January 23 2013 - Southold, NY

BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Minutes Wednesday, January 23, 2013 4:00 PM Present Were: Jim King, President Bob 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, February 13, 2013 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 6:00 PM WORKSESSION: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 5:30PM MINUTES: Approve Minutes of October 17, 2012. TRUSTEE KING: Hello everyone, welcome to our January meeting. We are going to start a little earlier than we normally do because we have a very long agenda. When we get into the public hearing section, please keep the comments as minimal as you can so we can get through these things. Most of these wetland applications are for replacement of bulkheads and returns and some retaining walls that were destroyed in the bad storm we had in the end of October, Sandy. I know a lot of people were frustrated because they couldn't get an emergency permit. We gave out a lot of emergency permits, but it was only for bulkheads that already had a wetland permit on them. So we are going through the process now to get these

Board of Trustees 2 January 23, 2013

permitted. So I appreciate your patience. We have a number of postponements I would like to go through now, before I forget. On page three, number two, DANA & MICHAEL SAVINO request and Administrative Permit to repair and replace the existing bulkhead, dock with a 4'x16' hinged ramp, 6'x50' float, and (2) 6'x31' floats; and deck damaged from Hurricane Sandy. Located: 1945 Bayview Avenue, Mattituck, has been postponed. On page five, number 18, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of FISHERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7804 to excavate the proposed pond to a deeper depth than the approved pond; the pond will be excavated to one foot below the water table; with this there will be no reason to install a clay liner to hold water. Located: East End Road, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Page six, number four, DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7891 to relocate the proposed dwelling; and to construct a smaller dwelling with attached deck on seaward side. Located: 54120 County Road 48, Southold, has been postponed. And page six, number five, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of DOUGLAS & KATHLEEN FOLTS requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7837 for the existing foundation to remain; new first floor to be at elevation 12; the south screened porch and its foundation walls will be removed and replaced with new deck piers and decking; the north bedroom and its foundation walls will be removed and the proposed foundation installed to support proposed exterior walls; no first floor walls will remain; due to the water table, the existing basement will be filled in with approximately 2' of sand with a new concrete slab. Located: 90 Oak Street, Cutchogue, has been postponed. I know there are quite a few more. Page 16, number 39, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of GWENDOLINE ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing single family dwelling, shed; and existing sanitary system to be pumped and filled with sand; and to construct a new single family dwelling, shed, deck, porch, retaining walls, gravel drive, re-grade area, install drywells, utility and water lines, and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1140 Old Well Drive, Fishers Island, has been postponed. On page 17, number 40, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PAUL HOLOBIGIAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing timber dock (4.0'W x 31.0'L) and extend an additional 38.0', to result in a new catwalk measuring 4.0'Wx 69.0'L, supported by eight (8) timber pilings (4"x4") and fourteen (14) timber pilings (6"x6"); construct a hinged ramp (3.0'W x 15.0'L) and a floating dock (6.0'W x 20.0'L) off the seaward end of the new catwalk; the floating dock is to be secured by four (4) timber pilings (6"x6"); all materials to be non-treated; all catwalk top-decking to be of an open-grate design (i.e., Thru-Flow or similar); all hardware to be hot-dipped galvanized. Located: 3300 Minnehaha Boulevard,


Southold, has been postponed. Number 41, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of JONATHAN P. WENDELL requests a Wetland Permit to repair portions of the exiting timber dock (4.0'Wx288.0'L) where necessary; and to replace/reset existing timber pilings (10"-12".) Where necessary; all decking materials to be non-treated; all hardware to be galvanized. Located: 355 Terry Lane, Southold, has been postponed. Number 42, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DIANE MACARI requests a Wetland Permit for a proposed 30'x15' pool with decks and patios; retaining walls for all structures, 75 feet from edge of wetlands for structures. Located: 465 Halls Creek Drive, Mattituck, has been postponed. Number 43, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of NSHE WILLIAMSTOWN LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 88 linear feet of deteriorated bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead in same location; stabilize bank with Cape American Beach Grass. Located: 220 West Shore Drive, Southold, has been postponed. And number 44, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of 430 WSD LLC, c/o PETER COSOLA requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace 100 linear feet of existing bulkhead with new vinyl bulkhead; install 20' long returns on both sides and an additional 100' long X 4' tall vinyl retaining wall set back 10' landward on top of proposed bulkhead to be replaced; remove and replace existing walkway, +/-26'L x +/-18'W upper platform, +/-16'L x +/-10'W lower platform and stairs as required to construct bulkhead. Located: 430 West Shore Drive, Southold, has been postponed. Number 45, 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, has been postponed. On page 18, number 46, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting Services on behalf of GWENDOLINE ANNE HARRIS requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing single family dwelling, shed; and existing sanitary system to be pumped and filled with sand; and to construct a new single family dwelling, shed, deck, porch, retaining walls, gravel drive, re-grade area, install drywells, utility and water lines, and install a new sanitary system. Located: 1140 Old Well Drive, Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 47, 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, has postponed.


Number 48, En-Consultants on behalf of FREDERICK de la VEGA & LAWRENCE HIGGINS request a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed timber dock equipped with water and electricity and consisting of a 4'x95’ fixed, elevated walkway, a 3’x14’ hinged ramp; and a 6'x20' float secured by (2) 6" diameter pilings. Located: 15437 Route 25, East Marion, has been postponed. And number 49, En-Consultants on behalf of SUE K. ODELL request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace in-kind/in-place) existing 3 f wide stairway and associated landings. Located: 6500 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic, has been postponed. And number 50, Creative Environmental Design on behalf of GEORGE YATRAKIS requests a Wetland Permit to re-vegetate any disturbed areas due to the construction of new rock revetment and access area; removal of existing grass from top of bluff to northern pool fence line, and re-vegetate with native plant species; construct a 4' wide access path to stairs consisting of bluestone flagging set on sand base. Located: 18805 Soundview Avenue, Southold, has been postponed. These have all been postponed. We won't be addressing these tonight. Tonight we have Bill McDermott is somewhere here from the Conservation Advisory Council. They go out and do a lot of the same inspections that we do and give us their recommendations. We have Wayne Galante here keeping track of what everybody says. Please, when you do have something to say, come up to the microphone and identify yourself so he can get it on the record. We have Lori Hulse here, is our attorney. With that I guess we can get going. We'll set the next field inspection for Wednesday, February 13th at eight o'clock in the morning. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Our next Trustee meeting, Wednesday, February 20th, at six o'clock, with a work session at 5:30. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: Do I have a motion to approve the Minutes of October 17th, 2012? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve those Minutes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for December 2012. A check for $12,014.80 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund.


II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VI Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, January 23, 2013, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: John Reardon - SCTM# 90-2-19 Richard McKinney & Cynthia Power - SCTM# 31-14-6 Drouzas Real Estate Development Corp. - SCTM# 52-2-20.1 Douglas & Kathleen Folts - SCTM# 136-1-54 Elyse James - SCTM# 81-3-1.4 Robert O'Brien - 31-13-2 Kathryn Gray Melhuish, Mary Payne, George & William Gray – SCTM# 31-18-13 Joseph & Joanna Chernushka - SCTM# 31-18-20.1 Richard Frizzi - SCTM# 31-18-15 William Lehmann - SCTM# 31-18-16 Paul Dombrowski - SCTM# 31-18-2 Edward & Rachel Flannigan - SCTM# 38-6-14 Jonathan & Christine Meyer & Josephine Cipitelli - SCTM# 38-6-13 Peter & Marisa Patinella - SCTM# 38-6-12 Norman & Judy Taylor - SCTM# 38-2-35 Robert Karpas - SCTM# 80-5-3.1 Gwendoline Anne Harris - SCTM# 7-4-9&10 Robert Nelson - SCTM# 53-6-5 Jane C. Stark - SCTM# 128-6-10 Chris R. Showalter - SCTM# 90-4-15 Jack Biggane - SCTM# 83-1-34 Douglas & Benita Pearsall - SCTM# 80-1-49.1 Estate of Lawrence M. Tuthill - SCTM# 117-5-46.4 Marlene Lane Civic Association - SCTM# 126-6-10 RJJ Properties LLC - SCTM# 111-15-12 Philip Milot - SCTM# 123-5-26 Kevin Whitrock - SCTM# 123-6-20 Peter Kranes - SCTM# 126-11-12 Peter & Joan Fritz - SCTM# 71-1-8 Rob & Claire Riccio - SCTM# 98-6-1 Mary Drum - SCTM# 123-8-28.6 MMC Realty 2 Family Limited Partnership - SCTM# 118-4-4 Timothy & Michelle McManus - SCTM# 118-4-5 Patricia Congdon O'Brien - SCTM# 128-4-1 James Abbott - SCTM# 126-5-3.1 John Abbott - SCTM# 126-5-1 Joseph S. Connelly, John Congdon, Janet Soukup & Others – SCTM# 128-4-6


High House Woods, Inc. C/o Wendy Prellwitz - SCTM# 86-7-7.1 Patrick & Diane Kelly - SCTM# 71-2-7 Robert Winchester - SCTM# 111-15-7 Jonathan P. Wendell - SCTM# 65-1-20 Brick Cove Marina, Inc. - SCTM# 57-1-38.3 Steve Sachman - SCTM# 111-9-9 Dean Blaikie - SCTM# 111-15-9 Elizabeth Speres - SCTM# 119-1-4 Christopher Stabile - SCTM# 119-1-10 Vincent Matassa - SCTM# 43-3-7 Paul Holobigian - SCTM# 87-3-38 Principi Properties, LLC, c/o Mill Creek Partners - SCTM# 56-7-4.1 Mill Creek Partners, LLC - SCTM# 56-7-2 Christian Baiz - SCTM# 56-5-1.3 Karen & Michael Catapano - 118-4-1 Jane G. Weiland - SCTM# 111-13-11 Bee-Hive Development Corp. - SCTM# 52-2-14 Ina Hasday - SCTM# 145-4-15 Diane Macari - SCTM# 116-7-3.2 David M. Daly & Others - SCTM# 66-1-34 NSHE Williamstown LLC - SCTM# 80-5-4.1 430 WSD LLC, c/o Peter Cosola - SCTM# 80-5-2.1 Gwendoline Anne Harris - SCTM# 7-4-9&10 IV. RESOLUTIONS - ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under resolutions and administrative permits, number one, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of JOHN C. DILLER requests an Administrative Permit for the existing bulkhead and retaining wall structures previously approved by the Trustees in 2006; the previous approval of these structures was included as part of a permit issued for these and for similar structures on this and three additional properties. Located: 60 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was a case where there were three properties all together and they had one bulkhead permit covering the three properties. And evidently one piece of property now is up for sale, so we had to kind of separate that out from the other ones and just have the one permit for that property. So I'm familiar with this and looked at it. I would make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). V. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under applications for extensions, transfers and administrative amendments, what we have tried to do with these, and we'll do it again tonight, we have reviewed all of these, and if they are simple and there is not a lot of problems with


them, we'll group them together and approve them all at once and the ones, that they have a problem, but there may be some discussion on it, we'll pull out. So I would make a motion to approve numbers one through six on page three number eight through 13 on page four, approve those all in one shot. And also 16 and 17 on page five. They are listed as follows: Number one, LUDIVOICA ROMANELLI requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7482 as issued on February 16, 2011, and Amended on November 14, 2012. Located: 3204 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. Number two, Jason T. Poremba, RA on behalf of DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN request the last One-Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7247, as issued on February 24, 2010, and Amended on November 16, 2011, and Amended again on August 22, 2102. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. Number three, ARTHUR CODY requests the last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7252, as issued on February 24, 2010, and Amended on March 23, 2011. Located: 630 Dean Drive, Cutchogue. Number four, DAVID PAGE & BARBARA SHINN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit # 3815 from Edward Fergus to David Page & Barbara Shinn, as issued on September 28, 1989. Located: 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold. Number five, FREDA GIFT TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4015 from Windsway Bldg. Corp., to Freda Gift Trust, as issued on March 27, 1992. Located: 7715 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Number six, MARILYN ANGELSON requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5629 from Adriana & Dana Courtenay to Marilyn Angelson, as issued on September 25, 2002. Located: 950 Park Avenue, Mattituck. Number eight, JOHN V. RYAN requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #4731 from Gregory Antoian to John V. Ryan, as issued on May 2, 1997. Located: 330 Inlet Lane, Greenport. Number nine, CATHERINE HUNT HEALY QPRT TRUST requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #492 from J.C. Heim to Catherine Hunt Healy QPRT Trust, as issued on July 1, 1968. Located: 2400 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue. Number ten, ROBERT OXNAM requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #5939 from John Hurtado, Sr. To Robert Oxnam, as issued on June 24, 2004. Located: 19625 Soundview Avenue, Southold. Number eleven, BETTY-JEAN HASSILDINE & OTHERS requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1683 from Robert W. Vanderbeck to Betty-Jean Hassildine & Others, as issued on September 27, 1983. Located: 2800 West Creek Avenue, Cutchogue. Number 12, DENIS ROUSSEAU & SYUN-RU YEH requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #2004 from Wilbur J. Buschmann to Denis Rousseau & Syun-Ru Yeh, as issued on August 2, 1985; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #2004 to replace the floating dock lost after Hurricane Sandy. Located: 970 Smith Drive South, Southold. Number 13, PAUL PAWLOWSKI requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #1697 from William Markel to Paul Pawlowski, as issued on October 21, 1983; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland


Permit #1697 to replace the surface wood and platform wood on dock, ramp and floating dock. Located: 950 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. Number 16, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of JOSEPH G. MANZI, JR. requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7160 to reflect the proposed residence further from the wetlands; the Non-Disturbance Buffer to be increased from 50’ to 75’ along the side yard; and the proposed split rail fence and/or cedar trees to be located along the landward edge of the Non-Disturbance Buffer. Located: 355 Midway Road, Southold. Number 17, Charles R. Cuddy, Esq., on behalf of MARY MANZI requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #7161 to reflect the proposed residence further from the wetlands; the Non-Disturbance Buffer to be increased from 50’ to 75’; and the proposed split rail fence and/or cedar trees, and temporary placement of hay bales and silt fencing to be located along the landward edge of the 75’ buffer. Located: 405 Cedar Point Drive, Southold. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES).. TRUSTEE KING: Number seven, PETER KRANES requests a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3887 from John Gabusi to Peter Kranes, as issued on January 18, 1991. Located: 7480 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. I would like to put this aside for later on in the meeting when we get into our Wetland applications. We'll try and add this into that permit rather than have a separate transfer of this permit number 3887. Number 14, ALAN & ROCHELLE GARMISE request a Transfer of Wetland Permit #3937 from Vincent J. Petrozzo to Alan & Rochelle Garmise, as issued on August 2, 1991; and for an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #3937 to repair and permit the existing beach house (shed) 16'x18', and also a wrap-around deck, the front of which is 24'x10'4" and the side of which is 8'x8'6"; and for two (2) sets of stairs each approximately 5' wide, all to be repaired or reconstructed. Located: 9980 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. This is for a transfer. This is that beach house on the beach with the large deck. I think we all had some concerns about it because of the size and its location. This was our last inspection on Nassau Point last Wednesday, when it was just about dark. There was an existing permit issued to a Mr. Petrozzo, which was part of this as a transfer. It was a constructed deck 10.4' across and extending outward from the bathhouse and 30 feet across. By today's standards this certainly would not be allowed. It's basically on the beach. Are there any comments from the Board on this? I'm not sure what we can do with this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't know how we can transfer a permit for a structure that would not meet current standards without a discussion concerning alternatives. TRUSTEE KING: Evidently they have approval from DEC for it.


