has resolved to not support the application because the site plan is inaccurate. A second set of steps should not be constructed on the slope. The elevation of the bulkhead is not provided and the bulkhead should align with bulkhead on lot 24 to avoid an acute angle. Board of Trustees 40 April 17, 2013 Somehow I think that's not the right -- because it was the same as the other one, right? MR. BOSSEN: Right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's been found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. In our field notes, when we were out there, it was just indicating reducing the size of the lower deck to half of what was proposed and move the gazebo closer to the stairs and retaining wall. With that is there anybody here who would like to address this application? MR. GOGGINS: I'm William Goggins, on behalf of the applicant. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We do have a gazebo roof that survived, as you could see. We are showing the existing wood deck. You'll be removing a portion of the existing deck and adding a four-foot wide stair; is that correct? MR. GOGGINS: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: From our field notes, when we were out in the field we kind of got the sense you could actually take that, the wood deck and shrink it and still be able to accommodate the gazebo. Would you be willing to shrink the size of that deck a bit? MR. GOGGINS: It depends on how much. I guess the intent of the plan was, that's about a 20x100 area between where the new bulkhead will be and the first retaining wall. And I think the thought was to leave 20x60' of it undisturbed, non-turf area, then have a deck this size and have it pervious with enough space between the slats so that would be a non-turf area also. Except where, of course where the gazebo is on top of the deck. So we were hoping not to reduce the deck because basically we are making a very big non-turf non-disturbed area. And you were at the property. I was there before I came, and this is just a great improvement to what was there. The steps going down are inconsistent in rise and in tread and I don't know how they ever got to the beach before, how comfortable it was. This is just a vast improvement with the other stairs going straight down to the deck and the stairs going to the beach. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How about the Board, what is your feeling? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know I went out and looked at this prior to the removal of the gazebo and decks. And in the code now, the code states platforms associated with stairs to the beach are 100-square feet. And one could make the argument that this deck is a platform associated with a set of stairs, since the four-foot wide coming down connects to it and four-foot wide going from the retaining wall connects to it. For myself, I would like to see this deck reduced as was proposed out in the field, instead of being 10x10, as my interpretation of the code, to allow, I believe --what was the dimension on the field notes, 10x20? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The gazebo is 10x10. The deck is 20x40. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the deck, if we downsize the deck to 20x20 and pull the gazebo in over to one side, that still would leave plenty of room on the deck to enjoy seating and enough room for Board of Trustees 41 April 17, 2013 the gazebo. That's just my own personal feeling. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I concur with Trustee Bergen. MR. GOGGINS: I guess it depends how many people you want to accommodate. The smaller the deck, the'less people can be on it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You can still sit on the stand. Put chairs on the sand. MR. GOGGINS: Not at high tide. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is up above the retaining wall. If the tide is up there, we have a problem. MR. GOGGINS: I know. Who is going to want to hang out in a non-turf area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would be happy with taking ten feet off, making it 20x30 instead of 20x40. Because once he gets the gazebo up there and assuming it won't go all the way to the edge, otherwise you won't be able to really walk around it, he'll need a little more room. I don't know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER:'He only has five feet either side now because if you have 20 feet and it's a ten-foot wide gazebo, you have 5x5. That's not a very large walk. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's.what I'm thinking. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That seems reasonable. There is a point to be had. It's pervious, it's not adding any chemicals or anything deleterious to the wetlands and the, it's, you know, replacing a large structure. I think, you know, what Bob says, too, you really want to have some, safe space around the gazebo for proper and safe pedestrian, people moving. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What kind of decking are you using? MR. GOGGINS: I think the intent is to use Mahogany. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? (No response). Anything else from the audience on this? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application with just noting the one change of changing the lower deck from the proposed 20x40 to 20x30, and reducing the size of the deck so you can get some more of the adjacent non-turf buffer in there. And then you'll have to move the gazebo about five feet south of there. MR. GOGGINS: To the south. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right: And also to include spacing between the slats on the Mahogany deck of up to 3/8ths of an inch to accommodate water and allowing drainage. By doing so it will bring this into consistency see with the LWRP. That's my motion. And we'll need of course revised plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 42 April 17, 2013 MR. GOGGINS: Thank you, have a good night. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Spaces Landscape Architecture on behalf of LAURIE KRATOCHVIL requests a Wetland Permit to install "HESCO" concertainers approximately 6' wide x 54' long along the shoreline, with a 3' wide x 12' long concertainers at each end extending landward; each to be filled with sand and planted with beach grass. Located: 920 Ruch Lane, Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. WILCENSKI: Susan Wilcenski, from Spaces Landscape Architecture, for the client. This is a product that is new to the industry, not quite new-- new to this area but not new to the industry. This is an improvement on some of these soft structures you have seen in the past, and when I went to go visit the site, the client is really lucky to be high above the water, however the bank took a real hard hit through the storm and eroded quite a bit. What I didn't like when I went to the site was this is this beautiful wetland, grassland, you know, that was thriving; beach lavender, there's mussels, everything, it was really beautiful. And the erosion caused the sediment to go down and cover this. I just hope that it does well. So what I wanted to do was to give the client something that they kind of had there before, which was a vegetated bank. However, something that would, the bank that would be protected through these soft structures, when they have a strong storm surge. And these structures we are proposing -- did the Board see this? (The Board responds in the affirmative). The cover is basically what we are doing. This, the structure has been used after Katrina and Louisiana down south and it's doing wonderfully. And in fact after the hurricane now in New York and New Jersey, New York City Parks Department and other large agencies are now looking into this structure to use. It has great protection against surge and flood. But what I really liked about this soft structure is that it's 3x3x15. It folds. You can carry it by hand down to the location. You don't need any heavy equipment. You don't need anything that is not indigenous. It's simply hand excavate, install this, take the sediment and sand and stone that has been eroded and onsite, put it into this container, because it's contained with filter fabric, so it doesn't leach out, it doesn't erode. There is no sediment.And then the beautiful thing is that any kind of not only protecting you from storm surges but the property above is sloped, and any runoff that would go into this area permeates down. It leaches through and it filtrates.. So this product is open to the top so when you put the local sand in it, now you can plant it with beach grass. Board of Trustees 43 April 17, 2013 And not only do we have beautiful wetland grass but we have nice beach grass to the buffer behind. So also by doing a swale, a little low point to collect any water from above, leaching into the sand with native grasses and protection of this product, the client.now has something that is not a hard structure like a bulkhead or the expense of a bulkhead and can soften it. And from their view, from the house out, they see beautiful grasses. And it's a proven product that will work in hurricane-type storms, events like that. So I think it's something new that I want to introduce. And when you went down to the area, I'm sure you noticed that there is adjacent landowners that have concrete and all sorts of ugly hard structures, which we don't want. And there has actually been a lot of interest in this community to this path here to continue to use this. As other interest in the area. do like working in the Southampton area and stuff, too. So I think it's a really neat product. I think it's environmentally sound. I think it's got the least impact of anything for something I consider soft structure that will protect. And I love the fact it is going to increase the natural habitat and increase a native buffer, improve on drainage and filtrate anything that leaches in. So I hope you agree as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would just make a note here like I did before that everything you have just said also applies to the next application, because that's just a continuation of this property, that would be number 13, Patricia Walker, so we don't have to review it all again. MS. WILCENSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The question I have is how are you going to anchorthese? MS. WILCENSKI: Well, they get dug into grade a little bit. They don't just sit on top of grade. And it's weight. It's actual, physical weight. It's 3x3x15. It's a lot of weight. And what I didn't really mention, what you do see in this front cover here is there is a six-inch front void that is caged that you could put like the local stones, going to screen and put the stones in there. I'll be a little artistic with it. I'll throw some wood and stuff that has been, you know, that has been washed up ashore. Collect that. And one other thing I didn't mention for this property is after the storm it really exposed a lot of old junk, concrete pipe, steel, whatnot, that was previously put in many years ago. I'll also remove that. So anything attractive, I'll keep, and anything non-native, I'll remove and encourage the native plantings. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What's the cost for one of these units? MS. WILCENSKI: Well, it's about $8,000 for the whole system. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For this entire -- sorry, what was the length? MS. WILCENSKI: That's cost and materials. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The length was 54 feet, it's about $8,000. MS. WILCENSKI: Yes. It's two systems and one system high, so Board of Trustees 44 April 17, 2013 for all that material, it's a little less than that. So it's definitely more cost effective than bulkheads. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. I was just curious. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's $150 a foot. MS. WILCENSKI: And if you use the local material onsite. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Does the manufacturer warranty it for any time, a lifespan? MS. WILCENSKI: It's galvanized, so they told me anywhere from 12 to 15 years, it will start to rust a little, but then it will continue on. It will just be a little rusty. But by then I expect it to be grown with plants and, you know. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The fabric material -- MS. WILCENSKI: The fabric material you shouldn't see. It will be buried. ` TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking forward to seeing how it works out. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Noting the extent of the erosion, as you pointed out, and that the application states that each will be filled with sand, I was wondering if it was really sand, what was the source, or if it was bank run? MS. WILCENSKI: It's going to be clean sand but basically I'm going to try and remove every little bit of sand that eroded down and bring that back up. I'll be bringing in clean bank run. That will be fine. TRUSTEE KING: Very similar to a gabion. MS. WILCENSKI: What I also do in these situations is I say if there is anything I do need to bring in, I'll put below grade. And I'll save what I do take from site and put it on top. But it will be planted with beach grass, and the beach grass will be really thick, you don't see it anyway. But I always put the native right on top, on the surface. One other thing, with this client, she is putting a lot of non-native, she had planted quite a bit on this non-native.and I'll be removing all those and moving them up and everything, you know, proposed will be native. All sorts of beach grass. TRUSTEE KING: It will be a first for us. MS. WILCENSKI: I'm excited to do it. I often do that. As a landscape architect that's kind of what I do. I look around for different product, what is good out there, and introduce something new. I do that quite a lot. So far so good. But I have done a lot of research. I might even be able to get the rep up here, too, and you can talk to him. TRUSTEE KING: I notice in the brochure it says it comes in different colors? Is that painted on or is it a vinyl finish? MS. WILCENSKI: Oh, no, this will be galvanized. TRUSTEE KING: I'm surprised it's not a final coating on the wire to make it last that much longer. MS. WILCENSKI: You know, I actually asked them that and they said it's cost prohibitive. It's very extensive. They are trying to figure it out. But this product has worked, so there is not a big need for that. TRUSTEE KING: I see, it's the container goes from pale to green, Board of Trustees 45 April 17, 2013 it's not in the wire. MS. WILCENSKI: Yes, but I'll do the bluff, which is the same color as the grass in the fall, right. So it should blend very well. It will be hidden because beach grass grows so quick. TRUSTEE KING: Any Board comments? (No response). Does anybody else in the audience have any comments? MS. MOORE: Question, I have a client down in the same, Ruch Lane. Do you cut into the the of the slope or do you go out into the, like the area that people walk? MS. WILCENSKI: No, I'm actually going behind, back from where people walk, because it was eroded, so there is no need to. I'll actually pull it back a little bit and cut into the slope, yes. MS. MOORE: Okay, so right where it's fallen over, you'll actually rebuild the bank with this material. MS. WILCENSKI: Yes. MS. MOORE: Just needed clarification, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted, and I think removing the non-native species and restoring this and planting up natural plants is an improvement for the area and would make it consistent with the LWRP. That's my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 13, Spaces Landscape Architecture on behalf of PATRICIA WALKER requests a Wetland Permit to install "HESCO" concertainers approximately 6' wide x 37' long along the shoreline that are to be filled with sand and planted with beach grass. Located: 1020 Ruch Lane, Southold. We'll note this piece of property is immediately adjacent to the piece of property we just had the prior hearing regarding. It was found inconsistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of drywells are installed to contain roof runoff. I take it they are referring to the house. The Board did go out and looked at that. And again, this is the exact same as the prior application. And given our comments from the prior application that this is new technology, that we think is worthy of trying out here in this area, just like the prior application you are planning on, just describe briefly what you'll fill it with. MS. WILCENSKI: Yes. Susan Wilcenski from Spaces Landscape Architecture, for the applicant. This is the same product as the Board of Trustees 46 April 17, 2013 adjacent landowner. The HESCO concertainers which are open-top galvanized steel cages that have a filter fabric interior for the purpose of that I could reuse existing site material to fill it in and contain it with a six-inch front, open front, that would be, again, site-specific local stone material to act as protection, further protection, for any extreme storm surge. And it's two cages or units deep, one unit high. And this site is a little shorter than, it's not the full width of the site because there is a stand of native sassafras that has a nice root system in holding the slope very well. So we'll go up against it. The same thing is open top, we are going to plant beach grass, become thick and increase the buffer and remove some existing lawn to have a non-fertilization, non-disturbance buffer which will also collect any existing lawn runoff prior to the pond, where it will be contained and'filtrate down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you, very.much. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from any other Board members? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Spaces Landscape Architect on behalf of Patricia Walker. And given the structures that are being used and the fact that natural materials are being used to fill the structures, I would deem it consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. WILCENSKI: Thank you, very much. And I'll keep in touch with everybody. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to see it when it's finished. MS. WILCENSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN FAHEY requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 128 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of(and +/-12" higher than) existing timber bulkhead; construct +/-14' vinyl return in place of(and +/-12" higher than) existing easterly return, and construct +/-27' vinyl return-inside westerly property line in place of existing return; backfill/re-nourish eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 300 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and replace 4'x5' platform and 3'x8' steps to beach; repair as needed existing (3) wood tie retaining walls, +/-7'x20' steps, +/-7'x14' deck, and +/-6'x9' steps landward of bulkhead. Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. The project has been deemed to be consistent under the Board of Trustees 47 April 17, 2013 LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the condition that the bulkhead is no higher than adjacent properties and moved back in line with an acute angle and the 300 cubic yards of fill should be certified. The Trustees visited the site, did the inspection, we wanted to maintain the same non-turf area that is between the bulkhead and the retaining walls. And we felt the application was fairly straightforward and didn't have any issues with that per se. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of this application MR. HERRMANN: Good evening. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of Sean Fahey. Jay, to that point, we did include on the plan, basically that photo is basically looking at the non-turf buffer. It's about 25 feet wide between the bulkhead and back wall, and we did indicate on the plan that area will be re-nourished and maintained as a buffer. So we don't have any issue with that recommendation and it's already in the plan and application. Otherwise it's as you described, it's just yet another Hurricane Sandy restoration project, basically. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the return does show that it's at an acute angle partially, so I'm not sure exactly what the Conservation Advisory Council -- MR. HERRMANN: I did get a call from the neighbor to the west. I'm not sure if that's what you are talking about. But just to clarify, on the plan, unless you stare pretty hard at it, it's maybe a little hard to follow, but if you compare it to the survey, what I show is the dashed Fine on sheet one of two, on the westerly return, the return actually seems to start on the neighbor's property and it kind of crisscrosses and ties in. So what we are proposing is just to swivel that a little bit so the new return stays in line with the property line and on the subject property. Otherwise we are just looking to maintain the same condition. That's the 27-foot return to the west. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not sure, Derek. There was a question here is they requested, the Conservation Advisory Council, on the angle, the acute angle, was that the east side? MR. BOSSEN: Let me orient myself so I know which way I'm looking. It's on the, I think it's on the western side. The side closest to the stairs to the beach. That angle that ties in with -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is this what you are concerned with? MR. BOSSEN: That's the east. This portion here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You want to lengthen that. MR. BOSSEN: I want to increase the angle, this angle is too acute. We want to make it more obtuse. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, the terms obtuse and acute. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was very good at geometry, so. MR. BOSSEN: It's too close to 90. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It would be obtuse. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It would be obtuse. He's our resident advisor geometrist. MR. BOSSEN: Just to increase -- it could be at a 45 compared to Board of Trustees 48 April 17, 2013 what it is now. MR. HERRMANN: I'm not sure what the angle is, we are just looking to try to maintain the existing configuration. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is, it's not at a right angle at this point. MR. HERRMANN: No. I mean if you lengthen the bulkhead to the east and then came back, it would square it more, but that would, I think it would be the opposite direction of where you would be looking for us to go. So we are, again,just a maintenance project trying to replace what is there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is also notable is the southerly portion of Southold Bay, and the fetch, something from the east is probably going to get broken up because that angle is a sharp angle. I'm just trying to sort of think through this out loud myself. Are there any other questions or concerns concerning this application? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted. Noting it's already consistent. So I move to approve it as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 15, En-Consultants on behalf of LINDA S. SANFORD TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 168 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of(and +/-6" higher than) existing timber bulkhead; backfill and re-nourish eroded embankment with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sand/loam fill to be trucked in from an approved upland source and replanted with native vegetation; and construct 4'x8' steps to beach. Located: 3620 Paradise Point Road, Southold. This is consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application, noting that the upper deck is unsafe and should be moved back to the edge of the bluff. I'm not sure what that -- MR. HERRMANN: That's on the neighboring property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The Trustees visited the site on the 10th and noted that it seemed a straightforward application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the Linda Sanford Trust. This is, again, another Hurricane Sandy damage restoration project. There is an accessory building and deck that are on the adjacent property to the north which is the Neefus property (sic). We'll actually be in next month for that. This property is completely vacant and undeveloped. Board of Trustees 49 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE DOMINO: Note that the plans reflect that. MR. HERRMANN: So that's all I have. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Any comments or questions from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to,approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of NAOMI MULLMAN request a Wetland Permit to replace the deteriorating foundation of an existing seasonal cottage; raise the elevation of the cottage +/-2' (F.F. El. 10' MSL); reconstruct in-place existing +/-7..5x14.5' waterside room; reconstruct existing +/-5.5'x6' bathroom and construct a +/-3.5'x5.5' bathroom addition; reconstruct in-place existing +/-6'x6.5' entry deck and construct steps thereto; construct a fenced outdoor shower; remove existing crawl space access; replace roof with new roof +/-1' higher and add +/-5.5'x7' eyelid dormer; and install two drywells as part of drainage system of gutters, leaders and drywells. Located: Cottage #11, 65490 Route 25, Greenport. The LWRP determination is that this is exempt. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application noting however the sanitary system may not be adequate. And I inspected this property on the 11th and found it to be straightforward and no problems. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of applicant. Generally, the application is overall straightforward. Because of the work on the existing cottage is less than 75 feet from the bulkhead, as are most cottages along that road, it did require variance relief. We had been before the ZBA, we had gotten a positive description from the ZBA approving the project. Mr. Mullman is here. He has set up some boards to generally show the Board, your Board, these boards. These top photos are the existing cottage with the bottom being renderings of the proposed. Although here it's reversed. If you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them, otherwise Mr. Mullman is here, he can also answer any questions, but] would agree with Mike it's a fairly straightforward application where almost all the work is really within of the existing cottage footprint. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do you want to address the issue of the sanitary system? Board of Trustees 50 April 17, 2013 MR. HERRMANN: We have not proposed to do anything with the existing sanitary system because we are not changing the number of bedrooms in the cottage. David, what is it; it's a one-bedroom, seasonal cottage. In fact it was one of the conditions of the ZBA approval is that it remain a seasonal cottage. The sanitary system is functional, so especially in that area of Breezy Shores with various flooding issues and everything else we decided really just to leave well enough alone. I think that the, I'm going to double check the plan. Does it show-- I set all these papers out so I could quickly grab them. I wanted to check, I was going to say I think the existing system is actually outside of the wetlands jurisdiction. That's why we decided to just leave it be. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to address this application? (No response). Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: And it's deemed exempt under the LWRP. MR. HERRMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 17, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of BRUCE ROTHSTEIN & SARAH ROTHSTEIN request a Wetland Permit for the in-kind replacement of a 104' retaining wall with two 10' -15' returns; replace existing 12.5'x14' platform in-kind, in-place; and replace existing 4' wide stairs to beach. Located: 7390 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The Conservation Advisory Council supports application with the condition of a 15-foot non-turf vegetated buffer. It's found- inconsistent with the LWRP. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. We met out in the field. I gave you highlighted drawing that shows all the structures here being permitted structures. The retaining wall has to be replaced and the steps are going to be affected. So we have some of the steps, a lowered deck, 6x7 deck is being replaced and the steps down, and the replacement of the retaining wall is being proposed. So other than that, everything else is previously a permitted structure. Those are the stairs, the stairs are in pretty good shape except for the bottom where the retaining wall is built, the lower part of the stairs may need to be reconstructed. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had, Pat, are they going to Board of Trustees 51 April 17, 2013 have to do any excavation under that deck or anything to get deadmen in there? Are they going to use helicals? How are they going to get the wood through there? MS. MOORE: Which deck are we talking about, the upper one? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The upper deck. MS. MOORE: No, it's not even close to be being, it's about, this is all to scale, it's probably about ten feet below the supports. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The question is we thought with the excavation for the lay log deadmen you would be underneath that deck and it would compromise the integrity of the support of the deck, that's why we are thinking the helical screws would be the way to go. MS. MOORE: I could offer that to the client. The contractor didn't mention anything to do with respect to the structure but if that option is there, you can include it if it's necessary. But they don't believe that it's necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: My feeling is if the deck had to be removed to put the lay log system in, then we would move the deck back so it's not cantilevered over the bluff. That would be my suggestion, if the deck had to be removed. MS. MOORE: The deck doesn't have to be removed and it's a Trustee permitted structure, so it's actually, it has even greater protection. It's a Trustee permitted structure. It was permit number 5047, dated 10/12/05, as an amendment to the original permit 5047. So, everything here, as I said, is a permitted structure. TRUSTEE KING: Our only concern is how are you going to get support for that retaining wall under the deck. But everything is permitted. You are absolutely right. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do you know how they are going to gain access to. get down there? MS. MOORE: No, I'm sorry, I don't really have an answer for you on that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm just curious. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to think if there was an access point. They're just doing a ton of work next door. I don't know. I mean I can certainly give you a letter telling you how they are going to access, if they need to access from the beach. But they didn't share that with me. TRUSTEE KING: The only question I had was underneath the deck. Other than that, I don't have any issues with it. Does anybody else have any comments? (No response). Anybody in the audience? Anybody else? (No response). Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application, and Board of Trustees 52 April 17, 2013 it is all permitted structures, and to protect the property more. And I find it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 18, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MAUREEN MASSA & ALAN SCHWEITZER requests a Wetland Permit to replace existing window of garage to a sliding glass door and add a skylight; construct a 4'x28' hardwood dock consisting of 60% open deck a minimum 2' above grade; a new 3'x12' seasonal ramp and a 5'x18' seasonal float; construct a 4'x36' set of stairs from top of slope to fixed dock; a proposed 10'x4' slate (stone) on sand or crushed stone as a non-turf buffer area; and install irrigation landward of the top of the slope. Located: 460 Ruch Lane, Southold. It will be noted this month, there is a revised project description, as of 3/26/13, to construct a 4x38' set of stairs from top of slope to edge of wetlands, with a 1 0x1 0 platform at top of stairs. Now, my understanding is this is an application that came before us previously, was tabled, because it included a dock before. There is now the removal of the dock, so it's simply a set of stairs -- removal of the dock from this application so it's simply a set of stairs going down this slope. MS. MOORE: I just want a clarification because some of that information from the previous permit is being continued: Replace existing windows of garage, sliding glass door, skylight. You have changed the code since it was first submitted. That is permitted without a permit, but we want to be sure it's recognized.that we still want to do that. And they had wanted to put in, install irrigation landward of the top of the slope. So that is also being continued from the previous application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what is being removed from the application is the construction of the 4x28' hardwood dock, the seasonal ramp, the float, the slate stone -- MS. MOORE: We changed the slate stone patio to decking that is now permitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just want to make sure we are on the same wavelength for when I get to the resolution. MS. MOORE: Absolutely. I want to say, with respect to the dock, without prejudice, so we can come back at a later date. It's just right now they want to concentrate on, you know, the access. So. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This was reviewed under LWRP and found to be consistent, provided that the Board requires a buffer landward of the top of the slope. It was reviewed by the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a non-turf buffer and the walkway is relocated to save a tree. There is also concern about an exposed tank along Board of Trustees 53 April 17, 2013 the southeast corner of the property. Again, while the Board was out there this month to look at it, we had talked, we met with the applicant out there and talked about moving the set of stairs approximately five to ten feet to the north so that it would not require removal of that one tree that is down there. So those are the comments from the Board. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. MOORE: Yes, thank you. Patricia Moore. With respect to the tree, I think you may have noticed that tree is, the root system is exposed from the storm, so we are really, we don't know how long that will actually stay healthy. So it's, to change the plans, moving it over, on a tree that probably won't last much longer, I know that my clients would prefer to keep it just where it is, so. They are willing to plant a tree upland in exchange, you know, a replacement tree, because as I said, that tree may not be long for this world, and to have, you know, the change to the plans for a tree. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is Mr. Schweitzer present? MS. MOORE: Yes, he is. MR. SCHWEITZER: Alan Schweitzer, I'm the applicant. TRUSTEE BERGEN: When we were out there in the field we had asked if you would mind moving the set of stairs a little to the north so we could keep that tree. I know right now or, excuse me, when we were out there, buds had not come out on trees yet so there was really no way to tell, like any of the trees along there, they all appeared to be alive. They didn't appear to be damaged. But we won't know until the springtime. So my question to you, Mr. Schweitzer, would you like to, as we talked about in the field, move that set of stairs to the north so that tree is protected? Or retained, I guess is a better word. MR. SCHWEITZER: I would prefer Ms. Moore's idea, that is to plant a tree or three trees somewhere else, and to remove that tree. As you know, the survey was straight through that tree. So that would be my, you know, desire. If possible. I understand, as I said, I'm not a tree killer, but I don't know how long that's going to live anyway. But as far as north -- you know, I have a terrible sense of direction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: To the right. MR. SCHWEITZER: Right. Of course it's right. To the right. Yes, so that's my position. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Since that is a bank, you know, if you remove that tree -- MR. SCHWEITZER: Actually, may I interrupt. Sorry, it's actually .in the sand. In fact-- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are saying it's down at the bottom? MR. SCHWEITZER: Yes, several feet, I think, from the embankment. And interestingly, Sandy deposited a ton of sand, the sand is up really high on the tree. And I don't know what that means in terms of its efficacy. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If the sand is high up on the tree -- Board of Trustees 54 April 17, 2013 MR. SCHWEITZER: High on the trunk. Like it really deposited a ton of sand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But the roots are exposed. MR. SCHWEITZER: Well, at some point. MS. MOORE: It's like the trunk is full of sand and it has the root system that is exposed into the, like the bank, because it has a larger, you know, what do you call it, root system, so. TRUSTEE KING: We really didn't go down and look at the tree because our discussion in the field was, yes, let's move it to the right. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you want to go back out again? We can table it TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Looking down there, some stuff were probably roots, in retrospect, but I think it's a shame to lose a tree of this stature. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's willing to plant another. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: He's willing to plant a couple of others. MS. MOORE: But not in the sand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It may expire, if the roots are exposed. MR. SCHWEITZER: I think I'm up to three, I said, already. TRUSTEE KING: It's not a huge issue. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not under circumstances. I was probably looking at the roots on the side of it. I was looking down the bank so we could see where the wetland was growing and I do remember seeing attributed to maybe some other vegetation where the scouring had taken place. I don't have a problem. If you put a couple native trees in, that's fine. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We also talked about a non-turf buffer out there in the field, and given that there is not a lot of room between the house and the top of this bluff, maybe a five-foot non-turf buffer? MS. MOORE: That's reasonable. Non-turf being not grass. It can be planted or-- MR. SCHWEITZER: You don't have to have a plan for that. MS. MOORE: No, you can plant without a formal plan; is that right? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Is there anybody else in the audience wish to comment on this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Does the Board have any feeling as to the location of replacement trees to be planted to replace this one that will come down? Or leave that up to a professional landscaper to determine? TRUSTEE KING: That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 55 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Maureen Massa and Alan Schweitzer as follows: A wetland permit to replace existing window of garage to a sliding glass door, add a skylight, install irrigation landward of the top of the slope; construct a 4x38' set of stairs from top of slope to edge of wetlands with a 1 0x1 0 platform at top of stairs with an additional condition of a five-foot non-turf immediately landward of the top of the bluff. And the planting of two trees as in accordance with landscapers opinion of the best location as far as viability goes to replace the one tree that will be taken down for these stairs. And this has been found consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SCHWEITZER: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number 19, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GRACE BURR HAWKINS requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 20'x56' two-story single family dwelling with full basement; second floor 10' covered porch on north side of house and 10'x56' covered cantilevered deck along east side of house with lower deck or patio under first floor porch and deck; 4'x8' drywell for roof run-off; a line of staked hay bales with silt fencing to be installed prior to construction along the 15' contour line; a 10' wide non-turf buffer (measured from hay bales) to be established and subsequently maintained; the area seaward of the 15' contour line to be established as a non-disturbance buffer and subsequently maintained with a 4' wide access path to cove; install a sanitary system; install water line from street to house; and for a gravel parking pad 15'x30'. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. Three members of the Board visited the site. We went to Fishers Island a week ago Friday. It previously had been given a Town Wetland Permit by the prior Board of Trustees and several extensions. The new application is essentially the same but for the addition of the cantilevered deck. The project, based on its extensive previous review, could be considered by the Board as consistent, but I'll leave that to some Board discussion because we have the discussion of the cantilevered deck. And I know members of the Board had been out previously. Jim, I guess had been there previously with the previous Board, is familiar with it, and the plans here of the previous approval are present, if anyone wants to look at them. The Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make an inspection at this time. Let me double check. Yes, the Conservation Advisory Council was unable to make inspection. So that brings us up to date with the proposal as it stands. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? Board of Trustees 56 April 17, 2013 MS. MOORE: Yes, Patricia Moore, on behalf of Grace Burr Hawkins. As you stated, this was thoroughly reviewed. The permits expired and finally they were kind of designing the house now a little more carefully, realizing that the deck in the back was just so restrictive. In order to maintain the non-disturbance area that the DEC wanted us to keep, the suggestion by the architect was to cantilever the deck. So it's a little more expensive to build but it allows for a deck with an area that is a little more comfortable and easier to live with. That's the only reason for the difference. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The deck cantilevers and just goes beyond the 15-foot contour which is --the area seaward of the 15-foot contour establishes a non-disturbance buffer. That's a question I have. I'm not familiar if there is any standing policy of the Board or how we greet the deck areas going over what previously was a determined on a prior permit was a non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it makes a big difference. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This particular lot, I'm just raising, I think it's case-by-case, but I just want to make sure the Board members are aware of the fact this cantilevered deck, that does go out by, you know, several feet just beyond that. The hay bale line is going to be coming underneath, during the construction, the hay bale line will be partially underneath the cantilevered -- MS. MOORE: If I could clarify. You see, I did give you a cross-section or the elevations. The cantilevered deck is actually, it has like a basement level. It's really an upside down house, so that the cantilevered is actually on the, would equate to a second floor so, um, below that, I have some decking but recognizing that the decking can only go as far as the limit of the non-disturbance buffer. I just didn't have that exact measurement so I figured, I drew in a deck underneath the cantilevered deck but recognizing it can't be, it has to maintain that non-disturbance. Both the DEC and your previous permits established kind of that line where activity would not take place. TRUSTEE KING: The only thing to do is reduce the width of the deck, make it eight feet instead of ten. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't really have a problem with it. I know there is a past Board history and this is a modification of it. I think probably you, Dave and Bob, are familiar with it previously. I just want to make sure for the point of clarity. I don't have a problem with this, if the members here previously don't have an issue. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The plans show it cantilevers from the second floor. It buttresses down. MS. MOORE: Right, so there are no posts. It's buttressed to the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? (No response). Hearing none, does anyone else wish to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 57 April 17, 2013 (No response). Hearing none, 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 would move to approve this application of Patricia Moore on behalf of Grace Burr Hawkins as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thereby finding it consistent with the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 20, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber dock (4.0'W x 31.01) and extend an additional 38.0'+/-, to result in a new catwalk measuring 4.0'W x 69.01, supported by eight (8) timber pilings (4"x4") and fourteen (14) timber pilings (6"x6"); construct a hinged ramp (3.0'W x 15.01) and a floating dock (6.0'W x 20.01) off the seaward end of the new catwalk; the floating dock is to be secured by four (4) timber pilings (6"x6"); catwalk top-decking to be of an open-grate design. Located: 3300 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold. This is a continuation of the hearing we had opened and we tabled last month. Just to briefly go back over it, the Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the structure does not extend further out than the neighboring docks. It was found to be inconsistent with LWRP. Is there anybody here like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I have some revised plans to pass up to the Board. And as you may recall, at a prior hearing we brought to you an aerial photograph that depicted a shoreline that was not straight but was curving, and that the original plan had featured a fixed catwalk that would extend out together with a ramp and a float. The Board felt the dock was too large and asked us to consider cutting the dock back. Our response was that we adjourn the hearing, and we took your advice to heart. And we also took the advice of the Conservation Advisory Council to heart, which states that they support, they want to hold the existing dock line, particularly the dock to the south. So we looked into that dock, and that dock was approved by this Board at three feet by, it was a 3'x68' fixed dock with open-grating decking. And that approval was granted on June 16th, 2010. But it was preceded by a permit that provided for a 34' fixed catwalk with a 16' seasonal aluminum ramp and a 6x20' seasonal floating dock. And that application was actually made by Costello. So what happened in that, the property owner's name is Michael Kenna at 3200 Minnehaha Boulevard. What I suspect Board of Trustees 58 April 17, 2013 happened was that although they got approval for a catwalk, ramp and float, it probably ran afoul with DEC with the depth consideration. So they converted that entire structure into a fixed dock. I'll hand up their permit just for your record. You are welcome to peruse it if you would like. But what we decided at that point was that we would do the same. In other words, extend a fixed catwalk out, in this case 38' instead of 37 -- 1 don't know that that matters --so that we would be consistent with the dock directly adjacent to the property, that would be Kenna dock. It would not run afoul of the DEC permits we already hold and we figured that was a reasonable compromise, given the concerns of this Board, noting that it would also at least it would resolve the issues that the Conservation Advisory Council had raised. So our proposal now is for a 4'x38' fixed catwalk and reconstructing the existing 31' dock so the overall dock is at 39' as measured from the masonry sea wall of the property, which is consistent with the dock to the south. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What's on the end of the catwalk here? MR. ANDERSON: Nothing. Oh, on ours? I don't know what that is, to be honest with you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It almost looks like you are looking to put one of those - MR. ANDERSON: Like a ladder. We are not asking for one. I can remove it from the plan. I'm not sure what that is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It certainly brings it back quite a bit. Does anybody want to see the aerials from last month? I drew the pier line between the two docks we are talking about. He brings it all the way back. It's pretty close to the pier line there. Last month when we opened it, I had drawn some pier lines on there, on the original aerials, and it looks like you come pretty close to the pier line that I drew. It's still out a little bit, but not much. (Inaudible). That's at 3200, not 3300. That's the neighbor. That's this one right here. He was just asking why you brought up 3200. MR. ANDERSON: That's the dock next door. So what we are doing is the exact same dock that was approved for the property next door. Which I would think has to be within the pier line. And we put that on our plan as well. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: As I'm looking at your plan, Kenna is to the left or to the right? It's to the right, correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. MR. ANDERSON- Yes, it's a fixed catwalk. There is no float, there is no ramp. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The proposed seems to be within the same water depth, same angle to the properties, it seems to flow in the line of the shoreline. MR. ANDERSON: Their soundings agree with ours. Board of Trustees 59 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem. I think it's a good compromise. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think this represents a responsible downscaling to have this conform to the landform and the depths in the creek. TRUSTEE KING: So where is the end of this compared to where the flag is staked? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It looks like just a little past the pipe. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We were just looking it at it. It's about ten feet beyond the pipe, where the arrow is. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could zoom it in if you want. TRUSTEE KING: That's all right. That's amended from dock, ramp and float. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. Any other comments from the Board? (No response). Any other comments from the gallery? (No response). Seeing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: What I'll do, I guess, Bruce, I'll read in the description, the new description that you have. I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following description, new description: The applicant proposes to reconstruct the existing timber dock which is four-foot wide by 31-feet long, and extend it an additional 38' to result in a new catwalk measuring four-feet wide by 69-feet long and supported by eight timber pilings, 4"x4"; and ten timber pilings 6"x6". All materials will be non-treated. All catwalk top decking to be of open-grate design, flow-through or similar; all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized. And in doing so it would bring this into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just for clarity, just make a note the revised plans have been dated April 17, 2013. They could reflect the description that I just read in. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 21, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ELISSA JO KAPLAN c/o EVAN KAPLAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 118' bulkhead, rising 6' f6" above the seaward grade of the shoreline; construction of two 10' returns at northern end and southern end of bulkhead; deposit 150± cubic yards of clean sand fill to re-establish the grade landward of the bulkhead. Located: 6725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP finds this to be inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application. The Trustees inspected this on the 10th. There is a note that possibly more Board of Trustees 60 April 17, 2013 fill than 150 yards might be required. And the suggestion that the permit include the retaining wall, which is shown on the plan. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant, Kaplan's. This obviously was a bulkhead that was destroyed by the hurricane, Sandy. So the primary purpose here is to protect, reinstall that primary bulkhead. Behind it sits a landscape tie retaining wall, which is unique in that I think it's the only one I have seen up and down that stretch of beach, on the east side of Nassau Point. The applicant so far has been reluctant to reconstruct it, so it's not part of our application. I do think that it would be hard to reconstruct because it doesn't really tie in very nicely with the secondary retaining walls adjacent to this property, particularly I'm referring to the property to the north there. So since we were not authorized to reconstruct it or put plans in, we didn't include them in our plans. As to the amount of fill, you know, we can go back and recalculate that for you, because I suspect you are right about that. That's fairly easy for us to do. But for sure to bring the fill back from that wall to the secondary retaining wall will add probably some integrity to the secondary retaining wall. And I do admit it should probably be fill behind that wall as Well, but I'm just not authorized make that application because the clients themselves have not decided what they want to do. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We also had a question about access. MR. ANDERSON: My feeling is the only way we'll be able to access it is if we are not to take out that wall is by barge. What we'll discover is, and maybe we'll have to come back to you, is that we either do these things --there really only three ways we can. Number one, we can come off an adjacent parcel, which does not seem likely here because the adjacent parcel are not suitable access points. The second thing we do is we either build some sort of temporary road across the face of the bulkhead to get down, which is-difficult given the steepness of this bluff. I don't know how that is possible. And the third then becomes by barge. I can simply think of no other way to get to this particular property. So it is the latter that I would anticipate happening, I would say if there is a change in plan that we should notify you. But that will have a lot to do with adjacent neighbors and adjacent property that at this point we don't really have a working relationship with. TRUSTEE BERGEN: One other suggestion, I know there has been a contractor who has been gaining access to properties in that area by Nassau Point Causeway and coming all the way down the beach at low tide. Again, that, you might talk to the President of the Nassau Point Property Owners Association and see if that's a possibility of access from that way. Because I know it's been happening. Again, the challenge is the tide. It has to be at low tide. MR. ANDERSON: Are there groins? I don't remember. Board of Trustees 61 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE BERGEN: There is a dock but the dock is a removable catwalk, so they have been able to get through there. The groins are farther to the south. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Are there any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: Did we include the retaining wall in the permit so it's a legitimate, legalized structure? MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me, what was your question? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to include that retaining wall in the wetland permit so it's an permitted structure. What we've run into before, especially with the storm damages, we had a permitted bulkhead, there was no permit on the retaining wall, they couldn't fix the retaining wall until they got a permit for it. We'll just add this in, now it's -- MR. ANDERSON: Okay, let's do that. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: That kind of puts everything on the same page. MR. ANDERSON: And I suppose we'll have to, we should revise the plans to show the fill. But there is something else on the plan that should, I mean should -- perhaps what should happen here is -- TRUSTEE KING: Show the retaining wall. MR. ANDERSON: Amend the project description to include -- TRUSTEE KING: The existing retaining wall. MR. ANDERSON: What if we say permit existing retaining wall? TRUSTEE KING: Sure. It's already on the plans. That way you have both structures with a permit. MR. ANDERSON: I'll say permit secondary retaining wall. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion . to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted, with the inclusion of the existing retaining wall, noting that that would bring it into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 22, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ROCHELLE BYRNE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed elevated catwalk (4'x28'); and elevated platform (4'x12') along the shoreline. Located: 360 North Riley Avenue (ROW off Ole Jule Lane), Mattituck. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application, based on the following: The bank needs to be stabilized. There is a concern with navigability of the waterway and the structure may exceed one-third of the way across the creek. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends a group dredging plan with surrounding property owners. Those are the comments from the Conservation Advisory Council. Board of Trustees 62 April 17, 2013 It's found inconsistent with LWRP. We have one letter in here, a short letter. I can read it. It's not very along so I'll read it. It's from Mr. Robert Whelan. I'm writing to you to express my support for the Byrne dock application with one concern. The creek is very narrow at this point, 45 feet, and we'll have docks on both sides of the creek with the approval of their permit. I would request that the Trustees be sensitive to the fact that my property is up creek from the proposed facility and I believe minimum of a 12-foot channel should be maintained down the center line. I request this minimum channel be calculated with boats up to an eight-foot beam attached to the docks on each side. If calculated by using the promoted one-third rule, that would dictate a 15-foot channel, which I believe is excessive. Regards, Bob Whelan. There are no other letters that I see. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson of Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Byrne. I'm going to do a couple of things. This is a, this is one of the more interesting applications of the night. The first thing I want to do is to provide this Board with an aerial photograph so you can see how the proposed dock relates to existing docks and the shoreline in the neighborhood. We are here really --this is going to be part one, probably, of a larger project, which interestingly enough and without our knowledge, tracks the comments of the Conservation Advisory Council to a "t". Because what we have here is a number of shorefront residents who really want two things. They want reasonable access to this waterway and they want navigability. And that's really what this is about. Here, what the Byrne's own is a parcel that is attached to their deed and connected by a right of way which is shown on the survey that has been submitted with this application. And there are adjacent similarly small parcels that also exist adjacent to the Byrne application. The actual creek was a creek that was previously dredged by the county, and in 1993 the county took possession of the creek bottom through a tax sale. And I can hand you today a copy of the tax map and the indenture that describes the county holding, for your records. And you should have this. So it is a county-owned waterway as opposed to Trustee bottom lands or waters of the State of New York. And the purpose of this waterway, it was created by the county precisely to provide navigability to the homeowners who front-it. It has not been maintained by the county, and so what we expect, and I had the pleasure of speaking with many of the residents down there personally, is that we'll join together and we'll in fact come back with a dredging application. What the Byrne's are concerned about is they want to obviously participate in that, with the knowledge that they will have a normal, convenient, reasonable access. So we have made an application that accomplishes that objective. Board of Trustees 63 April 17, 2013 So the two fundamental concepts here, one is actual, reasonable access to the waterway, to the county-owned waterway, for the property owners, including obviously Byrne. And also to improve navigation by dredging. You have not seen that yet because we are still, I think in the process, the folks that live there, are organizing themselves so that that application may be jointly filed, hopefully by all the residents who have frontage on that part of the creek. Because the creek is narrow, and we are showing based on our survey, we are showing the creek to be approximately 45-feet wide in the vicinity of where this proposed dock is to be sited, we would anticipate stabilization of that bank, which is consistent with what the Conservation Advisory Council recommends for this project. We anticipate doing that by low sill bulkhead or similar technology. So I think that will stabilize the bank. We may also want to do other things such as what the neighbor has done on the other side of the creek. You'll see the rock revetment adjacent to that floating dock there. But again, the purpose here is to provide, you know, actual access, which everyone wants down there. The question of blocking navigability, our feeling is we can be flexible in that regard. Right now what we are showing is a dock, it's a fixed platform, very easy to construct, that simply extends out into the creek bed, and I'm sure that pulling it back three or four feet would not be an issue to us, because when the dredging takes place, the navigable channel at something like 15 feet, something like four-feet deep, at mean low water, with a one on three slope leading down to that, will relieve everyone's problem. But we need to know and we hope to find out that we can have this actual access. And we do understand that it may take us some time to procure all the permits for that. There are other considerations such as soil spoil sites, et cetera. But that, in a nutshell, is our application and I'm here to answer any questions the Board may have. MS. HULSE: Bruce, just looking at what you handed up, briefly, it looks like this was not a transfer of the underwater bottom. It looks like a default that affected the parcels adjacent, too. That's what you handed. Is this what you are referring to? MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't think so. What are you looking at? MS. HULSE: What you handed up to us. MR. ANDERSON: But it doesn't, are you talking about -- are you referring to the tax map list? MS. HULSE: I'm referring to the entire four pages. MR. ANDERSON: I think the county holdings are reflected in the diagram that accompanies that. I think that's the easiest way to look at that. TRUSTEE KING: Because the survey shows that they own the underwater land. MR. ANDERSON: That's right. TRUSTEE KING: It's not county land. Board of Trustees 64 April 17, 2013 MR. ANDERSON: No, no. The survey is the survey and that is what they own. But the part outside that is owned by the county. The description of that is taken from the deed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jule Zabronski dug the heck out of it is my understanding, and it was all private manmade bottom and it was probably lost at tax sale. MS. HULSE: That's right. MR. ANDERSON: That's exactly right. But not this piece. Or part of this piece. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's the bottom and the county took it? MS. HULSE: That's right. On certain parcels. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Depending on the how this was made, was subsequent erosion, which is a portion of this property, this is underwater land abutting the land that the county has. MR. ANDERSON: That appears to be correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Bruce, what is the proposed length of the dock from the high tide mark seaward? MR. ANDERSON: The high tide mark seaward, 266". TRUSTEE BERGEN: 26, approximately? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And the width of that waterway, I thought I saw. MR. ANDERSON: 45. Now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It would have to be cut in half to maintain the one-third rule, the length of that -- MR. ANDERSON: It may not be possible to do that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. In other words it may not be possible to have a permitted dock there and maintain the one-third rule, is that what you are saying. MR. ANDERSON: It may not be. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Because we have to add the width of a boat there also. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So 26 feet, you add a boat that, let's say is another eight foot, you are more than halfway across the entire canal. And if somebody on the other side then had a dock they wanted to put in, you understand the obvious problem we have. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Is there anybody else here that wants to comment on this application? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll point out on the plans submitted, the existing dock on the western side, if there were a boat there, as shown, and a boat on the Byrne property there would only be about 15 feet separating the two boats, making it very difficult for the owner to the north to ever reach his property. MR. ANDERSON: That is true. However, they are staggered. In other words they won't be directly across.from each other. Which the photograph or field inspection would have shown. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sir? MR. CONNELL: My name is Bill Connell. I own the parcel of land at the end of the creek on the same side. I'm right now in the center there, on this side, the east side of the creek. And I, Board of Trustees 65 April 17, 2013 on my deed it says that the property, the three properties are 30 feet on the creek, and mine is 50 feet deep. When I measure from the stakes that I think is correct, I go 15 feet into the creek. So my first question is how do we figure out who really does own that underwater? MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think the answer is if you look at the survey. TRUSTEE KING: It would be the meets and bounds on the survey. MR. ANDERSON: It's taken from the deed, and the dock that we are speaking of is wholly within the property owned by the client. MR. CONNELL: Then I have another survey that states that you own up to the mean high tide mark. That's probably something that has to be resolved. Anyhow, I echo Mr. Whelan's comments about the navigability of the creek. And my concern is being at the end. I'm hoping for the same thing. I don't have any problems with somebody putting a dock in or floating dock, whatever, but want to be able to get in and out easily. With that rule of thirds, if you look at what will happen, even if they are staggered, you know, across the creek, the dock, and this dock, it's going to, you'll have to go way over to other side and kind of zigzag. It makes it kind treacherous getting in and out of there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Based on the survey I have, that we have up here, you are not the adjacent lot, you are two lots down. MR. CONNELL: I'm one over. There is one between. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think you'll have room there. MR. ANDERSON: I think what will happen is that everyone is sort of stuck with this problem due to the narrowness of the creek. And I don't know what Mr. Connell's survey says or his deed says, but if it's what we have, they own half that creek. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Within Trustee jurisdiction. MR. ANDERSON: I understand that. But, you know, we have a neighborhood here, and I think the goal of this exercise is to get everyone working together so everyone can get some sort of reasonable access via dock and get this creek dredged and stabilized so that there is reasonable access in and out. I don't think there will ever be huge boats in here because I think it's physically impossible. But that's, I think, where this is going. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is an application certainly where you represent a single applicant. But certainly this might be an area, it would take a creative approach by the parties involved, a communal docking facility, where they might have to share or, you know, rights together, would put the Board in a position to look at it in totality. Because a communal facility could go up to or probably handle property lines differently. I'm just throwing that out there because obviously it would have to pass the test of additional Board review and then bank stabilization as part of that with possibly a low sill bulkhead would enable putting in a float very close to the low sill bulkhead and allowing for a structure that might meet everyone's needs and Board of Trustees 66 April 17, 2013 then protect the existing owners for their rights to navigation of their property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Derek, you were heading for the podium before. MR. BOSSEN: Yes, I was heading up to say that your comments about the 26 foot for his high tide mark. His measurement for 45 feet was at low tide, so there is an additional amount of space when there is high tide, so it only projects out so much at low tide. I was trying to correct that,just to get that perception clear. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I realize that. I was looking at the extreme. MR. BOSSEN: And one of the things we brought up at the CAC was the idea of a communal dock system that John Bredemeyer just brought up, that's something all the property owners on that creek could consider. It may be the best option to make this a navigable little spit at the end of the creek. MR. KRUDOP: My name is Robert Krudop. I own the adjacent property. First, I want to ask a question about the permit processing. When you have an open permit with you folks, in other words say you grant a permit to someone and you have an open one, to add something else to that piece of property, specifically that tax map number, do you have to apply for a new permit or do you have, do you actually, because you have an open permit, do you have to amend that permit? It's an amendment, right? TRUSTEE KING: Usually an amended permit is if you are adding something new to the existing permit. MR. KRUDOP: Or to the existing property that is included, like an amendment, like say I was going to build a bulkhead then I was going to go for say a pool, which is another structure, but you would add it like a bulkhead and pool together on the same permit, right? It would just be an amendment. I just wanted to clarify that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That depends. That is not that clear. It's not that simple. It may or may not. Depending on the situation. MR. KRUDOP: But it's the same permit number, it's just an amendment to it for that specific piece of property. TRUSTEE KING: Usually the amendments for the particular project, say you have a bulkhead, you get a permit for a bulkhead. Then you want a set of stairs from the bulkhead to the beach, that would be amendment to that bulkhead permit. Something landward that is really not related to the bulkhead would be a separate permit. MR. KRUDOP: But if it's in the same vicinity it would probably be adjoining -- I'll give you a for instance. Say you want to do a low sill bulkhead and a rock revetment wall on this particular dock, if it was granted, would that be an amendment to this permit or would that be a new application and a new permit? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: More than likely a new permit. MR. KRUDOP: Because it's a different application, it's a revetment wall. Okay, that's a question I just had. Board of Trustees 67 April 17, 2013 The other thing is I just wanted to just support this application with the flow-through decking. That was something that was recommended or Mike and Rochelle had said they would like. I love the product. I thought it was going to be aluminum, and I was flipping out, I was like, oh, my gosh, my wife is going to kill me. But I saw the flow-through decking. It's absolutely incredible. I would also like to see, or basically, like they said, a four-foot minimum, pull it back. Because I think that would satisfy your needs. Because it encroaches upon the -- actually, it encroaches upon the deepest part of the channel. It kind of veers out in front because the property to the west, which I own, is sloughed, that's why I went for a revetment wall with rocks, because it was sloughing in so bad, I had to reduce the slope and put the.rocks up there to secure it. I also would like to recommend that erosion control maybe to reduce the slope on this property. Maybe coupled with the rocks, if you can grant it like a revetment wall on their property. In other words, coupled with this permit, if there was any way you can give them an erosion control type of permit. I know you said you have to create a new one but I was hoping maybe you could put it in with this one, I would recommend it, and maybe just simplify it and vote on it tonight, make it simple for everybody. And also if up dead-end the dock, they have it shown on the drawing that they bring the dock up and over and land it on to like the middle of their property, the top of the bank. If they dead-end it in, like say you put a revetment wall in, you reduce the slope and little bit and put a revetment wall in the rocks and some silt screen and some rocks and then you dead head it right into the top, similar to what they did over there, perfect picture, over there on the west property line where you dead head it right into the top of the bank-- exact, right there. You can save the material, just in that material alone will pay for the rock for doing a 30-foot wide, I think it's a 30-foot wide piece of property. I only paid sixteen-hundred dollars for the whole truckload to do 90. So you are looking at just the savings in material on the through-decking will pay for the rock revetment wall underneath to go from roughly the high tide line up to the top of the bluff. And it can be just placed in by hand. It doesn't need much excavation or anything. It's pretty simple. I think it would satisfy the needs for everybody. Especially with the four-foot brought back in. That's all I have to say. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? MR. WHELAN: My name is Bob Whelan, I'm at the end of the creek. I came tonight to support the project, with a couple of things. As a homeowner in this environment, to install a dock is a costly operation. To install a retaining structure is another cost. To get things dredged is an additional cost. I would think Board of Trustees 68 April 17, 2013 that the first step we might want to take is to make sure that we can get some kind of a structure out there on the water before we make the investment to try to get this whole bunch of people together to do a joint project. That may or may not be possible. The revetment or low sill or something of that nature may be a piecemeal operation where each homeowner does his own thing, dredges in front of it. That may be the ultimate outcome of this. I don't know if everybody will get together to put a package together as described. So I'm thinking let's take one step at a.time. Let's allow a,structure in there, certain geometry that suits a channel, and allows them to have access to the water, and then the next step would be the submission of certain retaining structures to maintain the navigability of a dredge event when it does in fact come. That's basically all I have to say. Questions? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. CONNELL: I'm also of a more pragmatic approach to dealing with this. If it's piecemeal, so be it. But right there where that dock is going to go, there is no water. There is not enough water for a boat anyway. Even at the end of the dock. If you pull it back another four feet, you'll have inches at low tide. So the real issue comes back to helping us move forward, if that's what we would to do, with getting dredging permits. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know of a couple of other areas in town where there is very narrow tributaries of creeks like this, what people have looked at is a catwalk with a "T" end, so there is no float involved. It's just a catwalk with a "T."That way it can be pulled in quite far. But again, I don't know what the DEC will do. Because the DEC wants minimum depth, et cetera. MR. ANDERSON: That's what we proposed here. So that you know, we have a DEC permit for this project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm saying is pull back in further. MR. ANDERSON: We would consider that. TRUSTEE KING: You said you have a DEC permit already? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we do. TRUSTEE KING: Could we get a copy of that? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Do you have an Army Corps permit? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, is there anyone way this can be orientated so it's more parallel with the property line, rather than offset throughout the property? MR. ANDERSON: Can you point and show me what you are -- TRUSTEE KING: (Indicating) turn it around so it's more like that. . MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Because everything is close here on two corners. This is only a 30 foot lot. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, it could be. TRUSTEE KING: By code we need 15 feet from the property lines, Board of Trustees 69 April 17, 2013 on either side. MR. ANDERSON: We'll need relief for that. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I'm saying. MR. ANDERSON: Because here is my point. Because if we leave today and we know we have actual, physical access to the creek, we know that it provides us the motivation to go through the expense of dredging it. If we do it the other way and we don't know that we have access, we don't have a reason to fix the navigability issue here. So that's why this application is brought in the manner it is. So when you say can we square the dock to the shoreline or to the property line, as you pointed out, that is fine because we anticipate a change to the bottom land as a result of the dredging. You follow? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the project has.so many hurdles to jump through for this. I think back of other places that we have looked at that were not even as tight as this that we said no, you have to go with a pulley and a stake or some kind of mooring. Now you have three lots down there, admittedly two of them absolutely positively want to have a dock. And in an area that based upon what is currently there, you really can't do it. MR. ANDERSON: If I may,_though. A dock, a fixed platform dock, in this scenario here is a much more efficient use of space than a mooring or a pipe and pulley. There is no question about that. Because it allows you to snug up a vessel to the shoreline, where the mooring would go out and you have the swing of the boat, and the pulley would dominate whatever expanse taken. You see what I'm saying? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm having a failing in understanding why wouldn't the applicant put in for the shoreline stabilization, dredging and the dock as a unit application and then being able to address bring everything closer, getting depth and shoreline stabilization. MR. ANDERSON: Because the dredging project is going to be a community project and the'dock is for an individual. I don't have a way of doing that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then on the other hand, just on the geometry of what is currently there, if you don't address it as a wholesale project amongst all of the people involved, you may end up blocking Mr. Connell out. Whether he thinks it will be or not, it's a good possibility. That he could come in six months from now and we have to deny him because there was no fore planning on this. And based on the drawings and what I'm seeing and what I saw out in the field, not even realizing that he had a lot two down, I don't know if that would be possible. You know what mean? He's not going to be happy if we say yes today and he can't do something six months from now, when he came in and said he has all intention of doing something. So as for me, I can't support it knowing what happens here may have an effect on another property owner who already said he wants to do the same thing. Not without taking a look at it as a whole project. MR. ANDERSON: If you want to take a look at the whole project, Board of Trustees 70 April 17, 2013 you are better off tabling it than you are making a decision, if you don't know the answer to that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. I don't have a problem with that. MR. KRUDOP: Quick thing, the dock, proposed dock, I think it's a plus. Definitely for the family to get access to the creek, for kayaks and canoes, even if they don't put a vessel in there at say low water. I just think it's a positive to go over the marsh land and to get access to the water. I know his family likes to go out there. They like to do fishing. I've seen the grandkids out there. It would be a great help to the family, to their needs and also for the environment. I don't see any negative to it. Even with, you know, you are saying it impedes upon anybody, as long as they pull it back four feet there is plenty of room it go by in that creek with a boat. Because they are not totally in the center of the channel. They can get right past. And naturally, you have a small boat. It's only 30-foot piece of property. So it won't be a like a monstrosity of a boat way wide beam. You are not talking about bringing in a troller or a big tug boat in there, you know what I mean? So I think it will work out well and I strongly recommend it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Have you pulled it back four feet, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: We are quite willing to pull it back four feet. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to table this and go out and take another look. Stake it out with the four-foot reduction and see if you could stake it out so it's more parallel with the property line: MR. ANDERSON: We just put one stake in. If you want a virtual dock platform demonstrated, we can do that as well. TRUSTEE KING: Just the two outer corners of the platform, and the beginning of where the catwalk starts. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And maybe just flag the property line. MR. ANDERSON: The property line is shown out there already. It is staked. We had the rebar put in is shown on the survey. And it's marked. We can certainly do that. And maybe it's good to show a conceptual plan of the overall, or this portion of it, maybe a little more clearer than the aerial before you already shows. It might show you how the docks might interact with each other. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Something else to talk to your client about is we have also for docks in very narrow areas put a C&R into the maximum beam of a boat there. Because someone can come in and say I have a six-foot beam boat, we get a permit and next year they buy a boat that has ten-foot beam. So it's just something to talk about with your client so when you come back next month you can be prepared for a question as far as the width of the boat with the understanding it could be put in as a restriction for the future. MR. ANDERSON: That seems reasonable. TRUSTEE KING: All right, I'll make a motion to table this application. We'll look at it again next month. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. Board of Trustees 71 April 17, 2013 TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 23, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MATTITUCK PARK DISTRICT request a Wetland Permit to construct 620' overall bulkheading (westerly 406' bulkhead section with 18' return; easterly 138' bulkhead section with 58' return); construct 12'W x 51'L+/- beach access ramp; construct 3'W x 121 beach access steps and landings; and perform grading within portions of lands located landward of the proposed bulkheading. Located: 11020 & 11280 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council reviewed it. And I'll read the CAC comment. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application because this project is doomed to failure as designed. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends the utilization of rip rap, three to one ratio, with plantings along the entire western shoreline and redesign the proposed ramp to parking lot and removal of stairs. The Trustees.did go out and looked at this, and I'll just tell you right up front, we were really uncomfortable with this as described. Because you have now a beautiful beach and we are not quite sure if a bulkheading all along the length of this beach is the way to go. We are thinking about a combination of bulkhead on the western end and possibly rip rap or revetment that tapers down to the eastern end and leaving the Park District with a beautiful beach down at that area. Given those comments, is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental, for the applicant. My first comment is that to say the structures are doomed to failure is not at all supportable. They are designed to work. That's why we hired a professional structural engineer to design them, I think who can speak to the structural integrity of this more so than probably anyone else in this room. That's point number one. Point number two, this is a property that was bulkheaded and already contains a seawall. It's already there. It is also protected on both sides by a substantial, well-maintained groin. And there is a substantial beach here. So what we have in history here is a situation where we have a bulkheaded property, the bulkheads were destroyed because of Hurricane Sandy. The groins which were -- it was an old creosote bulkhead. The beach property is protected by groins that are in perfect shape, and we are simply putting back what was there. Now, there is a section of bulkhead that is directly adjacent to the concrete sea wall along the eastern portion of the site. We have placed it on top, adjacent to within one foot of that sea wall. Because as your photos show, when the sea wall was too low, so when it was affected by a storm surge of this or Board of Trustees 72 April 17, 2013 any other storm surge, it tears up the parking lot that is used by the people of Mattituck. So this is the Mattituck Park District. And they are dedicated to maintaining a beach and a facility for the use of the people in that district. And the commissioners together with the professional engineer in consideration of what has historically existed on this property, made an application to put back what is there, to protect the structures, to raise the elevation of the fronting wall adjacent to the concrete seawall, so that the parking area can be protected so that the people of Mattituck could continue to use and enjoy this, what is a really terrific facility. So that's why this was designed. You'll note there is also a proposed ramp that is proposed as part of this application. That was proposed so we would have reasonable convenient handicap access to the beach, which is something I think any town or park district should do or should at least want to do. That is to take care, provide some accommodation for handicapped folks. So we actually think it's a very good application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bruce, as part of your application, this structure will come out, yes? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, again, I'll just open up the conversation just as I left off before. I understand what was there, and I know Sandy did a lot of destruction to the shorelines all over the Town of Southold. In this particular case, though, it just, when we looked at it, it was, to me, it was apparent that rather than re-bulkheading that entire face all the way down to the ramp -- and by the way, I'm all in favor of the ramp for handicap purposes, absolutely. I think this entire Board is. But I just don't see the need to replace that bulkhead as it was when we know that we could bulkhead part of it and then use a revetment along the front of the rest of it. I just think it's a better way to go, given the topography now of that beach and what you have there. I'm just one member of the Board. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have to agree with Dave. I probably have been to that beach 20 times through the course of my county inspections, so I would go there every summer. And the physiography and that change in the beach slope there, I'm really concerned a bulkhead structure will just catch a lot of water on the next series of storms and you'll lose beach. It just doesn't, it's like a palpable feeling you get, you go there and it just doesn't feel right going to bulkheading for that. And it's not based on the engineering specifics, you have a very competent engineer working for the district. We have seen the work this gentleman does all the time but it's just, the change on that beach has been so drastic, I mean it just seems like maybe this is one to, you know, try to stabilize with vegetative and softer means. Because I think you'll lose the beach if you put a bulkhead in. I think the beach slopes will go shallow, most of the sand will be offshore, at which the slopes there are Board of Trustees 73 April 17, 2013 kind of nice for wading and not too good for swimming at times anyway. But that's sort of my take on what I have seen there. MR. ANDERSON: Well, I can tell you this. There is a lot of people out there that feel strongly about this. And the way we like to deal with these situations when we have a difference of opinion is to meet out at the site and go over it and table it. I would much rather allow our side to participate a little bit more in this process by perhaps having our engineer present. It may be useful to meet out at the site, maybe include some of the commissioners who have strong feelings about this and see if we can arrive at a meeting of the minds. Now, I would say this, that if it's a concern of a long-term loss of beach, there are ways we can figure that out, and we can examine that from my end. But I would prefer to proceed in that fashion rather than make a quick decision tonight. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have no problem at all tabling it and meeting you out in the field at our next field inspection. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sure. MR. ANDERSON: I think that's what we should do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else in the audience who wants to speak on this application? MR. WILLIAMSON: My name is Russ Williamson. I'm one of the three park commissioners. What we are looking at here, there used to be a four-foot drop and there was a walkway with a staircase that went down. All that sand came from in front of the concrete retaining wall. We lost over two feet there. You used to be able to step off the parking lot and you were right on sand. So in.a.situation like this now, we need a bulkhead because we are going to lose our new building. The water came right up, not too many feet from the walkway along the building. So the plan was, when they do the return in front of this building, is to make a patio where people could sit and, you know, there is a lot of elderly people that come to the beach and they just bring their chairs and look at the water. They don't go into the water. To really dress it up, nice. We don't want to lose this again, and we may, the time this gets straightened out, we awarded the contract to a bulkhead contractor yesterday, the three commissioners did, and we were looking to clean up the beach and at least let them use the beach for now, for the summer., clean out the old bulkhead, because it's dangerous.We put up a snow fence so nobody would walk down and get impaled by the old structure, clean up the parking lot that is broken and just replace it with sand for now. So, you know, even if there is questions on the bulkhead or not, we would like to get the approval to clean it up and people can start using the beach when the beach season comes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I put this out to my follow Board members. I've heard what you said. What I've heard is a couple of things. First off, you want remove some of the old structure that has to go and is posing a danger. Then I'm hearing you also want to add some things in; a patio, and add some sand in places, et Board of Trustees 74 April 17, 2013 cetera. MR. WILLIAMSON: Well, it's not like a patio. With the way the new wall will be and a return, it will be raised up from the beach. It could be a sand patio or some place for people to sit. Just a sitting area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: He could apply for an administrative permit just to remove the old structure. MR. WILLIAMSON: We are not saying to build a patio. MR. ANDERSON: What he's saying, I think is the benefit of having the bulkhead adjacent to the ramp, if you will, is that it does a couple of things. It will provide a flat surface for the elderly people and it will protect the new one-story frame building that they just put up. Do I have that right? MR. WILLIAMSON: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Where are you with the DEC, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: We are filed. They've asked for a couple of plan revisions, which we re-filed, and we have a high degree of confidence they'll approve it. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, can we see the proposed bulkhead, the elevation stake. Top elevation. MR. ANDERSON: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see that in the field. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In the meantime, this delays everything by a month, which gets us into the middle of May, which I know is getting closer and closer to prime season for the use of the beach. So what I'm trying to figure out, what is going through my head right now is to how to get you permission to remove that structure that is right now dangerous. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Which structure are you talking about? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe you are talking about what remains of the bulkhead to the west as well as the debris that is there that is piled up, so you'll at least get that cleaned up so there is no danger there. I mean you could fence it all in, obviously, but that's what is going through my mind. How to try to get something. Because the bulkhead could be a couple of months. MR. WILLIAMSON: Because in the last couple of years, I remember seven years ago there was not ten cars in the parking lot on the weekend. Now, there is no parking left because the way the economy is and everybody loves this beach. And we just want to get the residents that are paying all these taxes for this property to enjoy the beach for this summer. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have an issue, just take it out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If you want to take the debris out, absolutely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we issue the Park District a letter giving permission to do that? MR. ANDERSON: I didn't know that was even regulated, actually. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's under the administrative permit section, actually. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Why don't we look at working with you to at least give you a letter giving you permission to remove some of Board of Trustees 75 April 17, 2013 this dangerous structure. MR. ANDERSON: That's fine. We have to remove this in any event. But rmy point is this property historically has been bulkheaded. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I hear what you are saying, Bruce. And what we are saying is okay we'll meet with you next month out in the field. What I'm trying to address here is give some immediate relief for safety reasons so that citizens can use that park over the next month or so and on forward. MR. ANDERSON: I appreciate that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So we'll draw a letter giving you,permission. TRUSTEE KING: As far as I'm concerned, they don't need anything to pick up that debris right there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But to remove the bulkhead, old bulkhead, will require machinery and activity down there. TRUSTEE KING: Over here? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. MR. WILLIAMSON: That debris was part of the bulkhead that, there was large trees, when they fell down, I didn't even know there was a bulkhead underneath it. And we just left it on the platform. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I see a gentleman behind you that would like to speak. If you would introduce yourself. MR. DEEGAN: Nicholas Deegan, I'm one of the three commissioners from the Park District. I appreciate what you are doing to help us get rid of the debris and open the beach. We are probably not going to do anything for this summer other than just open the beach, repair the coroner of the parking lot and probably cut out the broken asphalt and do a gravel corner in the parking lot which is right by the corner of the revetment wall. On the low part. I was not aware of the Conservation Advisory Council's views on it, and I wish I had been. And I appreciate you thinking outside the box on the bulkheading. I think that's something that we can all look into. And, you know, it might look better as well as maybe more practical for the safety of the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Derek? MR. BOSSEN: I'll speak quickly. The "doomed to failure" is obviously a grandiose explanation of how we felt about it. We just felt there is an opportunity to design this park in a better way to have it last for all our generation and our children's generations. The issue with the handicap ramp was that it creates a slew sway at seven foot. If another storm comes, that funnels water directly into the parking lot and creates a pond behind the bulkhead. That was the only issue we had was the elevation, if you look at the plan, the elevation of the handicap ramp brings it down below the height of the bulkhead, so if a storm surge comes, it gets funneled right into the parking lot. And that parking lot floods constantly anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I know. I see the elevation at the top of the ramp is seven foot, where the bulkhead is-nine foot. MR. BOSSEN: Our concern, our major concern was -- and at our Board of Trustees 76 April 17, 2013 meeting we even floated the idea of, wow, if they did a revetment, they could put a boardwalk on top of it and all these wonderful ideas they can do to really improve the park and make it a jewel for the park district. Not, you know, understanding there are costs involved and other things involved that, you know, the community needs to be aware of. But we saw this as an opportunity to create a lasting, you know, solution to this issue. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: So it sounds like we'll leave today with, or tomorrow, with a letter of some sort, and we'll meet out in the field? TRUSTEE BERGEN: We'll meet out in the field at next field inspection. My intention is to table this tonight and then to meet there for the next field inspection. MR. ANDERSON: And in the meantime sending us a letter of some sort saying we could remove it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. And next field inspection is May 8th. Any other comments? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. Good night, everyone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, number 24, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of PETER & MARISA PATINELLA request a Wetland Permit to raise the existing house and enclosed porch; demolish existing foundation; construct new concrete block pier foundation and lower house onto new foundation (finished floor to be approx. Elevation 9.0'); replace wood decks and stairs; new outdoor shower; install several new windows and exterior doors; interior alterations; and install two 2' deep x 8' diameter drywells. Located: 475 Rabbit Lane, East Marion, is non-jurisdictional. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, RECEIVED /5 R fit . James F. King, P esident 2013 Board of Trustees So old Town lerk