Evidently. The survey shows the high water mark as being quite a bit seaward of the deck, but I didn't get that impression when we were there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is that mark dated? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Survey dated July 8, 2004. I think the challenge the Board had out there was the fact that since 2004 there has been significant beach erosion there so that this structure is now at the high tide mark. And, you know, we have to think about public trust doctrine as well as what is best for the public. TRUSTEE KING: The LWRP coordinator found that the structures described were not constructed pursuant to Chapter 275 Wetland to Shoreline Permit. Although the deck was permitted, the proposed deck does not conform to the permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: What was the deck that was approved? TRUSTEE KING: I don't see. MS. HULSE: It says to construct a deck 10'x4" across, extending outward from the bathhouse and 30 feet across. That was from August 2, 1991. TRUSTEE KING: It looks like there is more deck than what was on the original permit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's about 30 feet across. TRUSTEE KING: It's scaled 25 feet. 30, including the stairs. What's your pleasure? I'm not sure what to do here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It could be there is an opportunity to work with the property owner to possibly move this structure back a little ways so that he still retains the structure, but at least move it back. So maybe we should, just my suggestion, table it until we work with the applicant to see if there is an opportunity here to move the structure back. TRUSTEE KING: I think it would be a smart thing to do. Because we have a big agenda tonight. I don't want to spend an awful lot of time on something simple. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We really have to address the inconsistencies. MS. HULSE: You would have to have a public hearing on it as well. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: For the record, number 15, I'm going to abstain from the vote on this because it's one of my neighbors. MS. HULSE: Sorry, can we go back to the last one for a second. Did you want to transfer the permit tonight or transfer part of it or just table the whole matter? TRUSTEE KING: I think we can table the whole matter. MS. HULSE: I just want to be clear. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 15, JAMES B. KAMINSKY requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit #5756 to replace any damaged decking boards and recap the entire dock with new untreated lumber. Located: 100 East Mill Road, Mattituck. Really very simple, it's just to replace the damaged decking and


the boards and recap the entire dock with untreated lumber. We all went out to see it. We pulled this out from the other group just because it is Jim's neighbor and he needed to recuse himself, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there an outstanding violation on it? MS. HULSE: No, there is not. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is to replace it. That's what we are approving. They'll have to remove the treated lumber that is there now. We'll make it clear, we want to remove the treated lumber and replace it with the non-treated lumber. I'll make a motion to approve the application as amended. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of discussion, you are saying your motion is to approve it but subject to the condition it imputes that the material that will be used will be not treated lumber. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The application is to replace any damaged decking boards and recap the entire dock with new untreated lumber. In my mind that means removing the treated lumber and replacing it with untreated. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All in favor? (Trustee Ghosio, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, aye. Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, recused). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go off our regular meeting and go into the public hearing section. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Like I said at the beginning folks, try and keep the testimony to a minimum if we can, because we have quite a few here to go through. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE KING: Under amendments, number one, Proper-T-Permit Services on behalf of JOHN REARDON requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7723 to repair and maintain the wood jetty structure damaged by Hurricane Irene from the seaward end of the structure for approximately 60' +/-, cut top through-bolts to re-orient piles and loosen wales on one side of the existing structure as necessary to replace missing and/or storm damaged wood sheathing with 2" vinyl sheathing and re-assemble the structure in-place; and increase the size of the proposed deck to be constructed between the bulkhead and the retaining wall from 10'x20' to 10'x150'. Located: 920 Cedar Point Drive East, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found it consistent with the LWRP.


The Conservation Advisory Council did not make an inspection therefore no recommendation was made by them. MR. FITZGERALD: Jim, may I? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: This was pretty straightforward, I thought, except I take it he wants to enlarge that deck the whole length of the -- when he rebuilds that groin it will need to be rebuilt as a low profile groin. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And only as far out as mean low water, also. MR. FITZGERALD: Well, the way that the contractor described it was to simply replace the sheathing in those areas where it is missing, without dismantling the structure. The piles and the wales would stay in place. TRUSTEE KING: I understand that. I don't know, I'm a little uncomfortable with doing that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I am, too. Because what they would then be doing is reconstructing a groin that doesn't meet code standards. In other words it would be higher and farther out into the bay than we normally allow. So I would rather see this as an opportunity to cut it back and lower it down to low profile. There is a picture of it. Cut it back to mean low tide and make it low profile as we have done consistently with other groins across Southold. We have been very consistent with that. TRUSTEE KING: Have you gone to the DEC with this yet? MR. FITZGERALD: They have the application. We have not heard from them yet. TRUSTEE KING: Because I have not seen them approve anything but low profile groins. As Dave said, we have been pretty consistent on that. As far as the decking goes, I don't know, what's the Board's feelings on that? It has to be decked over the whole length of that property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This would be part of the non-turf buffer really, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I suppose if the decking continued in the same direction as this and the spacing allowed for water to drain underneath it, he would have to specify three-eighths to half inch, three-eighths spacing between boards. But if they go tight up on each other, in the summertime they'll tighten up and you won't have any space and the water will just run off. TRUSTEE KING: Actually it should be built a little bit so it's not level, it kind of pitches back away from the bulkhead. Even if it's one or two inches of pitch, you'll never see it, but it will work. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm not totally opposed to it. It's between the bulkhead and the retaining wall and it's above the beach. TRUSTEE KING: I don't have a huge, huge problem with it either. And the return was not an issue at all, to replace the cement retaining wall with vinyl. That was not an issue. Are there any other comments on this application? (No response). 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 with the stipulation that the new decking will have spaces sufficient to allow water to drain through, and that there be a slight pitch to the deck away from the bulkhead toward land so any water that does accumulate will drain back on to the land and not over the bulkhead. And the groin should be rebuilt as a low profile groin, with the landward end not to exceed 12 inches to 18 inches above grade on the down drift side, and not to extend beyond ordinary low water. That would be my motion. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. FITZGERALD: We can just give you new drawings, I mean, as a condition of the permit, right? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number two, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of RICHARD McKINNEY & CYNTHIA POWER request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7765 and Coastal Erosion Permit #7765E to construct 390'+/- of new bulkhead; re-pile existing rocks from revetment section as armoring at base of new bulkhead for 120'+/- (exact distance to be determined by actual amount of existing rock available); fill void area landward of new bulkhead with clean trucked in sand approximately 175+/- cubic yards; re-grade bank and re-vegetate with Cape American beach grass; reconstruct existing 10'x20' wooden platform landward of top of bank; reconstruct existing 3' wide access stairway to beach in-place; reinstall fencing in-place as necessary; reinstall flag pole. Located: 12340 Route 25, East Marion. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application. It recommends a more robust rock revetment. This is a property that had previously received a permit and then Storm Sandy came along and caused extensive damage to it. And the Board went out and looked at it and we didn't have any issue with the project, except we did want to talk to the applicant about the opportunity to move the deck that is contained within the application landward so it's not at the top of the bluff. Right now the deck, as everyone can see, well it got lost. The land got lost under that deck. And obviously with the construction of the new bulkhead there will be fill brought in to regain that property that is lost, but we are trying to avoid, for the future, future loss of that deck in the event of another major storm. So we wanted to see if there is an opportunity to move the deck back slightly. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application?


MR. COSTELLO: Yes, my name is John Costello, I'm with Costello Marine Contracting and we are the agents for this application for Mr. McKinney. And that deck, when it is put back, will certainly be put back up and above the deck, which the bulkhead will be considerably further out than what shows in that photograph. You can see the bulkhead to the east, and we are not going out as far as that bulkhead is on the east corner. We'll be joining inland on that bulkhead and continuing for the 390 feet to the McKinney, to the westerly neighbor, which is Branston, which they have an approval for a return on an existing bulkhead. So basically this is going to be a little further back inland than the previously approved rock revetment. The DEC would not approve the total rock revetment for this project. They would only allow armoring the west end that adjoins McKinney's. So there are pre-existing rocks onsite and we'll only use them on the westerly end to protect Branston's return and that corner from eroding any more. That deck, I'm sure they want to probably put back up to elevation, which is the top of the bank. The bulkhead will be considerably lower. We do have a DEC approval for the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, I have noticed, I just scaled it out, it looks like the deck will be approximately 20 feet landward, give or take a few feet, of the new bulkhead. MR. COSTELLO: That's also a condition of your previous permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments from anybody else in the audience on this application? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Costello Marine on behalf of Richard McKinney and Cynthia Power as described and depicted in the plans dated November 9, 2012. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: And Mr. Costello, I think I could speak on behalf of the Board, we are very sorry for your loss. George was a tremendous man in the marine industry out here and it was tragic what happened. And I just wanted to, on behalf of the Board, tell you how sorry we are. Our condolences to you and your family. TRUSTEE KING: He'll be missed. MR. COSTELLO: Thank you. Well, if any of you guys need a job. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think I could fill those boots. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, En-Consultants on behalf of


ELYSE JAMES request an Amendment to Wetland Permit #7828 to authorize an increase in the length of the approved 18' vinyl bulkhead return along the northeasterly property line to 36'; to construct approximately 34 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of +/-9' and +/-25' sections of existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; to repair or replace existing 3.5' wide steps down embankment as needed; to reconstruct storm destroyed 3.5' wide steps to beach; and to backfill/re-nourish the storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 200 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be planted with native vegetation. Located: 5000 Paradise Point Road, Southold. The LWRP coordinator deemed this project to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application. They don't support raising the height of the bulkhead and they are recommending a consideration of a rock revetment. The Board inspected the site, as you could see, the pictures are self-evident, the level of storm damage. I don't believe it was a consideration for any kind of revetment since we had just granted a bulkhead approval, but we did feel that the request to lengthen the return was justified to protect the property from waters working, subsequent storms working behind the structure. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. JAMES: I'm the owner. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't believe the Trustees had a problem with anything we saw with respect to the application. It was standard. MR. JAMES: Only if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any questions from the members of the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was pretty straightforward. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no questions, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Where this is deemed to be consistent under LWRP and whereas the Trustees are very familiar with the site, having been there several times during 2012 and then subsequently after Storm Sandy, I would make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND & COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, number one, J.M.O. Environmental Consulting on behalf of NORMAN & JUDY TAYLOR requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit #38-2-35 and requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to resheath 78' of timber


return and extend the return 10' landward, to reset 78' of armor stone for the return and to extend the stone 10' landward and to reconstruct existing 4'x10' beach access stairs. Located: 360 Cleaves Point Road, East Marion. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application however recommends the house is raised and placed on pilings. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. JUST: Glenn Just, JMO Consulting. I'm the agent. TRUSTEE KING: Glenn, it's my understanding some of these rocks may be on town property. MR. JUST: Might be now. TRUSTEE KING: They won't be after? MR. JUST: We filed a thing with Mr. Harris and he was supposed to contact your office and he had no objections to what we proposed. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll probably want to see something in writing from him there no objections. MR. JUST: I sent it over to the Taylor's. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think anybody had any other questions or issues with this, to resheath the return and extend it ten feet landward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was clearly needed when we were there. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments from anybody? (No response). Hearing 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 with the stipulation we do need a letter from the Highway Department in case some of these stones do happen to be on town property, giving you permission. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. JUST: Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE KING: You're welcome. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number two, ROBERT O’BRIEN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct 143 linear feet of new navy-style vinyl sheet piling bulkhead immediately in front of the existing Hurricane Sandy storm damaged wood sheathing bulkhead, 6"x6" horizontal walers and pilings; removal of a section of the west jetty needed to accommodate the installation of new vinyl sheathing; removal of existing 22 linear feet of wood bulkhead return at west property line; installation of 22' of a new navy-style vinyl sheet piling bulkhead return; the lower beach stair is to be removed and reinstalled after the new bulkhead is constructed; the portion of the upper wood plank terraced stair removed for installation


of the tiebacks and deadmen will be reconstructed in-kind; the damaged lower rubble stone wall will be reconstructed to the same height and length that existed prior to the storm; re-vegetation of the disturbed slope areas will consist of rosa Virginia, rosa rugosa or equal planted at four to five foot on center; the level four-foot ground area between the top of the bulkhead and base of the lower rubble stone wall will have filter fabric installed, ballasted with a blend of 1" to 6" beach stones. Located: 1955 Truman’s Path, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports this application. In our field notes the conditions noted to consider removing the pilings and new vinyl fascia, new fill, and perhaps helical screws as the neighbor to the east. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. O'BRIEN: I'm the owner, Bob O'Brien. I'm just doing what is consistent with my neighbor to the east there. I want to save the pilings that are there and the sheathing that is there. I feel it would be a double bulkhead behind the new vinyl sheathing, so it's a safety factor for me. And that's why I proposed it the way I did propose it. TRUSTEE KING: I think this is the one where your neighbor to the east re-sheathed in front of his bulkhead with vinyl also. MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, 2007. TRUSTEE KING: So we would like to see this done the same way so you don't jog out past him. MR. O'BRIEN: I was trying to maintain my tiebacks that I have in existence so I don't have to disturb the slope that much. I was thinking of putting helical anchors for the second bulkhead. You understand? I want to keep my deadmen, my existing tiebacks so I don't have so disturb all that vegetation. I have mature trees and retaining walls. I know it's an additional expense to go with the helical anchors but I think that's the way to go. TRUSTEE KING: You see what I'm talking about. MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, the return will just be another eight inches. I'll just put a return at that point. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just thinking what is in the code on reconstruction with the bulkheads. This is not to stick out further than the neighbor. That's all I can tell you. MR. O'BRIEN: That's probably for erosion consideration and if I put a short return there, there won't be any consideration, especially with the groin that dovetails into it. That's a means of protection, too. On the other side, as you know, I'm only going down to a return, and I have an existing groin, so I'm not affecting anybody to the west of me either. The high tide mark normally doesn't come up within about 15 feet of the bottom of that stair to begin with. It's only in storm periods we get any water up to the bulkhead. But when we do, we get waves eight foot coming in. Because we are out past Budd Lake and we're out past Shelter Island. So we get waves coming in all the way from East Hampton. It's an unusual situation. And we really get


impacted, the three or four houses there. You can see the other bulkheads, they get totally wiped out. So any additional protection I can have, I want. And I feel, like you saw, we did a lot of reinforcement back in 1992 on the lower half of the bulkhead and that basically saved the remaining bulkhead on the slope. If that was not there, everything would have been gone. I don't see how it really affects anything. It's just a jog in the line of the bulkhead to my neighbor. It's a small jog, an eight-inch jog. It allows me to keep my tiebacks and my existing pilings, which still have some structural value to them. Like I said, for the new pilings what I would do is probably do helical anchors so I would have double deadmen and double tiebacks. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just trying to figure out the construction method. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Is the new sheathing going to be outside of this existing older pile? MR. O'BRIEN: Yes, it will be a regular “Z” sheathing. TRUSTEE KING: You'll put new piles out in front of that? MR. O'BRIEN: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Does the code allow that? TRUSTEE KING: The code says you can't. When you rebuild a bulkhead you are not to jog out past your neighbor. That's the only reason I brought it up. MR. O'BRIEN: There is that stipulation in your bylaws that says it's allowed a one-time bump out. You can't bump out again, but you can bump out once. TRUSTEE KING: Lori, I need some help. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: One can't supersede the other. MR. O'BRIEN: It's not setting a precedent because you don't have a situation where you have two adjoining neighbors that will be back from the new bulkhead. It's on one side. It's not like I have water up to my bulkhead all the time. I mean what does it affect? TRUSTEE KING: I just want to know if we could waive that. MR. O'BRIEN: The code should have latitude for common sense. TRUSTEE KING: You have to understand, we keep getting in trouble. Every time we veer away from what is in the code and waive it, everybody starts screaming at us. MR. O'BRIEN: It's not waiving it, it's taking a particular situation and tailoring to it, which you should have the latitude to do. MS. HULSE: They don't have discretion on certain things, if they are in the code and they are required -- MR. O'BRIEN: Well -- MS. HULSE: I'm not arguing, I'm just telling you they don't have the discretion. MR. O'BRIEN: But you have the stipulation that I cited in the code. MS. HULSE: When there is a replacement -- I gave them the section of the code. When there is a replacement, it's supposed to be back in line. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are only talking about the pilings, that would have to be removed to match the neighbor. So you would still be required, ostensibly you would have to go with your


plan to use helical anchors, but the construction really only involves -- MR. O'BRIEN: My problem is if I pull out the pilings I would probably lose the sheathing and the bulkhead because the sheathing is tight up against those pilings. I have done a lot of deep excavation as a contractor over the years. I'm very familiar with excavating in areas going down sometimes 50 feet below sea level. So there is a good chance if I pull those pilings, I'll disturb that whole bulkhead and it will become useless. TRUSTEE KING: I think we are between a rock and a hard spot here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How did those long boards get in there? MR. O'BRIEN: They were installed back in 1992 when the bulkhead got damaged from the perfect storm. I don't see how its inconsistent because in the onetime bump out it doesn't stipulate the pilings have to be removed. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, but what it does stipulate the onetime bump out cannot go any further than the next door neighbor. MS. HULSE: And it's not the Board's discretion. It's the discretion of the Board they may permit a bump out if it doesn't project seaward of the other structures. And in any event, any subsequent repair or replacement must be built on or landward of the original structure. MR. O’BRIEN: What if the neighbor doesn't object to the bump out. MS. HULSE: The code doesn't allow for that kind of discretion, unfortunately. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It sounds fairly cut and dry. I don't think we have an option. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think we have a lot of choice. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right, so what we would approve then, based upon the code, would be replacement of this inplace. TRUSTEE KING: We have run into this before where they have pulled the piles out and they put the sheathing right tight against the existing sheathing like the neighbor did. We have seen this before. I think Mr. Costello has done more than one of them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would imagine if they do one at a time; one section at a time, you would not lose the bluff. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'm not a marine contractor but I think what Mr. Ghosio said makes absolute sense. And if you took it slowly, you could reface that and have the pilings, using the new helical screws, secure it, and not have a bump out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The lumber that was there, it was in pretty good shape. MR. O'BRIEN: That's why I'm trying to save it. And it goes down another four feet below sand level, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I could see that. That's why I'm pretty confident if you did a section at a time, you pulled the post out, you would be all right. MR. O'BRIEN: What I was trying to do is maintain double tieback system. The new tieback system with the existing. I'll lose the tieback system existing if I do that.


TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I would like the professional opinion of Mr. Costello, to be honest with you. I know you have done this before, John. If you can just give me some guidance. MR. COSTELLO: Well, the gentleman is right, you know, if you have a double tieback system, I don't know the condition of the tieback system he has on that bulkhead, but if he did it in sections, he has to cut a hole in there to get the helicals in. So if you did it in smaller sections and continue, you could certainly do the helicals well back into those existing tie rods and have the double back system. I mean I have done it on several occasions. So you could remove a pile or two. You have to excavate by hand behind the bulkhead in order to get the helicals connected. So I mean there has to be some hand dug excavation anyway, or you can't get the helicals in. It's minimal. But the tieback system, having two is certainly better than one. So it would be reinforce it that much more. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And it would be done in a method that would keep it consistent with our code. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, it would. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. O'BRIEN: Then all I'm doing is welding to the existing tiebacks. So I'm back to a single tieback system. MR. COSTELLO: If you bolted the existing, if you put a torque on that helical -- that system is old. It is not the same. The helical will be the main system. If that existing tieback system has any credibility, you'll get it. TRUSTEE KING: We don't need this conversation going on here. We have to move this along. MS. HULSE: The testimony has to be directed to the Board. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER. Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the construction conforms to the code, the new vinyl fascia, the removal of the existing pilings and the use of the helical screws to secure the system in place. MR. O'BRIEN: If I have to -- MS. HULSE: Sir, I'm sorry, you can't comment right now. He's making a motion. If you could hold off one section. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would just make a friendly amendment to that motion, that the new construction results in a bulkhead that doesn't project seaward of the neighbor's bulkhead to the east. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would agree with that, but I mention that it conform to the code, so I would willingly add that to the motion, that it not bump out from the neighbor to the east. That's my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second the motion.


TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving on to number three, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of KATHRYN GRAY MELHUISH, MARY PAYNE, GEORGE & WILLIAM GRAY request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of existing wood deck, 55' of bulkhead and 20' return; construct 55' of new bulkhead and 20' return, in-place; fill eroded area with clean trucked in fill (approximately 50 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck, in-place; remove remains of existing jetty and construct new 36' low profile jetty, in-place. Located: 600 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. The Conservation Advisory Council has looked at this and supports the application and recommends the upland structures are placed on pilings. The Board was out there and we took a look at this. And we are pretty much bound by code that we must recommend on a deck that is no larger than 200-square feet. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent and inconsistent. It is consistent in the section that discusses removal and replacement of the bulkhead and returns and re-grading and replacing the low profile jetty. But inconsistent in the fact the existing wood deck is larger than would be allowed by coastal erosion code. So with that being said, I'll ask is there anybody who would like to address this application, have anything negative to say about it? MR. COSTELLO: Sorry about that. I just wanted to give him some free advice that I couldn't do the work. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Basically, John, what we are doing here, everything was fine. It was inconsistent with LWRP and we also noted in the field the deck can't be more than 200-square feet. That was pretty much it. If we can do this and keep the deck to 200-square feet, we are good to go. MR. COSTELLO: The only trouble is, if you saw the size of the property, the properties are very narrow. Like 55 feet, 42 feet, 37 feet. I believe the last one is 26 feet. 29. Very narrow. You know what; the deck serves two purposes. Keeping fill there. It certainly helps keep the fill. You know, they put rock in there to try to keep the fill. Rock disperses all over. One of the things is, if they lose fill on these bulkheads, they don't really have access. We'll try to use access through one spot and bring in the fill. It's all minimum. I think there is 50 yards, 25 yards, six yards, and another six yards. But once we get through one access way, and it's going to be nearly impossible to get back in there if a person loses fill because of the exposure to wave energy. Those decks serve the purpose. And most of those decks existed in some sort since 1938. And they have been re-built, undoubtedly, because they would not be in existence. But the deck serves as a buffer to break wave energy so they don't lose fill. Just as long as you understand that. If you start cutting down, they'll try to vegetate and try to keep


the vegetation, you have to keep the fill behind those bulkheads. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: John, we researched extensively. The Coastal Erosion Hazard Act binds us to decks less than 200-square feet, or as an unregulated activity, it still has to secure building and zoning approvals, but we are bound to the 200-square feet. We are not the relief-granting agency for decks more than 200-square feet, and we are obliged for an applicant who applies for more than that, based on the code, we can't approve it, and an applicant would have to take it not only to Building and Zoning for Zoning approval but would also have to appeal the decision of the Board of Trustees to the Town Board who is the relief-granting body for this. MR. COSTELLO: I understand all of that, except pre-existing decks -- I mean if they were all new, it's one thing, but if they pre-existed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm speaking for myself, but if any of us could wave the magic wand, I think we understand. Of course, I have been to Rabbit Lane many, many times since the storm and have been out to Marion Lake and understand what has happened there with all the wave energy focused from Gardiners Bay. But we didn't get that wrong. It's not part of our code. MR. COSTELLO: It's the Board's jurisdiction. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, there is the opportunity for your client also to use filter cloth and put a splash pad back there. MR. COSTELLO: I would not recommend a splash pad. They move with wave energy. Planting and the deck, the deck does not move. But the plantings you could replace without bringing in equipment, which is the intention. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so you know, a number of people here in the audience are here for replacement bulkheads tonight. Again, we have been, based on the storm, we learned some lessons and definitely I would, I'm not an engineer but I would certainly recommend the inclusion of filter cloth immediately landward of the bulkhead, because it does help to retain any material once you get a wash over in a storm. It might not hold in a storm of the magnitude of Sandy but it will sure hold in the magnitude of a lot of other storms and help everybody out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? MS. MOORE: Just one question. Is this the Gray property? MR. COSTELLO: It's one of them. MS. MOORE: Just a point of information, Gray is actually, the family is a client of mine. They are in the process of selling the property to an adjacent, to the neighbor and they are trying to restore. This is a family that has owned this house for generations, and this damage has caused such financial difficulty for them that they are forced to sell. The reality is that there is, you see the orange area, that is, there was a covered porch there. So what they are asking to replace is what was presently there. What happened is because it was a covered porch, the roof was leaning down and everybody felt for insurance purposes, because given the condition of the house,


the insurance was an issue, being able to retain that footprint, they just couldn't keep the roof up. So as far as this proposal, they are trying to return, put back what was there, the coastal erosion law, you know, it's, as you said, it's unregulated activity but it doesn't mean it's not a permissible activity. It's just whether it's considered an unregulated or major action. You have the authority to issue a permit. That's why we come to you for a coastal erosion permit. And this particular property had that structure there. It was temporarily removed, as I said, because it was a dangerous condition. But it's there. Secondly, at one of my hearings, I pulled up some documentation regarding emergency, the declaration of emergency conditions in the town, and it does give authority both to any, the governor, he called for a state of emergency during this storm, the county executive and the supervisor. All three heads declared this area as a state of emergency, and it allows for modifications or deviations from the local ordinances to address individual circumstances that are caused by these storms. So you have the authority, you have the wherewithal, you have the ability to act on these, and I think everybody here is looking, many of them are looking to replace what was already there. This was not an intentional act of removing structures. This was a catastrophic event of storm damage. So it's, you know, insult to injury to have the Town and the Trustees look at their code as if it's, you know, a normal day. This was really a unique circumstance, and the declaration of an emergency gives you that extra protection to act in deviation or in modification of the local ordinances. So I urge you to please consider that. You are going to be, I mean John is here on this particular, they are clients of mine, they are owners of the property, but I have been listening and pretty much everybody is kind of coming to you with very similar requests. So please keep it in mind. I have the paperwork and I'll give it to Lori so she could see it. It was very good on Google, you know, looking up emergency action and I was checking with the supervisor's office today and sure enough they did declare a state of emergency. The papers said it, but the supervisor's office had it, it just had to be faxed to whomever, and they didn't have a copy of it. So please consider it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I guess I would ask for a legal opinion from counsel, given the fact there was a state of emergency, as Pat alluded to from all the individuals, does that allow this Board to not follow the code when somebody wants to rebuild a structure? MS. HULSE: No, it does not. And I have actually not just relied on our code and case law, I contacted the state and talked to numerous people there to see if we could have any kind of waiver about any of the requirements in terms of repair due to storm damage. In fact we cannot. The definition of "beach" does not allow for any new development, unfortunately, and the Trustees are really bound by the regulations under 111 as per the


dictates of the state. It's not up to this Board to decide whether or not they could follow part or some or all of them. We have been directed that this is the code we have to follow. If we choose not to follow this, if the Trustees choose to deviate from that, the entire administration of the coastal erosion hazard area can be taken way from the town. So I basically provided legal opinion to the Board that in fact when it pertains to a beach there is no new development permitted unless it's an unregulated activity, which means less than 200-square feet, and there is also some contingency where if it's a temporary structure. Other than that, the Board is bound to follow the code. MR. COSTELLO: I appreciate your time. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other comments or questions? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess the only question I have. Are you able to speak on behalf of the applicant? Are they willing to accept an approval based on the unregulated less than 200-square feet? MR. COSTELLO: I'm sure they would. Absolutely. They have to protect the property. The main part of the property, the bulkhead, has to be number one. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As long as I understand, it's still a regulated activity with respect to the Wetlands ordinance and we need a set of plans and they would also have to apply for a building permit as well. This is not the same as our typical bulkhead where it doesn't need a Building Department approval. Decks need approval from the Building Department. MR. COSTELLO: For the bulkheads? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, I'm talking about the deck. In other words, that 200-square foot deck would be unregulated under Coastal Erosion but it still has to get a permit under the Town Wetland Ordinance and requires a building permit from the Building Department. MR. COSTELLO: If you put the condition the deck has to be under 200-square feet, so be it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And a set of plans showing where it's going to be. MR. COSTELLO: So be it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With that, 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 with the exception and requirement that the deck be no more than 200-square feet, which will make it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of JOSEPH & JOANNA CHERNUSHKA request a Wetland Permit and a


Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of existing wood deck, stairway to beach and 42' of bulkhead; construct 42' of new bulkhead inplace and new 50' west bulkhead return; fill eroded area with clean trucked in fill (approximately 25 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck and stairway to beach in-place. Located: 640 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This was reviewed under LWRP. And in our notes it says consistent and inconsistent. In reading the recommendation from the LWRP coordinator, it's my recommendation that to remove remains of existing wood deck, stairway to beach and 42 feet of bulkhead, construct 42 feet of new bulkhead inplace and new 50-foot west bulkhead, fill eroded area with clean, trucked in fill, regrade area and stairway to beach is consistent. He doesn't list what is inconsistent in the application but I think by process of elimination, what is inconsistent is again, as with the previous application, and I'm looking at the survey here that was submitted with this application, the wood deck far exceeds 200 square feet. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application and recommends the upland structures are placed on pilings. The Board did go out and looked at this and again we had no problem with the plans other than the deck, that it would have to be limited to 200-square feet. Anybody here to comment on this application? MR. COSTELLO: I agree with the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Does anybody else have any comments on this application? Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we have the same problem all along Rabbit Lane. It's almost universal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: 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 Costello Marine on behalf of Joseph and Joanna Chernushka with the condition the deck not be more than 200-square feet when reconstructed, that we receive a set of plans depicting that, and in doing so that would bring it fully into consistency under LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next hearing number five, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of RICHARD FRIZZI request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove remains of existing wood deck, stairway to beach and 37' of bulkhead; construct 37' of new bulkhead in-place; fill eroded area with clean trucked in fill (approximately 6 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood deck and stairway to beach in-place. Located: 680 Rabbit Lane, East Marion.


The issues surrounding this application are identical to the two preceding. The project as proposed was deemed consistent with LWRP but inconsistent with respect to the deck replacement which is greater than 200-square feet. The Conservation Advisory Council was recommending that upland structures be placed on pilings where possible. And the Board viewed the site and has as cited similar conditions as those previously addressed in the preceding two applications. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: I agree to the same conditions as the other applications. I'll agree to the same for the fourth one, too, so. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Having heard that, are there any comments, concerns of the Board? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the application have a deck not exceeding 200-square feet; that new plans showing the location of the 200-square foot deck be submitted, thus bringing the project into consistency with the town's LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number six, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of WILLIAM LEHMANN request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove the remains of the existing wood walk, stairway to beach and 29' of bulkhead; construct 29' of new bulkhead in-place; fill eroded area with clean trucked in fill (approximately 6 cubic yards); re-grade area; reconstruct (replace) existing wood walk and stairway to beach in-place. Located: 730 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. This was found consistent and inconsistent, again. And the inconsistency was for the existing wood walk located in the coastal erosion hazard area. John, weren't those walkways on ground level? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: It was right on the ground. MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I believe the measurements we took were less than 200-square feet, for point of information. TRUSTEE KING: And there was no application for any deck or anything, was there? (Perusing). No. Just for the walkway. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support it and recommends the dwelling is moved to the applicant's property across the street or place it on pilings. The Conservation Advisory Council also recommends removing or lowering the existing groin. This is just another example of tremendous


damage. I feel so bad for these people. Any comments from anybody? Because this does not have a large deck. (No response). Any comments from the audience? (No response). I'll make a motion to close the hearing. MS. MOORE: Sorry, one more. I don't like to be told I'm wrong, sorry. For the record, I pulled out information from local chief executives regarding declaring a state of emergency and issuing emergency orders. There is a question and answer section and what one of the questions is: Can a local state of emergency be used to suspend existing local laws. And the answer is yes. And the procedure to do that would be to ask the supervisor as the designated head of the municipality to suspend certain local laws, and with respect to, I mean this is coming from the, under the Executive Law. The DEC, the Army Corps and Department of State have all adopted suspensions to their laws in order to allow most of the people here to build emergency bulkheads where the permits, your procedures were if you had a permit you come back, but if you don't have a permit you need a permit, the grandfather thing or get permits for structures. What I'm seeing, I find very upsetting to me because people are coming in to legalize or to, I don't say legalize because they were legal from the beginning, but to give permits for existing structures, and you feel constrained by way the code is written. There is a provision here, everybody that is on Rabbit Lane would have the authority to put back, and what Mr. Costello pointed out is that the decks provide more than just esthetic value here. They are part of the structure to preserve the integrity of the bulkhead and to protect the bulkhead. So of all places, Rabbit Lane seems to me imperative that the supervisor consider allowing for the suspension of certain procedures and local laws. And I appreciate you calling, I'm sure for the coastal erosion, but these are -- cite them to this, because if you are asking the regulators under Coastal Erosion Program, of course they are going to tell you, no, you can't do it. Follow whatever the code says. That's not the case. This is where it is pointed out and there is a method to do it so people are not delayed. Of course, you can give them the permits for the 200 because it allows them to move through the process and get started. But in the meantime, please, I would urge you to look into this and see if you can't do modification under the Coastal Erosion Program because, as I said, the 200-square feet just appears to be somewhat inadequate here as part of the structural integrity of the bulkheads. Sorry, I'm trying not to be confrontational, but I did the research, I looked at it and I thought there had to be something to allow the Trustees suspend local ordinances when we have had situations with emergencies. So I'll give it to Lori. TRUSTEE KING: Pat, I think what you are talking about is beyond this Board's authority. MS. MOORE: I don't disagree.


TRUSTEE KING: It's for the Town Board and supervisor. MS. HULSE: Her statement of the facts is not as I reviewed them. I'm sorry. I would respectfully disagree with your legal opinion on that. I understand what you are saying but I have also done my due diligence in trying to inform this Board. I understand what you are saying, Pat, but I think you are mis-applying it. TRUSTEE KING: I think every applicant here also has the opportunity to appeal our decision to the Town Board. And that's if they want to go that route, that's the route to go. MS. MOORE: I would urge everybody here to do a mass appeal. TRUSTEE KING: We have to do what we are authorized to do. That goes beyond our authority. MS. MOORE: I know you all want to help people. I know that you are all there to be helpful. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, we are not here trying to give people a hard time, believe me. MS. MOORE: I understand that, so please don't let my comments -- MS. HULSE: Pat, you are stating the exceptions that the DEC has granted. I mean some of what you said was good advocacy but it was not in terms of -- MS. MOORE: I'm saying that the DEC implemented -- MS. HULSE: I don't want to argue with you, I just disagree with what you said, in part. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I come from the yes we can do it mentality and I would hope the town looks at it and says yes, we can do it, let's see how. And I see from that paperwork that it's the supervisor has that authority. You know, you could go to the governor if you want and I'm sure he'll give you that authority, too, so. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to move along with this. We have a lot ahead of us. MR. COSTELLO: Can I make one comment to the Board. Last thing I wish to be is a lawyer. I want to be a marine contractor and my job is to try to protect these properties. And asking you to okay the bulkheads first, if any one of these people want to come back and enlarge the deck for any reason, they can make an application to you and it can be waived by the other people. TRUSTEE KING: They have the opportunity, yes. Thank you, John. So I would make a motion to close the hearing on this application. 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 because there is no large deck to worry about. The inconsistency, this is just a small wooden walkway along the side of the house at ground level. I find it's well within any of our regulations. To me, in my mind, it would not even be considered. I find this application to be consistent. MS. HULSE: I think the difficulty that the LWRP coordinator had was in the measurements. I don't think he had the measurements, so he had to write it inconsistent because of that.


TRUSTEE KING: In the field we noted a little wooden walkway right down on the ground. It's insignificant. I'll make a motion to approve. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number seven, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PAUL DOMBROWSKI requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to replace 28 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead in-place with a proposed +/-12' return on the western end; replenish fill behind bulkhead lost during storm; and remove and replace existing storm damaged +/-26' x +/-26' decking on seaward side of dwelling, +/-51'L x +/-6'W decking along west side of dwelling, and +/ -19'L x +/-5.5'W decking on landward side of dwelling. Located: 50 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency involves the size of the deck seaward on the western side and landward of the dwelling. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application noting that the building should be put on pilings. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. I think Mr. Costello said everything that needs to be said on this application with respect to his previous ones. I have one question regarding the 200-square foot deck, which my client does agree to do. That is on the water side of the Coastal Erosion Zone, correct? TRUSTEE KING: No, I think it's within the Coastal Erosion Zone. MR. PATANJO: So that doesn't apply to the walkway going alongside the building, correct? TRUSTEE KING: If it's in coastal erosion, it would. MR. PATANJO: It's outside of. TRUSTEE KING: It would not apply then. MR. PATANJO: My client agrees to the 200-square feet then. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Are there any further comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close this hearing TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the condition that the deck be less than 200-square feet and that we receive a set of plans depicting that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number eight, En-Consultants on behalf of EDWARD & RACHEL FLANNIGAN requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 68 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and +/-10' vinyl return in place of (and 12 inches higher than) existing storm


damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead and return to be removed; remove and replace (as needed) +/-6'x9' wood deck and +/-3'x8' stairs; reconstruct storm damaged +/-4'x6' deck; construct 4'x8' steps to beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 25 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native vegetation. Located: 330 South Lane, East Marion. The Conservation Advisory Council went out and took a look at this and they resolved to support the application to reconstruct the bulkhead at the same height to match the neighboring bulkheads. The LWRP coordinator found this consistent and inconsistent; again, addressing the deck on the application as inconsistent. The Board went out and took a look at this, and frankly we didn't find anything objectionable. It was replacing what was there before. The deck was small. It's a 6x9 wood deck. Is there anybody here who would like to speak for or against this application? I imagine you are from En-Consultants? MS. STEPHENS: Yes. Kim Stephens from En-Consultants. I have the public notices, the return receipts to turn in on behalf of this project. The contractor is here also should you have any questions. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. I believe the LWRP coordinator may have just addressed this because it was a deck that originally didn't have a permit. Aside from that it, it fits within the criteria of less than 200-square feet. So I don't see anything that would stop us from approving this. Are there any comments from the Board? (No response). Any other comments from the audience? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: These are all, eight, nine and ten, are all next door neighbors to each other and basically all the same application. We didn't have a problem with any of them. MS. HULSE: You can do them all together if they agree to it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do the folks from En-Consultants have any problem with if we group eight, nine and ten together? They are neighbors of each other and basically all the same application. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just reviewed the file. It's identical issues. The inconsistency was a matter just to make sure the structure had a permit and it's consistent with less than 200-square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the file that is on the agenda number nine for Meyer and Cippitelli and it's the same thing. It appears as though the total decking is under 200-square feet and the inconsistency was for the very same reason. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So if there are no objections and no other comments, I'll make a motion that we combine eight, nine and ten as this one hearing. Nine and ten read as follows: En-Consultants on behalf of JONATHAN & CHRISTINE MEYER & JOSEPHINE CIPPITELLI request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 69 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-12 inches higher than)


existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead; remove and replace (as needed) +/-8'x10' wood deck; reconstruct storm damaged +/-3'x9' stairway and +/-3'x5' deck; construct 4'x8' steps to beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native vegetation. Located: 370 South Lane, East Marion. And number ten, En-Consultants on behalf of PETER & MARISA PATINELLA requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct approximately 74 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead and +/-13' vinyl return in place of (and +/-12 inches higher than) existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead and return to be removed; reconstruct storm damaged +/-5'x9' deck and +/-5'x9' stairs; construct +/-6'x6' deck in place of storm destroyed 4.5' wide deck; construct 4'x8' steps to beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native vegetation. Located: 440 South Lane, East Marion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Should we first find out if anybody else in the audience has any comments? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I did. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry, I apologize. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see anybody jumping up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Nope. I just wanted to give everyone an opportunity. MS. HULSE: Ms. Stephens, have you provided notices on all those? MS. STEPHENS: Yes, I did. TRUSTEE KING: Second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to close the hearing on eight, nine and ten. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve eight, nine and ten as submitted noting that the inconsistency concerning the decks from the LWRP coordinator is being addressed by this, by the permit that we'll issue and that these decks are under 200-square feet. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: Under Wetland Permits, number one, ROBERT KARPAS requests a Wetland Permit to repair and/or replace approximately


90' of vinyl sheathing beach bulkhead which has been damaged as a result of Hurricane Sandy; and backfill storm eroded area. Located: 320 West Shore Drive, Southold. This has been found exempt from the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation and the slope is re-vegetated with native species. This is an unusual situation where the bulkhead is actually being built on association property from Reydon Shores, so there is a letter in here authorizing that, that they allow putting the bulkhead on their property. We all went out and looked at this. It was a straightforward application. And we do want to see the vegetation re-vegetated -- disturbed vegetation replanted. I think I would like to see a little better drawing with a profile of the bulkhead. This is not quite what we usually accept. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of the application? (No response). Any Board comments? (No response). Seeing no other comments, 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 with the stipulation we need a little better set of plans showing the profile and the buffer from the top of the bluff down needs to be left in its natural state. And any disturbed areas to be replanted. I think that would be my motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number two, ROBERT NELSON requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct +/-45' of existing bulkhead and existing returns that were damaged during Hurricane Sandy; using CCA-treated piling and stringers, and vinyl interlocking sheathing (C-Loc 9900 or equivalent); reconstruct storm damaged 4’x8’8” stairs to beach. Located: 2955 Bayshore Road, Greenport. The Conservation Advisory Council did visit this application and resolved to support the application. This is to reconstruct a bulkhead and stairway. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be except from LWRP and noted the proposed structures are not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The Board was out and we took a look at it. We did note we would like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer. It is pretty much set up for that at this point, so that will be easily done. So we would like to add that to the application of Robert Nelson. MR. NELSON: My name is Robert Nelson. I would like to point out


in August we implemented covenants and restrictions on this property which included a ten-foot non-turf buffer as part of our application to build a deck which exists on the property now. So. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That would explain why it looks like there was a ten-foot non-turf buffer. We just want to make sure we put it in here anyway. But that's okay. Duly noted. Aside from that, again, it's pretty straightforward. Is there anybody here who would like to speak against the application? (No response). Any comments from the Board? Questions? TRUSTEE KING: No, it was a simple one. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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, just adding it will have a ten-foot non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number three, Judith Crabtree Duffy on behalf of JANE C. STARK request a Wetland Permit to remove 68 feet of lower bulkhead and 68 feet of upper retaining wall destroyed by Hurricane Sandy; construct new vinyl bulkhead with 12' return and new vinyl retaining wall with 12' return; top of lower bulkhead to be 18 inches higher than previous bulkhead; top of retaining wall to be 12 inches higher than previous retaining wall to match neighbor's bulkheads; construct upper and lower beach stairs and connecting walkway destroyed by Hurricane Sandy; fill lawn area with approximately 250 cubic yards of clean fill; restore 11 foot non-turf buffer between bulkhead and retaining wall; replant with native sea grass. Located: 3080 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support the application because it was insufficient information, and recommends a site plan. I looked at this myself. I think it was just a pretty straightforward application. There is no picture. Like I said, I didn't have any issues with this application. I don't know why -- is there anybody here from the CAC? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I was going to ask why they wanted to see the site plan. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He's not here anymore. I thought he was here Before. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): What is the CAC? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The Conservation Advisory Council. It's a Town Board committee. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): I see. Yes.


TRUSTEE KING: I'm just looking at my field notes that I took and I have nothing, no questions. So any other comments? (No response). 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 as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next hearing, number four, CHRIS R. SHOWALTER requests a Wetland Permit to repair in-kind of existing concrete seawall approximately 122' of new vinyl bulkhead with new 9" diameter piles @ 6'0" O.C. attached to new tie rods and backing system; with a +/-19'6" return and +/-14'0" return. Located: 1015 Orchard Lane, Southold. This is deemed consistent with the LWRP and the Conservation Advisory Council did not support application because the adjacent properties do not have any bulkheads or seawalls. The CAC recommends exploring alternative ways to protect the shoreline. The Trustees went out on field inspection. It was noted that a seawall, which probably had no prior permit, had been poorly constructed back quite some time ago and, absent proper footings and supports, had failed, and might even have been the case of a more properly constructed seawall during Tropical Storm Sandy. And I know our field notes indicated that the Trustees felt that an alternative, possibly a consideration of thousand pounds or thereabouts of stone wall with a filter cloth backing would possibly be a better route to stabilize the property and not encourage excessive structure. As the CAC found, there is no neighboring bulkheads and the inundation of this property was a bit unusual because it's within Cedar Beach, that ordinarily the barrier beach there is not topped. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? MR. SHOWALTER: I'm Chris Showalter, the owner. As you said, it doesn't normally get topped, but obviously in Hurricane Sandy it was. It was also topped in Irene. And since this damage occurred we have since had two nor'easters, and there has been significant erosion down and amongst those clumps of beach grass in there. I have a photograph from a company called AeroGraphics who specialize in documenting conditions of properties, and that seawall existed in April of 1976, as best I can tell. The original CO on the property goes back to 1966, so ten years prior. I have no idea who constructed it, how and when, but my main intent is to protect my landward property from future damage. TRUSTEE KING: It looked to me like the water got behind it and the weight of the water flopped it over.


MR. SHOWALTER: I think that's probably what happened. Because if you look where it is, at either end it goes back about ten feet, I think the water just pooled behind it and pulled it down as it receded. So the permit as written requests a vinyl bulkhead, and you guys felt that was inconsistent with the nature of the neighboring properties? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The consistency is a different issue. The project has been deemed consistent by the LWRP coordinator because of the prior structure existing there, and it predates the permitting. I think the Trustees and the Conservation Advisory Council had concerns about putting hard, reflective structure there that might exacerbate erosion in the future, so the stone revetment or a row of stone material with filter cloth seemingly, based on our experience, provides protection but does not have those sharp angles that would be directing water along the face of the bulkhead and along neighboring properties. In the alternative, I know we'll see also a bulkhead structure but then we might ask to have stone material placed in front to absorb wave energy. That's a lot of what we see. Typically we don't like to start hard-faced navy-type bulkheads where neighbors don't have them, and they tend to grow more bulkheads. And there is a general prohibition against new bulkheads in the bay, so we don't like to, even though it's a replacement, we don't want to set in motion a situation that would put us in a difficult situation where the neighboring property, particularly in these storms, might tend to see erosion on the edge of the returns. MR. SHOWALTER: I believe that's why the gentleman who drew up the plans actually softened the corners on the returns too, so it deflected a little bit instead of forcing it onto neighboring properties. So your second suggestion is vinyl bulkhead with stone in front of it? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a determination of the whole Board. We see that in some cases. I'm not making that suggestion. TRUSTEE KING: I think we talked about a row of stone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We talked about a row of stone instead of bulkhead, maybe thousand pound stone material with filter cloth backing. TRUSTEE KING: Technically new bulkheads are not allowed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: By code, technically, new bulkheads are not allowed. Correct. And this would be a new bulkhead because it's what is there is defunct. Not functional. TRUSTEE KING: I doubt there was ever a permit on that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It predates it, I believe. MR. SHOWALTER: It was there in '76. I know that. Prior to that, I have no idea. So I would be comfortable with thousand pound stone as you suggested. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments or questions? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second.


TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that a new plan be returned showing the location and a cross-section of the proposed stone wall in the vicinity of the proposed location that has shown the bulkhead on the plan. So it would be subject to new plans. TRUSTEE KING: And all the concrete blocks to be removed. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All existing stone, excuse me, all concrete blocks and broken wall to be removed. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five, JACK BIGGANE requests a Wetland Permit to construct a timber stairway on the bluff; stair treads to be an untreated lumber. Located: 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC supports the application with an engineered erosion plan for the structure. Again, this was just a timber stairway from the bluff. TRUSTEE KING: It was previously permitted. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. It was previously permitted and it had expired. Is there anybody here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BIGGANE: I'm Jack Biggane. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We really have no questions for you. Any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No. It's something we already approved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Jack Biggane at 8871 Oregon Road, Cutchogue, as deemed consistent under the LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, DOUGLAS & BENITA PEARSALL request a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the storm damaged 62' long bulkhead in-place using 12' vinyl sheathing, 6"x6" CCA top & bottom stringers, 10"x16" fencer piles 6' on center, 4"x6" top clamp, 2"x8" ACQ perpendicular cap, 1"x10" tie rods, backing system of 8"x8" backing piles, all wood to be CCA, hardware to be hot dipped galvanized; additional fill if needed to be supplied from off site. Located: 520 West Shore Drive, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. I'll quote. Structures described were not constructed pursuant to Board of Trustees Wetland Permit. The Conservation Advisory


Council resolved to support the application. There is a note that the Town attorney mailed official notification to Ms. Pearsall that she needs authorization from Reydon Shores Property Owners Association. And lastly, on our field notes, when we inspected, I personally inspected this and found it to be a straightforward repair of a storm damaged bulkhead. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. PEARSALL: Benita Pearsall. We have a letter from Reydon Shores Property Owners Association, and I think one was faxed by the president. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Thank you. Any comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing no comments, I 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 noting that the issuance of a permit will address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number seven, ESTATE OF LAWRENCE M. TUTHILL requests a Wetland Permit for the existing floating and fixed docks and to repair all floating docks and fixed docks as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Located: 945 Orchard Street, New Suffolk. The Conservation Advisory Council did look at it and felt it was insufficient documentation at this time to make a recommendation. They are recommending an updated site plan. We did go out to see it on Sunday and by the time we got there we found there was sufficient documentation in the file to look at it. The LWRP finds it to be inconsistent with the LWRP, primarily because it did not have an existing permit. We went out, we took a look, we met with everybody down there that day. The folks that would know exactly the history of this. And frankly, it's a marina. As I understand it, it's M-1, private bottom. We didn't find anything out of the ordinary or anything there that we would not think should be permitted. It's pretty straightforward really. All the documentation is in the file. If there is anybody here like to speak against this application? (No response). The existing marina today has been there for a long time. I don't remember there being any comments or questions from the Board. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I just had one condition, that in the event that any of these docks need to be replaced, that they not extend seaward of any of the present docks. It's a very narrow waterway and I know, I asked the question, I'm sure the applicant has no problem with that. We just don't want it to impede navigation in the channel. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): We don't want that either.


TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would make a motion to approve the application as submitted noting that should anything ever need to be replaced in the future, that it conform to the current dimensions of any configuration of what is there. And by permitting this we'll then find it consistent with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in be favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Richard Zahra, President on behalf of MARLENE LANE CIVIC ASSOCIATION requests a Wetland Permit to remove +/-125 linear feet of storm damaged bulkhead and replace with code compliant new bulkhead; replace lost fill; and replace two 4'x4' platforms with two 4' wide sets of stairs to beach that were washed out by the storm; stairs will comply with existing code and construction standards. Located: 11012 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Mattituck. This was found consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to not support the wetland application. It does not support the application because there is insufficient information, and recommends a site plan for the project. We all went out there and looked at it. There, again, it's a storm damaged bulkhead that they want to replace and bring it up to current standards. Is there anybody here to speak for or against this application? MR. GILLY: Mike Gilly, Marlene Lane Civic Association and Richard Zahra. TRUSTEE KING: It looked pretty straightforward to me. The only thing in our field notes, the disturbed area behind the bulkhead to be re-vegetated with natural vegetation. Other than that, I didn't have any issues with it. Anybody else? (No response). Does anybody else have any comments? (No response). Board? (No response). 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 with re-vegetation of the disturbed areas of the bank. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?


(ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, John N. Blakely on behalf of RJJ PROPERTIES LLC requests a Wetland Permit to replace lost sand, and replace destroyed existing 14’x44’ deck and 8’3”x12’2” bathhouse from Hurricane Sandy; and to permit the existing +/-100' long retaining wall and +/-3' x +/-30' stairs. Located: 7225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was found to be exempt and inconsistent; with the replacing of the lost sand and the permit for the retaining wall to be exempt. He does not state what the inconsistency is here. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application to replace lost sand and replace the deck and bathhouse because the plan doesn't indicate the location of the mean high water line. The Conservation Advisory Council recommends moving the dwelling back away from the bluff and installing a non-turf buffer planted with native vegetation along the top of the bluff. The Board did go out and looked at this. Is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. BLAKELY: John Blakely. TRUSTEE BERGEN: John, in our files we cannot find a permit for either the bathhouse or the deck. Do you know, do you have any permits for that, previous permits for that bathhouse or that deck? MR. BLAKELY: There were no previous permits for the bathhouse, the deck or the stairs. And that was on my application to get a permit for the bathhouse, the deck and the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. The challenge we have is it was not an approved structure and it disappeared. And, again, it goes back to are we going to allow a structure that is not allowed in code to be placed back. In other words this bathhouse. The deck is a very large deck but it's between the bulkhead and the retaining wall and so myself, personally, I don't know how the rest of the Board feels, since that's a non-turf buffer area, as we had described with a previous application, if the deck is sloped slightly so that water drains landward rather than seaward by maybe an inch to two inch elevation, and the boards, that there is three-eighths to half-inch of space between the boards, I don't have a problem then with that deck. I don't know how the Board feels about the bathhouse since it was not permitted, it's non-conforming and it's disappeared and now he wants us to give him a permitted bathhouse back there. Any comments from the Board related to that issue? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe so. There was no remains of the bath house there, Post Sandy. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But I mean that is the one, isn't it? MR. BLAKELY: No, that is someone else's. TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is the Horsmann (sic) residence, correct? MR. BLAKELY: Yes. The picture is not Horsmann. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the pictures submitted with the application right now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was getting dark and we had 80 pictures, so.


TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I see a picture that is circa 2001 showing this bathhouse there. So the bathhouse was there, again, it says circa 2001. What is the feeling of the Board with regard to this bathhouse. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I could support the decking as you described, the spacing and the slope. We have seen instances where that was, that helped save or reduce erosion. But I'm, I cannot support putting back the nonconforming bathhouse. TRUSTEE KING: It's completely gone? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, the pictures show it's completely gone. Correct? That bathhouse is completely gone? MR. BLAKELY: Yes, all the decking and all the bathhouse, completely gone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would echo Trustee Domino's sentiments. I think it would be a lot of heartache. We can't pre-judge but it would have to go to Zoning approval as well, so it would just start to make more difficulties than is probably -- I don't think it's advisable to try and put it back. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a picture of the application. This is circa 2001, what was there. MR. BLAKELY: If it would help in your decision, the wording in the past survey was “bathhouse.” It actually was a shed, without running water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would ask for counsel's opinion on this. With the pre-existing nonconforming structure, if we have an opportunity to downsize and put something there that is smaller, or would it still be a violation of code? MS. HULSE: Give me one second. It's not in Coastal Erosion. So it's under 235. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yup. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All it really was a shed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a matter if the code will allow it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You call it a bathhouse? MR. BLAKELY: That is because the original survey said bathhouse. So I kept it to the letter, but it was just a storage shed. MS. HULSE: Just to clarify what the code says: That no structures on beaches, bluffs or dunes unless approved by the Board’s discretion based on site inspection. So it would be at your discretion, however it would have on conform to Zoning requirements, and so that, just to caution you, you would have to meet the requirements under Chapter 280 of the code. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. What I would ask the applicant then if he would consider an 8x12 shed with no plumbing or electricity down there. MR. BLAKELY: We would be very willing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The description would not read “bathhouse,” it would read “storage shed.” And again, just to caution you, you should consult with the Zoning Board of Appeals to see if in doing so you need a variance from ZBA. MR. BLAKELY: Will do. MS. HULSE: That's without running water, correct?


TRUSTEE BERGEN: No running water, no electric. TRUSTEE KING: No water, no electric. Strictly someplace to store beach chairs, whatever. MR. BLAKELY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Anybody else have any comments? (No response). Any comments from the Board? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a problem with that. Environmentally it's not doing anything. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We are not on a beach or dune, that's fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And I don't have a problem with the shed, so defined. 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 RJJ Properties at 722 Nassau Point Road, with the condition of bathhouse be changed to an 8x12 shed with no running water and no electricity. MS. HULSE: And to conform with Zoning requirements. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it must conform with Zoning requirements. And in doing so would bring it into consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, number ten, Mark Schwartz, Architect on behalf of PHILIP MILOT requests a Wetland Permit to raise the house to elevate height of foundation by 5 courses of concrete block (40" +/-); deck posts to be replaced with new concrete piers; replace stairs, adjusted for raised height; repair/replace any structural members or damaged interior/exterior materials as a result of raising house. Located: 4185 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. The project has been determined to be exempt under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that a non-turf vegetated buffer be installed. The Trustees looked at the site and reviewed the application. It was straightforward, we had no problem with raising the house, given the circumstances surrounding Tropical Storm Sandy. The only concern we had was the issue that there was no deck there to be raised, apparently destroyed and removed. And that we realize that a deck would have to conform to Building and Zoning requirements, of the Building and Zoning code. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on this application? MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect for the project. Just here to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The file was reviewed in-house in addition to the field survey, and the deck is the sticking point, if you will, for this application, that it would need Zoning Board


approval, and that we probably are not in a position to make a determination without a ZBA approval. So it might be most proper and best processing if maybe we table the application so you had an opportunity to talk to the Zoning Board of Appeals. MR. MILOT: That house was rebuilt back in 1988, and you should have, I think I had permits for everything. Including that deck. In addition to which we put a new bulkhead in last year, you may remember, and there was no question about that deck at that time. The deck is not there because it was completely torn off and removed. Certainly it was no problem last year. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's because you applied for a bulkhead. You were not applying for a deck last year. Correct? MR. MILOT: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that's why there was no problem last year. You were applying for a bulkhead and we approved the bulkhead. Now you are applying for a deck and what we have identified is there is a potential ZBA issue here. MR. MILOT: I'm applying to raise the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a question about that, Mark. With FEMA regulations, and the fact that this is concrete block and you want to raise it with concrete blocks, I'm not an engineer, but from an engineering perspective, I would think raising the house would be better off on pilings rather than concrete block because you'll have, in another major storm, the water bashing against concrete, where if it's pilings, it flows underneath. I'm not an engineer. MR. MILOT: When the house was rebuilt in 1988, in order to satisfy FEMA there are two 3'x3' holes in the foundation in the front, on the water side and also on the other side to allow the water to pass through. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right, thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? MR. SCHWARTZ: Also, to the best of our knowledge, the deck that was there was approved as a legal part of the structure. I'm not sure why we would have to go back to the Zoning Board to rebuild something that -- MS. HULSE: Did you get a disapproval from the Building Department yet? MR. SCHWARTZ: No. MS. HULSE: That's probably your first course of action then. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think tabling it is prudent. Any additional comments? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Unless the applicant would like to remove the deck from the application, then we could move forward with the rest of the application to allow him to start work on the house. TRUSTEE KING: You mean the ZBA? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That, I don't know. I have no idea -- obviously everything is subject to approval from other agencies. MR. MILOT: Are you saying that deck was not approved in 1988? TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, that's not what I'm saying. What we are saying here tonight is there is a potential issue with the deck


with the ZBA. So what I was suggesting is if you just remove the deck from this application, we could possibly proceed forward with the rest of the application tonight. If not, if you would like to keep the deck in there, that's fine. I think what I'm hearing is the Board is leaning toward tabling the entire application until discussions can be held with ZBA and/or Building Department. MR. MILOT: No, I need to lift the house and get things going. So I would take it out of the application. TRUSTEE KING: The house is within 75 feet of the bulkhead. He may need approval to raise the house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I didn't hear that before. If that's true, maybe the best course of action is to table this until the ZBA can review it. I was just trying to help the applicant out, that's all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion? (No response). We can't bandy this about. There is no further way to get headway on this. MR. MILOT: So this -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm in the process of closing the hearing, unless you have any more additional comments, specifically, for the record, I'm going to close the hearing. MR. MILOT: One comment, I do believe the Building Department will not send you to the Zoning Board if you are only raising an existing structure in the existing location. The deck, maybe it's a different issue because that's gone. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The deck is attached to the structure, and we don't have a deck there. I believe counsel spoke on the issue and she believes it is in our best interest if we table. So that said, I think at this point I would like to close the hearing with respect to counsel's recommendation. MR. MILOT: So every house that is within 75 feet of a bulkhead that people want to raise they have to go to Zoning Board? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm not saying that. As counsel spoke, there is a deck there that is not there that you are proposing that is within the 75 feet that is part of the structure. It's part of the home. MS. HULSE: It's typically the policy of the Board not to segment the application in that matter. If you need ZBA, it's more prudent to go there first. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Either that or you end up coming back and forth and back and forth, and they have the overriding say in this particular matter. So it makes it a little easier on you. We have the application, the hearing has been opened. So all you have to do, once you get the approval from the other agencies, you come back and we get, so that we are all coordinated and you don't have to re-apply for a whole new application and a whole new hearing. It's probably the prudent way to go. MR. MILOT: Although the Zoning Board, it will probably take a couple of months to through the Zoning Board. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You won't be able to start the work without that anyway.


MR. MILOT: Even if we separate the deck from the house? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: If it turns out that it has to go before the ZBA then you get a stop work order and have to start from scratch anyway. MR. MILOT: Okay, so we'll leave the hearing open? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll table it, yes. TRUSTEE KING: We'll table it. It will be automatically on for next month. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further discussion? (No response). I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 11, DKR Shores, Inc., on behalf of KEVIN WHITROCK requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 40' navy style vinyl bulkhead in-place of existing small stone revetment; to construct (2) 10' vinyl returns along property line; to backfill structure with approximately 35 cubic yards of clean sand trucked in from an upland source; to establish a 10' stone splash-pad on filter fabric immediately landward of new bulkhead. Located: 580 Terry Path, Mattituck. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved not to support this application and recommends that the rock revetment be enhanced and replanted with native vegetation pending clarification of the legal status of new bulkheads. The Trustees visited this site and found no problems with the application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. RIGDON-HOFFMANN: Agena Rigdon-Hoffmann from DKR Shores, as agent. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any comments from the Board? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. RIGDON-HOFFMANN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 12, Natural Images Landscaping on behalf of PETER KRANES requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing retaining wall; reinstall new vinyl wall approximately 163’ long; and existing deck 7' toward house. Located: 7480 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. MS. MOORE: I'm here if you need anything, but this is pretty


straightforward, so. TRUSTEE KING: This was found inconsistent with LWRP. MS. MOORE: I don't know why. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know why either. Let me just get through this, Pat. The structures described were not constructed pursuant to Board of Trustees Wetland Permit. MS. MOORE: I think he's confused. This has, the bulkhead was constructed and it's there. What he's proposing on doing is moving the old retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: Have you got the right one? MS. MOORE: Yes. Kranes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Natural Images is the agent. MS. MOORE: Natural Images brought me in. You have my authorization in the file. TRUSTEE KING: Hold on, hold on. Are you trying to confuse me? It doesn't take much, you know. I don't see anything in here, Pat, as far as you weighing in on it. MS. MOORE: Lucky me, I have been hired. I know we sent it over. I don't know. Well, I'll get it to you tomorrow, I'll get you another one. It might be by E-mail. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. MS. MOORE: Is Mr. or Mrs. Kranes here? (No response). I guess they didn't make it. Okay, when you went back out, the bulkhead was built previously, which was still in place and still in good shape. TRUSTEE KING: Hang on a second, Pat. MS. MOORE: This is not the right picture. TRUSTEE KING: We met the gentleman out there. We met the owner there. MS. MOORE: Yes, he told me he met you out there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is the property. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: He had a permit for the bulkhead. There was an existing permit for the bulkhead. He wanted to transfer it. MS. MOORE: Yes. That's what you had earlier. TRUSTEE KING: Now that's what I put aside because I want to include it in this application. I want to keep things simple. MS. MOORE: Okay. I'm just trying to answer whoever gave you that recommendation that didn't make sense. TRUSTEE KING: I think there was some confusion on his part. He previously came in, it was back under Transfers and Amendments. He wanted to transfer the permit for the existing bulkhead to his name from the previous owner. MS. MOORE: Right. The bulkhead was built in 2003. TRUSTEE KING: When we talked with Mr. Kranes, we said, look, instead of transferring it to your name, why don't we put the bulkhead and the new retaining wall on one Wetland Permit, which to me makes a lot of sense. Now he has two structures on one permit. And he was agreeable to that. He thought it was a good idea.


MS. MOORE: No, no, no, I think he misunderstood how you were doing it. I misunderstood how you were doing it. I thought that you were going to put the transfer as part of this permit so -- TRUSTEE KING: No. MS. MOORE: I'll get you new drawings that includes, a new description that includes both, then. TRUSTEE KING: The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support the application with the condition of buffers increased seven feet beyond the crest of the bluff. I don't think that's necessary. When it gets the new retaining wall, it will be seven feet landward from where the old one was, so it's quite an increase in the size of the buffer. And the inconsistency, I think he was confused about the existing deck seven feet toward the house. I don't think there was anything in here about a deck. MS. MOORE: No, there is an existing deck that is landward of the existing retaining wall. And that has -- TRUSTEE KING: So everything is moving landward seven feet. MS. MOORE: Yes, that has to be connected to the new retaining wall. So the seven feet is to connect the decking to the new retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: I think it was just a little misunderstanding in how it was worded. MS. HULSE: I think the wording in the resolution is a little confusing, personally. The "and existing deck seven feet toward house" doesn't really make sense. If we could get a clarification on that, because that's what he used. TRUSTEE KING: So there was an existing deck, it would be landward of the retaining wall. MS. MOORE: Correct. MS. HULSE: Maybe we can just amend the resolution to be a little clearer. MS. MOORE: Yes, could you amend it to include the transfer or the bulkhead that was permitted in 2003 into this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what the plan is. TRUSTEE KING: That was the game plan. Anybody else? MS. MOORE: All right. Good. MS. HULSE: You are going to merge that permit into this permit? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: You know what I'm saying, it was an existing permit under a different name. MS. HULSE: Yes. MS. MOORE: Just keep in mind there is also a little patio stone on sand between the new retaining wall and the old retaining wall, something like that. I don't think this drawing -- yes. Bulkhead. Between the bulkhead and the new retaining wall. It's on the drawings. TRUSTEE KING: I see it. Little bluestone patio. We didn't have any issues, we thought -- MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: If there are no other comments, 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 to move -- the new retaining wall will be seven feet landward of the old retaining wall and there is a deck on the landward side of the new retaining wall that will be built. And this permit also includes the existing bulkhead along the, on the seaward side that was previously permitted under another name. That will be included in this permit. So we'll be having a new Wetland Permit for the bulkhead and a new retaining wall, and the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall will be in a naturally vegetated condition. MS. HULSE: Are you removing the "and existing deck seven feet toward house" language? TRUSTEE KING: It's my understanding there will be a new deck on the landward side of the new retaining wall. So everything has been moved seven feet landward. MS. MOORE: You have to connect the two. That part is new because it's connecting. Did you want the permit number? MS. HULSE: 3887. TRUSTEE KING: So why am I confused? MS. HULSE: The reason for the inconsistency was the language in the resolution that said "and existing deck seven feet torward house." So if that's not part of this resolution I don't think you would have a problem with the consistency under the LWRP. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Moving the deck seven feet toward the house -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't understand why it's -- MS. MOORE: No, it's not moving, it's leaving the existing deck in place and connecting the back of the deck to the new located retaining wall. TRUSTEE KING: So the deck will be seaward of the new retaining wall. MS. MOORE: Yes, the existing deck is there. The retaining wall right now is here. It's got to move back. So you have separation between the deck and the new retaining wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So you'll be extending the deck seven feet. MS. MOORE: Extending landward toward the retaining wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Gotcha. So it's not moving the existing deck, it's extending the existing deck to fill in the gap when they move that seven feet. TRUSTEE KING: Now I see it. Okay. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think it materially changes our decision, it just changes the wording. MS. HULSE: And it definitely changes the existing findings, because that was the issue. TRUSTEE KING: That's not shown on the drawing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll need new drawings anyway. TRUSTEE KING: Showing the new retaining wall. This will just be


there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's correct. Don't show it on the plans. Did you get that Wayne? TRUSTEE KING: So this is one permit that includes the bulkhead. Are we clear on this now, my motion? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: With revised plans. Pat, there will be revised plans, right? We'll need revised plans. MS. MOORE: To say what? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To include the bulkhead and be a little more clear about the extending of the deck. Unless it's all here. MS. MOORE: You know what, I think the plans are okay, I think the description is bad. Why don't I give you a new written page of the description of the proposed project. Because the drawings would not change. TRUSTEE KING: Here is the bulkhead. Here is where the old retaining wall was and here is the new retaining wall. MS. MOORE: It seems to show everything there. MS. HULSE: Is the patio in there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Okay, deck, connecting, old, new, extending. This is the bulkhead. I guess everything is there. This is extending back to this new retaining wall. There will be a gap once they move it. MS. MOORE: It's okay? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. MS. MOORE: Do you want me to come back with a description change? I'll match it to what Liz gets from your resolution. Does that make sense? TRUSTEE KING: I think we should have the measurements on the deck. MS. MOORE: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: That's what we should have. MS. MOORE: I could get that for you. MS. HULSE: This is contingent upon measurements for the deck and letter of authorization, Pat. MS. MOORE: Yes, I'll get that for you, I know it was sent. I don't know why it's not in the file. MS. CANTRELL: We didn't get it. MS. MOORE: I'm not questioning it. TRUSTEE KING: So that and just the dimensions of the deck we need. MS. MOORE: Sure. So authorization, measurements of the deck. And do you need the description changed or are you okay with what you have? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll add the dimensions of the deck once you give it to us. MS. MOORE: Okay, that's fine. TRUSTEE KING: That's the motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 13, Natural Images Landscaping on behalf


of PETER AND JOAN FRITZ requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing rock revetment and extend existing bulkhead to protect waterfront. Located: 755 North Parish Road, Southold. This application was looked at by the Conservation Advisory Council. The Conservation Advisory Council does not support the application and recommends leaving the rock revetment in place and to enhance the rip rap with native plantings; remove all irrigation, exterior lighting and non-native vegetation from the buffer and to extend the buffer an additional five feet. The LWRP coordinator has found this to be consistent with LWRP. The Board was out there and took a look at this. The comments that I have was suggesting that we, contour the bulkhead behind the stone revetment; it was a question mark. And questioning the slate patio and the use of the large slates in that particular application. There is a letter here from the neighbor, I'll just take a moment to read real quick. In regard to the above reference permit request we would like you to know our concern as adjacent property owners, Crowsdale (sic) at 695 North Parish Drive; Merrill, 700 North Parish Drive. We would like to register our objection to the proposed 55 feet of new bulkhead and 32 feet of new return, such a structure, in their opinion, is against Town Code, and we believe it would cause substantial erosion to their property. We would respectively like to ask the Fritz' to explore a less harmful alternative. With that I'll ask if there is anybody here who would like to address this application? MS. FRITZ: My name is Joan Fritz. My husband Peter and I have owned the property at 755 North Parish Drive since 1998 when we purchased it from my mother who along with my father owned it since 1958. My family has been paying taxes on this property for close to six decades. Members of my family have been residents of Southold Town for almost nine decades. My father, maternal grandmother, great aunt, great uncles, aunts and uncles, who are all buried here; as well my mother, my husband and I and our children. We are before you tonight because of environmental and climatological changes that began before members of my family took up permanent residence in Southold. My husband is an insurance broker who over the years has specialized in insuring the worldwide offshore oil and gas exploration and production operations of some of the world’s largest and geographically diverse integrated oil companies. They operate in some of the world’s most environmentally sensitive areas. Governments across the globe, oil companies themselves and the insurance industry realize that what 20 years ago was called a hundred-year storm is now the norm. Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf of Mexico Coast as well as the offshore energy industry. Recent storms across the North Sea in Europe have caused billions of dollars of damage. As a result, governments, in order to protect the environment and lives, are exercising stricter controls and requiring more robust design of all newly constructed offshore


facilities. The insurance industry has responded by either only insuring those facilities designed to today's standards or for those underwriters willing to write older units in storm-prone areas like the Gulf of Mexico, their premiums has risen up to 2,000%, making it unaffordable for smaller companies. You may ask what this has to do with our request for full bulkheading. We say it has everything to do with it. Storms like Sandy have become the norm, and we agree that communities in storm-prone areas need to be proactive, protecting the lives of properties of their citizens while not damaging the environment. My husband and I are not scientists, but it seems logical to us that when property is eroded, the runoff into the bays not only damages property but also harms the environment and causes contamination. If we look at our particular situation in 2011, while we had originally applied for full bulkheading, the Trustees and DEC approved the installation of approximately 50 feet of bulkheading and 50 feet of rock revetment. As the Trustees saw, Sandy did no structural damage to the bulkheading, but a large portion of the rock revetment was destroyed, with substantial erosion going directly into Southold Bay. We would liken the difference in the effectiveness of the bulkheading versus a rock revetment to the difference between the strength of an offshore platform designed in 1980 and one designed today. While we are relieved we didn't suffer more damage and loss of property from Sandy, we also feel that had we been allowed a full bulkheading in 2011 we would not be standing in front of the Trustees today, again, asking them to do what is right for both us as taxpayers as well as the environment. As we said earlier, the community has an obligation to protect the property of all its citizens. We understand our neighbor has expressed concern that by allowing us to extend our bulkheading it would increase the potential for erosion to her property from future storms. We take this concern seriously and have hired Mr. Joseph Fischetti, physical engineer who is here with me tonight. He assures us the extension of the bulkheading should not exacerbate any erosion to our neighbor's property from future storms. We thank you for the opportunity to come before you tonight and encourage you to take the bold steps of approving our plans which will best protect both our property and the environment, the entire Town of Southold and its bays. Thank you. I also have Patricia Moore who is representing my husband and I. MS. MOORE: This time I do have authorization. Rather than start talking, it seems I would like to listen, and Joe and I would like to listen to your comments. This, all of this work was completed, there is a compliance certificate from July of 2012, which is really sad that all of this expense and this work was essentially destroyed with this storm. So, similar to the DEC, where they try to get you to, try to work with non-hardening


structures as a start then you lose all your beach several times, and then eventually you go back and they say, you know what, okay, we understand, you have to fix this. That's where we are today. And it is just much more damaging to the environment to have to replace these than it is to do it right the first time. So I have Joe to provide some engineering but we would like to listen to your comments first. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just hang on for a second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, we are just looking for something in the file. Pat, you said you have a certificate of compliance? MS. MOORE: Yes. Here you go (handing). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry. It was sitting here off to the side. Bear with us a moment, folks, please. Just to go back a little bit. This was an application that came before us last year. It should be noted just to kind of refresh everybody's memory. The characterization that we did change the application last year and made some other suggestions is correct. It should also be noted it was a split decision. It was not a unanimous decision from the Board. The application was approved on a three to two decision. So there was some, a bit of, I won't call it controversy, but we had disagreement about how to approach it. I will say that by and large what ended up happening was fairly close to what we had in mind. What we did not have if mind and it was noted in the field when we went out there was all that slate and the patios. The original permit, if I'm not mistaken, allowed for a four-foot path filling the voids with clean fill, constructing stairs to beach, installation of a ten-foot wide non-turf buffer, vegetated non-turf using American beach grass, rock revetment and, like I said, a four-foot wide access stairway to the beach. And that was it. What we find there when we got out there was tons of slate patio that had been moved and disassembled in the storm. And certainly that may or may not have played a part in the amount of destruction of the project. But that is, I guess, up for debate. In any case, that's basically where we are at now. MS. MOORE: Our client says she had a permit for the slate patio, too. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm looking at the permit. Wetland Permit to construct 50 feet of new bulkhead, install 60 feet of one to two-and-a-half ton, two-row rock low profile revetment, fill the area behind the new bulkhead and revetment with clean trucked in fill, approximately 40 cubic yards; construct four-foot wide access stairway to the beach with the condition of the installation of a ten-foot wide non-turf vegetated buffer using Cape American beach grass along the landward edge of the bulkhead; and the rock revetment to be maintained. All as depicted on the site plan provided by Costello Marine, September 29, 2011. MS. FRITZ: Yes, then when Costello finished it we needed to do the buffer and that's when we got involved with Natural Images


Landscaping and he applied for a permit, and gave you a design, a drawing of what it would look like and you gave him the permit to do the patio and the vegetation. (Trustees perusing file). TRUSTEE KING: This is the old permit. (Perusing). TRUSTEE KING: I don't see it now. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do you have a copy of the amendment? MS. MOORE: I don't either but I think it may be misidentified in the computer, because I printed what was in the computer. So sometimes human error maybe. TRUSTEE KING: All right, there was an amendment to the Wetland Permit #7633. That's to re-vegetate the area landward of the bulkhead and install stone patio as depicted on the revised project plan, approved May 1, 2012. It was received April 24, 2012. Now all we need to do is see a copy of that plan so we know what we are talking about. It seems to me, I thought, the back of my head, I thought the patios were more behind the bulkhead than behind that revetment. I don't know why I'm thinking that. Hold on, I think I see it right here. MS. MOORE: What you see there now -- TRUSTEE KING: I see it. I have the plans now. Stone seating area. Here is the bulkhead. Here is the revetment. Stepping stones going down. Here is the previous stairway. It was all stone. MS. CANTRELL: We have it separate because it was never scanned in. MS. MOORE: That's why I didn't see it. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I think that patio caused a lot of that damage. It undermined and then flopped down. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And the wave action dumped all the water behind the stone. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Now that we have all the paperwork figured out, is there anybody else who would like to address the application? MS. MERRILL: Margaret Merrill, 700 North Parish Drive, and I'm part owner of 695 North Parish Drive. My mom lives there. And that property was just to the west of this property. The patio that you see there that is all come up from Sandy, that, it looks like stone revetment, but it's not. The part that is closest to us. The actual rock revetment has not moved. Those huge boulders are all still there. And they actually, I think during Sandy, because I was out there watching, I think they did a pretty decent job. You could see there is a dune behind that rock revetment. It's still there. And the thing about this property is where the rock revetment is, there is a gradual slope that it slopes up from west to east, going -- the eastern part being that four foot -- I think it's four foot. The 50-foot long bulkhead. But it gradually goes lower into a dune that goes in front of our property. That dune, our fear is that if you put hard structure there with a right angle, that is four feet high even with the other


bulkhead, it will, the wave action is just going to pull a whole chunk of our beach out. I don't know if, I see you are standing on what is left of the patio, but I don't know if you went down on the beach side and looked. Just on the other side of that rock revetment is a big strip of vegetation that was definitely eaten away by Sandy, but my fear is with a hard structure it will get eaten away even more. And that is our dune. That's all we have. We don't have a bulkhead. I don't have an attorney and an engineer, I just have me. And I just don't want our -- they have every right to protect their property but I feel we have a right to protect ours, too. And my family is very dear, too. And the other thing was with the 2011 application, I felt like that was a compromise, they got half the bulkhead and half rock revetment instead of full 111 feet of bulkhead. But now they are asking for an additional 82 feet of bulkhead; 50 of it running in front and 32 up the side of our property. The 32 feet up the side of our property is an awful lot. MS. MOORE: I think she misunderstands the design. MS. MERRILL: The return that goes along our property? That's what the plan says. I'm not an engineer so maybe I'm reading it wrong. But from what I see, it says 32-foot return. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, it's a 32-foot return on the plan. MS. MOORE: I don't see a return as being a full bulkhead. It's -- MS. MERRILL: It's a hard structure, is it not? MS. MOORE: I have Joe Fischetti. He could testify with respect to the design. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Anything else? MS. MERRILL: The other thing was the LWRP finding. I just want to get out there on the record that in 2011 both the Conservation Advisory Council and LWRP found that permit inconsistent, as well as two out of three Trustees and two neighbors. So it was close, as you said. And I felt that this was a compromise. But because of the stone patio -- and there is also lighting, electric lighting or some kind of lighting that goes through all of that. And the buffer, it was, the buffer was brand new. The vegetation was brand new. I don't think it had taken root enough. I don't think it had enough of a chance to be able to withstand something like Sandy. But that rock revetment has not moved. It's still there. And we would just like to see something a little less hard, same thing that we said in 2011. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. MS. FRITZ: I'm the homeowner. The rock revetment, if you look at the photograph, the rock revetment to the right of the staircase, collapsed. The stones were the height equal to the height of the top of the staircase. You can tell from that picture right there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The stairwell depicted in the picture is over the rock revetment. So that part of the rock revetment did not fail, because if it had failed, the stairwell would have been broken up, correct?


MR. FRITZ: But there were rocks on top of existing rocks to the right of the stairs. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. I'm just looking at the picture, I'm looking at from the stairwell to the north, I guess I'll say, that that did hold. I was one of the ones who voted against this application originally because I felt a rock revetment would work. I tend to agree with Jim that I think the patio contributed to the failure of the rock revetment. Because the rock revetment did hold from the stairwell, approximately the stairwell to the north. It's the patio, where the water got over the patio, and because it was nothing that, because the patio was there blocking the water from entering down into the earth, it destroyed the revetment. I think a rock revetment would work here, I just think absent the patio it would work. That's just my own feeling. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to second Trustee Bergen's comments. MR. FISCHETTI: Good evening. Joe Fischetti. I did not design the system that was given to you at the retaining wall, I mean the bulkhead that you have there. Um, both the revetment and a retaining wall in and of itself is to protect the soil and the properties behind. So just saying that the revetment is there and it's still there, I don't see that revetment protecting that property. The revetment is in of itself I think was done as a compromise and it didn't work. I think extending that bulkhead properly, adding some hardening around the sides, softening the wave action so that the adjacent property is not affected. When you have two properties that have the same elevations and you have one hardened and one not, there will be some differential eroding. In this particular case, the neighbor to the, I'm not sure if that's the north or west -- to the west, it is drastically different than this property. It's very low, it goes back, the dune that she has is back very far, and that's the reason for the 35-foot return that I assume that the person who did that design was to protect the property that was there. Which was three feet higher. And so the design here is, while the revetment is still there, it didn't do its job and it didn't protect the property. As to whether the slate patio, I just can't do that, it's not part of that. I didn't do the design and I don't know the wave actions. But I don't think that revetment did its job and you can see it just by standing there. And I think a full retaining wall/bulkhead would be required. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would agree the revetment didn't protect the property to the fullest extent that you might want it to, but compared to a lot of things we have seen, it did, you know, it did protect quite a bit of it. It's not like it washed out everything behind it. It fell down, it collapsed, but it's not, I don't think the destruction was as bad as it could have been. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think also as we have seen throughout Southold, Sandy was a massive storm and we have storm surge much higher than many other storms. And there were bulkheads and revetments and structures all over the town that got destroyed.


And unfortunately you suffered the same damage as many other people in Sandy, where your shoreline protection structure got damaged. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And there is something to be said to the fact it was so new. It was only a few months old. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The structure, I mean, hindsight is always 20/20. The storm was so huge and had so much wave energy involved. I look at this also as the possibility that the bulkhead is a hard structure that maybe I would have applied some hindsight, I would not have approved the hybrid structure. I think it's just a huge amount of water and huge amount of wave energy moved the wall and over the bulkhead face, and of course it had to tumble home because of less elevation as you go westerly. Just bulkheading to the westerly now will just move tumble home for the next storm and that will start to erode out what is a very nicely vegetated combination of both Spartina and American beach grass. So I think this is a reason why there is supposed to be no new bulkheads on the bays and why it was difficult for the Board to come to grips with that previously. But not being able to look forward and see through a storm of such tremendous energy, and those pieces of slate, I remember now, in retrospect, going out and looking at the patio plans, but those large patio slates, which are almost 4x4, they all cantered down. So that means when the waves came moving particularly from the east and northeast, they moved along the bulkhead face, over the bulkhead face, then found this place where all the wave energy is being focused down behind the rock revetment from slates that had gotten undermined. Something that nobody, I think, would have ever envisioned happening. And I think that's what destroyed the revetment. This is really a public hearing, we listen to what you all have to say, but we all looked at it and I'm coming to the conclusion there is some wisdom in the code saying no new bulkheads. And I can't support bulkheading. I would rather see the existing bulkheading come out and put in a substantial revetment with larger stone to eat up the wave energy starting more to the easterly so that storms out of the east where the wave fetch is coming all the way from Greenport and Old Hog Neck would eat up that energy. So actually, I would feel we should actually go more toward a code-compliant structure here, and if anything, consider an amendment to put stone in. MS. MOORE: Well, that's very nice but my client wants to protect her property and she has permits, so we'll withdraw our application in total so that they can put back what they had, and this time the revetment is going to be monitored and inspected by our engineer so that we make sure that it's substantial and it complies with the code. They've got permits for everything. I don't want to see them lose what they have. I think you have a property owner to the east who has a bulkhead. So where do you, at what point is


the in-between property owner going to sacrifice? I think that's why you kind of extended the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's a good question. Some of us drew that line on a previous permit. And I'm telling you, I tried to split the baby and it didn't work. MS. MOORE: Well, it protected half the property. And half is better than none. So we don't need a permit to restore what we had, so we'll go back to what we -- MS. MERRILL: To put the patio back, will there be enough around it to keep anything from eroding it again? Do you know what I mean? MS. MOORE: Well, the rock revetment will be designed by Joe. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They have a permit to do that. MS. MERRILL: To do the patio. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. Exactly. MS. MERRILL: There is another one a little over more, there is like this rock, I don't know if you have a picture of it. But up a little, uphill a little bit. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't have a picture. I know what you are talking about. It's on the plan. MS. MERRILL: The plan is both patios? Because it's just lawn and patio. Like I said, the vegetation was so new it really didn't have a chance to really, I mean it’s unfortunate all that work was just done because those were all brand new plants put in. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Well, there were people with hundreds of feet of brand new bulkhead that got washed out. Same thing. Any new project was really affected by the storm. So you are withdrawing the application? MS. MOORE: We'll withdraw the application and just put back what we have and I'll have Joe take a look at it and make sure that our patio is built better. Everything is built more, you know, unified. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, I'm all right with that. Thank you. I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the application has been withdrawn. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 14, Eugene Burger on behalf of ROB & CLAIRE RICCIO requests a Wetland Permit for the reconstruction of the storm damaged secondary retaining wall; and the addition of vinyl sheathing to the existing bulkhead. Located: 6512 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. The CAC supports the application with the condition all non-native vegetation removed from the bluff and replanted with native vegetation. I went out and looked at this application and it appears as though it's pretty straightforward with the applicant wanting to put new vinyl behind the bulkhead and rebuild the upper retaining wall.


One question I have for the applicant. There is a deck there, I'm not sure if it's previously permitted but would you like to get it included in this permit so that deck would then become a permitted structure. The deck I'm referring to is the deck between the primary bulkhead and retaining walls. MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, agent for the Riccio's. And, yes, I would. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Like I said, this is a pretty straightforward application. Are there any other comments from anybody in the audience? (No response). Any other comments from the Board? (No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Rob and Claire Riccio as described with inclusion of the 290-square foot deck that is between the primary bulkhead and retaining wall, asking that if that deck is to be rebuilt, it's rebuilt with a slope so that water drains landward. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: All right, folks we'll take a five-minute break. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). (Trustee Bergen leaves for the evening). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, number 15, Eugene Burger on behalf of MARY DRUM requests a Wetland Permit for the reconstruction of damages caused by Hurricane Sandy; rebuild floor and southern wall in-kind and as per original layout. Located: 610 Park Avenue, Mattituck. This application has been determined to be inconsistent with the town's LWRP, specifically in dealing with minimizing losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards, to minimize potential loss and damage by locating decks and structures away from flood and erosion hazards. And to move existing development of structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practical; maintaining existing development and structures and hazard areas may be warranted for only certain circumstances. And they are outlined here. One is for structures which functionally require location on the coast or in coastal waters. Secondly, water dependent uses that can not avoid exposure to hazards; or thirdly, sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure or major public facilities. The LWRP coordinator also, additionally, cites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical, in the determination the LWRP coordinator, it was the opinion of the coordinator it didn't meet any of those criteria,


and that the structure is located within a FEMA VE flood zone, which is a coastal high-hazard area and is an area of special flood hazard extending from off shore to the inland limit of that zone. The Conservation Advisory Council did not support the application because of lack of specificity with the proposed actions as well as the need for a sanitary system plan. There was insufficient documentation to make the recommendation. The Trustees made a field survey on the 16th of January and additionally on that date we also received two communications, one from Eugene Burger which indicated that someone by the name of Will Parks did an analysis of the septic system and advised that the system should be replaced inkind and inplace. And Mr. Burger was requesting to formally ask for permission to add this operation to the Trustee application, the one we have before us. And there was also a report here from, excuse me, a letter here from Condon Engineering addressed to Mike Verity of the Building Department concerning the Drum residence, 610 Park Avenue. And indicates that, in the letter to Mr. Verity, it says if this was made to the above-referenced property December 21, to evaluate the repair work performed at the site, which was damaged during Hurricane Sandy, to the best of my knowledge, the wall and floor replacement on the southern wing of the building is acceptable and in accordance with the current building code of New York State. Based on the information provided by the contractor the cost of the repair work at the site is less than 50% of the cost of the building as required by FEMA regulations. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions or require additional information. That was from Mr. John J. Condon, PE. TRUSTEE KING: Before we go any further, Trustee Dave Bergen had to leave. He is not feeling well, so he won't attend the rest of the meeting. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. Those are the major file entries that we have. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. DRUM: Yes. My name is Michael Drum. I'm here with my mother Mary Drum. I'd like to speak on behalf of my family. This is a seasonal home that has been here, it was built in 1925. It's utilized for about five months out of the year. Two months it's leased and our family uses it for the remaining time. We have owned the property since the mid 1970’s, about 37, 38 years. My father raised the property, lifted it up in 1985, built the side deck. He raised it up to an elevation of approximately nine. The flood elevation zone that you referenced is elevation seven. So the first floor is about two feet proud of the flood elevation. You also stated that the structure could be moved or it should be moved. Well this, as you know, sits out on a point. So we really don't have the flexibility to move it away from the water, because there is water on both sides. It's a small structure. And the proposal is just to replace what was damaged. We are just replacing a wall, replacing a floor,


replacing an exterior deck underneath the roof, and upgrading the septic. The current septic system is two cesspools. The primary cesspool was not uncovered. There is a secondary, overflow cesspool, if you go onsite you can see, was damaged. Again, we are not going up, we don't want to go out. This is a structure that has been in the family about 40 years. My father, we moved here in 1972. In '74 he bought the house. He bought the house for one reason. For his family, his kids, their kids, subsequent generations, to enjoy the North Fork, to come here, get to know each other. And that's what we have done. We have been here for a long time. We have enjoyed it. It's our home. We just want to protect our home and replace what we have. That would conclude my statement. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. Are you going to move that septic landward at all? MR. DRUM: The primary is underneath that one spot. I mean when you look at the house from the other side, the primary is right there. The overflow was toward the water. TRUSTEE KING: There is one on the east side of the house. MR. DRUM: They are both on the east side. The overflow is south of the primary. I certainly would imagine we could take it and put it on the other side. There is high ground on that point. TRUSTEE KING: Is there a septic tank there or just two cesspools MR. DRUM: Just two cesspools. The property is larger than half acre. It's approximately 24,000-square feet. It's two lots. It's one of the largest parcels on that point. The Penney Point, I guess it's the Selic (sic) Point now, is larger. But it's one of larger parcels on the spit of land. TRUSTEE KING: That was my one concern was to get the septic further landward. You know more about it than I do, Jay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The sanitary system really is a concern because we now have open beach on the front of the house, with no sea-keeping structure, no retaining wall, no bulkhead. And it seems each successive storm, with all the energy that is getting piled up there, is just doing more and more damage. And that sanitary system upgrade for a facility such as that would ordinarily require a 900 gallon or 1,000 gallon septic tank and then a retaining structure so that the septic waste is being discharged above the ground water elevation to provide a minimal level of filtration. Then, of course, additional building up of any structure, the question is, it's a real concern that, you know, you are left disadvantaged because the next storm that comes uncovers elements of the sanitary system or undermines the retaining wall, because that's the first thing a wave train is going to see is the structure that you would have there. MR. DRUM: And I agree. Our children swim there. My children swim in the bay, we swim in the bay. My nieces, nephews, grandkids. So I agree 100%. And I think a closed septic tank may be appropriate in that situation. It's something that we can clean out. The system is not used. It's seasonal. It's used five months out of the year. So it does get time to settle. But I


think something like a closed tank, I don't think we would be adverse to something like that for the solids. It seems to make sense. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Ordinarily speaking, I can't speak for other members of the Board, I had some experience in environmental work with the Health Department I retired out of a couple years ago, and I don't want to speak for them or the Board of Trustees I sit on because everybody has to make their own determinations, but ordinarily we would probably, I would recommend relying on the expertise of the County Health Department, what they would approve, because they typically take a very dim view on strict holding tank facilities because it opens up a Pandora's Box for potential environmental abuse, illegal discharge and also maintenance headaches for the owners. MR. DRUM: I'm a civil engineer. I'm a professional engineer. And that's not what I was proposing. I was proposing something would be a tank for the solids and the effluent would run out -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are talking about aseptic tank primary treatment. MR. DRUM: Correct, instead of having two cesspools, you'd have a solid tank. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I misunderstood you to mean going to a holding tank in lieu of a septic tank cesspool system. MR. DRUM: Correct. Something I would, if you were inclined to approve our application, to condition it on, you know, a septic system, an upgrade, would be acceptable. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other concerns? Questions? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I feel that septic has to be addressed. And this photograph was near low tide, and it just points out that the system that is there is failed. So any approval I grant, personally, would -- MR. DRUM: Do you have other photographs of the septic? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We did see where it was located. There was an inlet "T" visible on what looked like -- MR. DRUM: There is some elevation where the septic is. TRUSTEE KING: In fact it's full of sand now. MR. DRUM: The backup is, yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: That's the end of my comments. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have no additional comments other than concerns about sanitary, but also features that would protect it from storm erosion. So if it was a system that was built to the modern public health standard of the county it would have to be some sort of sea-keeping feature as far as the retaining wall might need armoring or special design features. If you are an engineer or have access to an engineer, I think I would feel comfortable requiring a plan from a licensed PE that would also have at least some input from the County Health Department. So my thoughts run right along the line of a professional design from a professional engineer and some notion of County Health approval. They don't ordinarily -- we have, as far as I know, they don't have a specific Tropical Storm Sandy program


for sanitary but they will, on a recommendation from local government, they will put these matters under review. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Has the DEC looked at this yet? Have you gotten anything from DEC? MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger. We have an emergency permit. MR. DRUM: It's my understanding DEC doesn't approve for structures, just bulkheads. MR. BURGER: There is no additions or anything different than what was there. MR. DRUM: There would be no touching the ground for the work in the house. It's all, as you can see, elevated, sitting up on the piles. There is no grading or disturbing ground at all. It's just replace a wall and replace the floor, and the deck. And the deck is under a roof. And the deck is under 200-square feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The house is served by public water? MR. DRUM: Yes, it is. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's an unfortunate circumstance, you know. TRUSTEE KING: It's been there a long time. This storm was just a beaut. MR. BURGER: If I may comment. A little bit of why it failed, I guess when they put the pilings and girders under the house, they never even nailed the floor joists to the girders. No strapping, no nails at all. As soon as any wave hit it, it started moving. So what we did is we secured that stuff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How much beach did you lose during the storm? MR. DRUM: It's funny. It seems we lose it in these storms in March and then some of it will come back. And it's been an ongoing battle, as you know, with dredging the creek, my father for years had fought the battle to get the dredge material dumped in front of these structures. And that's something we will need to address. Again, it's in the family for a long time. I'm one of eight children. There is lots of us. This is our home, we want to protect it and we are now in discussions on what to do. You know, I'd love if there was a program to dredge out in front, Peconic Bay, it's so shallow, and pump some of the sand back on the beaches. TRUSTEE KING: Like a borrow pit. MR. DRUM: Yes. It seems to make sense. There is no grasses. But that's for another day. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The reason I ask is because we were out there last year and looking at the different groins and jetties and things, and the inlet over on the Selic end, I recall it being quite a bit more than this. And I also mentioned it out in the field I would support some kind of beach nourishment here. That's me. Not everybody agrees. But the idea of what you were just saying with a borrow pit, would be nice if it could be worked out. Because you are getting closer and closer to it being totally in the water. So it needs to be addressed at some point. MR. DRUM: And you can only rebuild the groins to a certain


degree. Again, that's something we are discussing on an ongoing basis. MS. HULSE: Can I just ask for clarification in the resolution, it says for "reconstruction of," and it should specify the damages and what structure is involved. TRUSTEE KING: The floor and southern wall and side deck MR. DRUM: Side deck and stairs. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments? TRUSTEE KING: No, just the septic system, if it could be moved landward and a more modern design of the septic tank, I think would be a huge step forward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I spoke to Wilbur and I think he told me he would be able to move that into the front to get it out of the way. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Hearing no further comments, 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 subject to the submission of a detailed plan by a licensed design professional for an upgraded sanitary system and with some notion of a review by the County Health Department for compliance with the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. MS. HULSE: Could you clarify the language in the resolution, please. We just need a more descriptive language after "reconstruction of." TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay. Reconstruction of the -- are you talking about with respect to the wall? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: More specifically -- TRUSTEE KING: Rebuild the floor, the southern wall and the side deck, the side covered deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, so include in the resolution, the approval is designed to rebuild the floor and southern wall inkind. MS. HULSE: Of the house. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Of the house. Okay. According to the plan which we have dated in the Trustee office November 19th, 2012, by Burger Construction. Is that acceptable. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It doesn't actually say what the structure is in the resolution, that's the problem. Rebuild floor and wall of what. TRUSTEE KING: The existing structure. MR. DRUM: Side deck and stairs, right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES).


TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 16, En-Consultants on behalf of MMC REALTY 2 FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in-place of (and +/-12" higher than) storm damaged timber bulkhead with 12'-14' returns; construct +/-100' timber retaining wall landward of bulkhead; reconstruct previously existing 10'x20' deck; reconstruct 3' wide steps down embankment with 3' wide landing at top and 4' wide landing and steps at bottom; construct 3' steps to beach; and backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 250 cubic yards clean fill to be planted with native vegetation. Located: 7625 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be exempt, consistent and inconsistent. The reconstruction of steps and four-foot wide landing is exempt. The rebuilding of the bulkhead, 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead inplace, storm damage timber bulkhead 12 foot and 14 foot returns, backfill to re-nourish storm eroded areas, approximately 250 cubic yards; and replanted native vegetation is all consistent. But the reconstruction of previously existing 10x20 foot deck is inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council voted to support this application with the condition that there be a five-foot non-turf vegetated buffer, the height of the bulkhead not to be increased, and they recommend moving the house back from the top of the bluff. In our field inspection the Trustees' only comment was to check for a permit on the deck. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. CERRITO: Good evening, my name is Michael Cerrito, I'm general partner of the owner. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this the right picture? MR. CERRITO: This is the right picture. What I understand you to say is that so far you are good with the application with the following exceptions: The deck, which, from what I heard is only 10x20, which is 200-square feet, which is in conformity with your code, that deck was there when we purchased the house sometime in the early '90s. We've redone the top of it since. We would like to continue to keep the deck. It would be between the new vinyl bulkhead and the additional retaining wall that we'll put ten feet behind it. That's all we'll do. We are not going to expand that deck other than what you see there and where it is there inplace. With respect to the five feet of plantings, it's going to be difficult to do that to the south of the where the stairs are now. Well, you don't have a good picture of it. I can do the three or four feet of plantings from the existing stairs going down to the beach toward the northerly end of the property but when you get past those stairs to the southerly end of the property, the house is only, approximately, I would say six in some areas and some areas eight feet away from the top, the crest of the slope. So to put five foot plantings there you would not be able to walk behind the house.


There is an existing concrete pond that is back there that dates back to when the house was built in the early '30s. And that would make it impossible to put plantings in that area also. So I don't think we can do that to the south side of those stairs. The north side of the stairs, when we rebuild the patio, in front of the patio we actually did have about three feet worth of plantings and we have no problem with that. The house is where the house is. We just redid that house approximately seven or eight years ago and we built a second story on the approval of the Board. There is no way to move the house back from where it sits down, now. It's been there since 1928, I believe. The house used to be old bed and breakfast at one time called the Briar Patch. It's one of the only bed and breakfast's on Nassau Point at the time. That's our application. We would like to get back what we had and we would like to put a second retaining wall behind it so we don't have this problem before for more strength. The only other thing you mentioned was not to increase the height of the bulkhead. I would like to increase the hate of the bulkhead by a foot. My neighbor to the south, Mr. McManus, has the next application on your docket and he would like to also increase his by the same foot, so it would be contiguous. And the neighbor to the south of that also has an existing bulkhead that was not damaged in the storm, which is approximately a foot higher than my existing bulkhead. So those three bulkheads would be all existing in the same line. And we are actually going to keep our bulkheads joined together where the houses are to give it more strength and we are trying to form a system now to also do that with the retaining walls. We may or may not be able to do that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's typical of what we like to do, try to bring them same size, straight line. MR. CERRITO: That's what we are trying to do. TRUSTEE DOMINO: And we noted that, I just might add, the comment about not raising was from the Conservation Advisory Council, not from this Board MR. CERRITO: I understand. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would also like to include something that Trustee King pointed out to me is that we received yesterday the request from you to include the replacement inkind of the brick patio to landward of the top of the bank. MR. CERRITO: Yes, we lost about 40 bricks in that area. We would just replace them and put about two or three feet of plantings behind that to where the slope begins. TRUSTEE KING: We just want to see it included in this permit. MR. CERRITO: I was in the slope trying to save the bricks the other day. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I thought it was pretty straightforward. There is a lot of damage. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I would like to make a motion to close this


hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the addition of, the inclusion of the changes reflected in letter received January 22, 2013, requesting to include the inkind replacement of the storm damaged brick patio. The inconsistency was the deck size, which we determined is consistent. TRUSTEE KING: I think there is a little confusion there where by code platforms associated with stairs should not be more than 32-square feet. In my mind, these are separate decks behind the bulkhead and really not associated with the stairs. And I think that's something we have to work out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 17, En-Consultants on behalf of TIMOTHY & MICHELLE McMANUS requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 100 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead partially in the same location as, partially landward of (to align with adjacent bulkhead to north also being replaced), and approximately 12 inches higher than existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead to be removed; construct 12'-14' northerly return as needed; construct approximately 117 linear feet of timber retaining wall landward of bulkhead; reconstruct previously existing variable width deck, 4' wide landing and stairway down embankment, and 3' wide steps to beach; and backfill/re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 250 cubic yards of clean fill to be planted with native vegetation. Located: 7725 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This is an application to rebuild damage from the storm. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with a condition of a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the top of the bluff, and that the height of the bulkhead is not raised. The LWRP coordinator has found it to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency is basically dealing with reconstructing the previously existing variable-width deck, four-foot wide landing and stairway down the embankment and three-foot wide steps to the beach. I believe it's because they were, they were not permitted structure and they were not in the original permits, I suppose. The Trustees were out there, we looked at it. I do believe I do have a correct picture here. Though it's labeled incorrectly, but this would be the picture showing the beach house. This beach house is permitted, as I understand it, and also had, as I understand it, it used to have a septic that pumped up to normal septic, right? To the main house septic? MR. SAMUELS: That was amendment recently made to the permit to the house.


TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. TRUSTEE KING: As part of the demolition of the existing structure. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Were you planning on rebuilding or repairing this beach house? MR. SAMUELS: That is our intention. We have an emergency permit to do so from you guys and we need to go through the other steps. And my name is Tom Samuels, on behalf of the owner, Tim McManus, who is here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Once we noted, I just wanted to get that on the record because that was one of the questions we had. But after that it seems fairly straightforward. Is this yours? MR. SAMUELS: That's us. Yes, that's the old septic, to be replaced. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this is yours? MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. Sorry for the confusion. Like I said, it was getting very dark and Nassau Point, one thing looks like the other. All right, is there anybody here who would like to stand opposed to this application? Any comments? Any questions or comments from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: I don't have any issues with it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 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 as submitted noting the structures that are being repaired were previously permitted. Aside from the deck and landing and stairways, which we really have no problem with. And being permitted that will make it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 18, En-Consultants on behalf of PATRICIA CONGDON O’BRIEN requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing storm damaged timber bulkhead (including +6' section of bulkhead and existing return located beyond westerly property boundary) and construct in its place approximately 96 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead, a +16' vinyl return along the westerly property line, and a +36' return along the easterly property line; reconstruct in prior location a 14'x20' storm damaged wood deck and 4'x14' steps; reconstruct 4'x8' steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 500 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native planting to restore storm eroded area landward of bulkhead to pre-storm conditions. Located: 5000 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. This was found consistent and inconsistent. I believe the inconsistency is about the 4x20 storm damaged deck and the steps. The bulkhead is consistent. The Conservation Advisory


Council supports the application within the condition the buffer is extended an additional ten feet for a total of 35 feet, and planted with native vegetation. I went out and looked at this application. This is one, again, I know the people were very upset because they couldn't get an emergency permit because there was no existing Wetland Permit on the bulkhead. So that's why we are here and we are taking care of business. They have a tremendous amount of damage, like many of the places along Peconic Bay Boulevard. I thought it was pretty straightforward. Just a lot of material was lost. When everything is replaced here, the slope will be re-vegetated. There will probably be a four or five-foot buffer along the top of the slope. And the inconsistency for the platform now, we have changed the code so hopefully this will not happen in the future, again. That this deck is 9x10. That makes it 90-square feet. And the change we made to the code is to allow a 100-square foot platform associated with stairs. So that will relieve a lot of problems with these existing platforms that have been there for years, they have really done no environmental harm, and rather than downsize them, or trying to downsize them, we increased the size in the code, in these latest revisions. So hopefully things will get a little easier. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application or against it? MR. PAWLIK: My name is Steve Pawlik, I'm the contractor. Is it my understanding you won't approve the existing deck but you will approve a 10x10? MS. HULSE: They can't advise on what they'll approve. This is part of the public hearing. The motion will be made after the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: I just tried to clarify some issues on decks associated with stairs. MR. PAWLIK: The other question I have, you mentioned a five-foot non-turf on the top of the lawn? TRUSTEE KING: When you get the slope up, we don't want people mowing to the very top of the slope now. If you could leave four or five feet of not sod at the very top of the slope I think it would really help these people out as far as erosion. I know it's hard to visualize with what is there now. Is there anybody else? (No response). There being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted. And that's it. The one inconsistency of the platform or the deck, being the size of it, with what is coming down the road as far as our code goes I would find this consistent. I make a motion to find consistent with LWRP.


TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next two items maybe we can open as one hearing. They are very close to each other. En-Consultants on behalf of JAMES ABBOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 96 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-12" higher than) existing storm damaged timber bulkhead; remove and replace (in-kind/in-place) approximately 91 linear feet of timber retaining wall; remove existing returns and construct (2) 24' vinyl returns along property lines; remove and replace or repair existing 10'x18' deck/gazebo and masonry stairs as necessary; construct 4 fx8 f steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sandy fill. Located: 8810 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. And number 20, En-Consultants on behalf of JOHN ABBOTT requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 98 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of (and +/-18" higher than) existing storm damaged timber bulkhead; replace existing timber returns with (2) 24' vinyl returns along property lines; remove existing concrete foundation and construct a 10'x10' gazebo (deck with roof above) in place of storm destroyed 10'x11' storage building; construct 4' wide stairway and landings in place of storm destroyed stairway; construct 4'x8' steps to beach; and re-nourish storm eroded area landward of bulkhead with approximately 750 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to restore top of slope and naturally vegetated embankment to pre-storm conditions. Located: 8630 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. The applications were very straightforward. It's a case of bulkhead destruction. The inconsistency in the application comes from the fact that there were some structures there that predated permits that are not reflected. There is no permit history on them. It's a very standard bulkhead replacement the Board did not have a concern with. The Conservation Advisory Council had recommended approval on the condition of the height of the bulkhead was not increased and consider the installation of a splash pad. But I believe the issue of the height of the bulkheads was reviewed in the field so they were going to match the neighboring heights. So I don't believe that there was an issue with that. As a matter of fact, number 19, we were considering allowing to raise up to a potentially near 24 inches so that it would match with the height of the neighbor. So that was -- actually, it was the other property. Sorry, it was number 20. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of the application or against the application? (No response). Any questions from the Board on this? TRUSTEE KING: No, I think you covered it. I think it's pretty


straightforward. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I have a question for Derek. Is there any reason why on a bunch of these applications the Conservation Advisory Council is requesting that we don't raise the bulkhead? MR. BOSSEN: Derek Bossen, Conservation Advisory Council. As a group we just see the increase of the bulkhead heights across the board endangers properties that may not be bulkheaded or under bulkheaded. But we also agree with what the Trustees believe is that the uniformity of bulkhead along a front. But if everybody keeps building up their bulkheads higher and higher, the guy who doesn't have that bulkhead, in our belief, will be the one who gets punished by the people who have fortified their property. TRUSTEE KING: This is more or less a one-shot deal because of the severe storm. I know it was an emergency permit, the general permits from the DEC, they allowed up to 18" increase in height. So we wanted to stay consistent with the other agencies. MR. BOSSEN: We agree with that but we feel as a group everybody is raising their bulkheads we are really stemming the tide of inconsistency of higher bulkheading across the board. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. BOSSEN: You're welcome. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess I just have one question. There was that one block structure that was going to get removed? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I just wanted to clarify that. That takes care of the inconsistency on that application. And the other one, the structures there are all compliant with the current code requirements so I think granting of the permit will bring it into consistency through Wetland Permit issue, so I could move ahead. All right, any additional comments or questions? (No response). Hearing none I'll make a motion to close the hearings for numbers 19 and 20. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a separate motion for each approval. I move to approve the construction of number 19 James Abbott noting that the inconsistency has been addressed through the permitting process, and to approve as submitted. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you clarify he's removing the concrete structure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, clarify, to remove the existing concrete block structure. MR. ABBOTT: That's on number 20. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry. 19 we were going to allow them to replace the masonry steps and the existing structure. Make sure the structure is compliant. My motion stands. MS. CANTRELL: As submitted?


TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I would move to approve number 20. This application is to remove the remains of the block structure and to permit construction of the bulkhead up to 24 inches as necessary to meet the height of the neighboring bulkhead which is to the east. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And we should have revised plans showing up to 24 inches to match up with the neighbor, please. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 21, En-Consultants on behalf of JOSEPH S. CONNELLY, JOHN CONGDON, JANET SOUKUP, AND OTHERS request a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 225 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead in place of existing storm damaged (Hurricane Sandy) timber bulkhead to be removed, and construct +/-4' easterly extension of bulkhead to connect to new return proposed along easterly property line under separate application by Patricia Congdon O'Brien (+/-6' section of bulkhead and existing return located on subject property are proposed to be removed); remove and replace +/-24' timber return at westerly property boundary with vinyl return; remove and replace (as necessary) existing 6'x9' deck at top of slope; construct 3'x+/-20' wide stairway and 9'x10' deck behind bulkhead in place of storm damaged structures; construct 4'x8' steps to beach; and backfill with approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean sandy fill to be re-vegetated with native plantings to restore storm eroded area landward of bulkhead, including top of slope to pre-storm conditions. Located: Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. For clarity that would be Suffolk County tax map 128-4-6, since there was no actual address. The Conservation Advisory Council did look at this and resolved to support the application suggesting a condition the buffer is extended an additional ten feet for a total of 35 feet and planted with native vegetation. The LWRP has found this to be consistent and inconsistent. Again, the inconsistency deals with the stairs and the deck which would not have been a permitted structure and didn't have a permit at the time. Trustee King did go out and looked at this. We reviewed the file. The rest of the Trustees reviewed the file. Again, it was storm damage to an existing structure. There was nothing there that was really out of the ordinary or that we would not have normally approved. No noted concerns. Is there anybody here representing the application? MS. STEPHENS: We have the contractor here and also one of the owners John Congdon is here, if you have any questions.


TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess the only question I would have, the CAC suggested increasing the non-turf buffer another ten feet. Is that something you folks would consider? MS. STEPHENS: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You would consider it? MS. STEPHENS: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Any other questions from the Board? Any comments? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Some of these questions, extending the non-turf buffer where they have the area between the retaining walls and bulkheads. TRUSTEE KING: It's either the retaining wall or it's a nicely vegetated slope. I could understand going beyond the slope five feet. I don't think you need ten. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think so either MR. PAWLIK: We would be happier with five. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's necessary to have a bigger buffer when you have that much vegetated slope down to the bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So how about we make the suggestion and we let them either run with it or not. TRUSTEE KING: Make it a five to ten buffer. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I mean. TRUSTEE KING: If you want to do ten, do ten. But no less than five. Mr. PAWLIK: But no less than five. Okay. TRUSTEE KING: How is that? MR. PAWLIK: Perfect. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions? Comments? (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 as submitted with the addition of adding another five foot, between five and ten foot for the non-turf buffer, to extend that non-turf buffer up to 35 feet, and noting that with the permits that will bring this into consistency with the LWRP. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. STEVENS: You would also like revised plans on this? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes, to reflect the possible addition of the non-turf buffer. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number 22, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of HIGH HOUSE WOODS, INC. C/o WENDY PRELLWITZ requests a Wetland Permit to on the East End: Construct new 7' bulkhead extension at east end of existing bulkhead in line with same; fill void area landward of new section with clean sand (approximately 2 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate


with native plantings to match existing vegetated slope. On the West End: Patch 4' section of existing bulkhead by installing 1/2" HDPE sheathing to back side of existing T&G sheathing; fill void area landward with clean sand (approximately 4 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing vegetation. Retaining Wall: Construct 254' of new upper retaining wall; back fill void area landward of new wall with clean trucked in fill (approximately 150 cubic yards); re-grade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing vegetation. East Jetty: Repair offshore end; replace 16' of existing stringers, 7' of existing sheathing, one existing and one missing piling. West Jetty: Repair offshore end; replace 8' of existing sheathing. Located: 7134 Indian Neck Lane, Peconic. Once again, found consistent and inconsistent. What is the inconsistency? (Perusing). The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the request the Trustees review the need for the groin. Is there anyone here to speak against this application or for it? MR. COSTELLO: My name is John Costello and I'm the agent for this application. And I would like to try to answer any questions if the Board has any. It's actually quite simple and the jetties do not extend to low water. It's filling in some minor voids that are, could be potential damaging areas. There is a seven-foot repair to part of the east end of the bulkhead. There is a four-foot closure at the west end. And there is two yards of fill at one location and four yards of fill at another location. That would make the bulkhead considerably more secure. And the last thing anybody wants is another collapsing bulkhead in the town. And all of it will be re-vegetated. The only portion of this that is large is there is a large footage of a small upper retaining wall. There was considerable over-splash and the retaining wall totals about 254 feet and it will require new fill of 150 yards that will be re-vegetated. Both jetties need minor repair. Neither one is below the low water mark. But that is reasonably stable beach and I would not like to change it at all. They are low and we'll try to keep that beach as is, if possible. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Was there fill already brought in? MR. COSTELLO: Just a few yards, I believe. Just to make sure the hole didn't get, because after we had Sandy -- TRUSTEE KING: There was a shoot there. Somebody left a shoot there. MR. COSTELLO: After Sandy there was a forecast of another northeast storm after a couple of days and we tried to secure it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I saw the groins as being functional and they were holding the beach pretty good. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't have an issue with them. Why would they find it inconsistent? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That was just the Conservation Advisory Council, I think.


TRUSTEE KING: No. (Perusing). I guess it's because there were no permits on them, maybe? Not constructed pursuant to Chapter 275 permit. So they never had a permit originally. But they look functional. It looks like minor repairs. Is there anybody else with any comments on this application? MS. PRELLWITZ: I'm Wendy Prellwitz, the owner, if you have any questions for me. Those groins were put in quite a few years ago, like in the '30's, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think the LWRP coordinator is finding a lot of these have been coming in, some of the structures out there were not permitted, so he's required to find it inconsistent. We find it consistent by giving you the permit that you didn't have before. So it's just a technicality in some cases. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should change the language because people, when you say unpermitted, people tend to believe well that's not allowed. It should be it was predated permitting. But being no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as it's been submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: The groins are now on the permit so that makes it consistent with LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 23, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of PATRICK & DIANE KELLY requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x6' cantilevered platform off of existing bulkhead; install a 32"x16' seasonal aluminum ramp onto a 6'x20' seasonal floating dock secured by two 2-pile anchor dolphins; reconstruct existing stairway to beach, in-place. Located: 75 Harbor Lights Drive, Southold. This application is fairly straightforward, for a seasonal floating dock. It's consistent with the two neighbors. This project was deemed consistent under the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application but didn't support the addition of a ten-foot return because it would enhance erosion to the neighboring property. I'm just trying to see (perusing). And the inspection, Trustee Mike Domino had done the inspection. Mr. Costello, does this include a return? TRUSTEE KING: I don't see any mention. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't see a mention in the description. MR. COSTELLO: No. Are we on 23? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Patrick and Diane Kelly. I didn't see it on the plan. And we are relying on Mike Domino's inspection. MR. COSTELLO: This is, it's several of these little platforms, cantilevered platforms with a ramp and float in this specific


area of the creek. What we want to do is be consistent so we don't protrude out. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Somebody must have transposed the notion that this involves a return. So clearly there is no return involved. It's a straightforward application. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, for a cantilevered platform off the existing bulkhead. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I had to ask the question. I was at a loss to explain it. Okay, any additional questions? Comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 24 Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of ROBERT WINCHESTER requests a Wetland Permit to legalize the following existing structures: A 6'x79' fixed dock; 180' of 5' high bulkhead; 10'x18' boathouse; 700 square foot wood deck; 3'x30' bluff stairs; 16'x32' in-ground pool; and a 40'x10' retaining wall at pool; and for the construction of a 36 ' retainer to protect pool retaining wall from collapsing due to wash out from recent storm; fill void area landward of retainer with clean trucked-in fill approximately 6 cubic yards; regrade area and re-vegetate with native plantings to match existing vegetation. Located: 6675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP found this to be consistent and inconsistent. The inconsistency, again, is the fact that some of the structures were not permitted before. And we are addressing that with this application. I would like to point out that the Conservation Advisory Council voted to table this due to the complexity of the project. They didn't have adequate time to inspect the property. I would like to mention that in the application I failed to mention that the dock is not connected to the bulkhead. And there is a 32"x20' seasonal ramp that is used to connect it. That should also be in this application. Is there anybody here to speak to this application? MR. COSTELLO: John Costello with Costello Marine Contracting. And we are the agents for Mr. Winchester on this application to fix and try to keep the dock in. Like you said, the ramp is there. It's on site. And it's only in a seasonal basis when boating and somebody put it there. You can walk underneath it, you can get around it. But it's only used seasonally, the ramp. The boathouse and some repairs to the bulkhead evidently you can see in the photographs is certainly -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I just want to verify, this was down in Nassau


Point. Is that it? MR. COSTELLO: That is the adjacent neighbor's bulkhead and that corner of that bulkhead right there is causing a major problem and slumping on the whole cliff. And we are trying to put an additional retaining wall support, because you can see their upper retaining wall, the one before that, is basically a storm surge hit that bulkhead and that upper retaining wall needs to be replaced, and we might have to do some terracing after that because the corner of the bulkhead on the first photo you had is, right there, we have to do some terracing in that area in order to -- we may not do the bulkhead. I don't know if they are going to do it in the future but right now they don't intend to do it. And he's becoming more vulnerable at that point. That's the only dock out there. And it's still there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this part of the application as well? That's the dock. MR. COSTELLO: The only thing that dock needs is some minor repair. There is some decking pieces missing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: All right. MR. COSTELLO: We probably built that 25, 30 years ago. And it's still there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave said it was there forever and ever. He remembers it as a kid, I think. MR. COSTELLO: I'm the only one here that could remember forever and ever. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Jim is a close second. MR. COSTELLO: I'm really surprised. I don't believe we ever went back to do any repairs in the last 20 years, except for a couple of pieces of decking. Thank God. TRUSTEE DOMINO: It seems straightforward to us. Any other 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 with the addition of the 32"x20' seasonal ramp, and this will address the inconsistencies. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. COSTELLO: Thank you, gentlemen. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 25, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of KAREN & MICAHEL CATAPANO requests a Wetland Permit to replace the existing storm damaged bulkhead and add two (2) +/-16' returns; replace 10'3"X6'1" shed; replace 14'x20'1" upper deck with a gate; replace 4' wide steps with handrails from top of bluff down to beach with associated 4'x6'5 1/2" platform with handrails; replace existing 16’8”x36’ lower deck; fill storm eroded area with sand. Located: 7325 Nassau Point Road,


Cutchogue. Again this is another storm damage application to replace a bulkhead and associated structures. The Conservation Advisory Council looked at it. They support the application. It does note however that the shed no longer exists and the proposed shed must conform to current code. The LWRP has found it to be exempt. The bulkhead is exempt. The addition of the two returns and filling the storm-eroded area with sand are consistent. It notes the deck and the steps and the handrails and the lower deck as inconsistent, again, because it didn't have a previous permit. So it has an exemption, consistency and an inconsistency. MS. MOORE: I do have a pre-CO for the shed, all the structures, so if that helps to gives you, I have a pre-CO for all those structures. Then there was a permit for the bulkhead, I think you mentioned, so. Permit #4302 from 1994. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When the Trustees were out there, there is a note here, and it's not in this particular picture, but there was some trees on the bluff, and we are looking at, the Trustees, we are interested in trying to save those trees, if it was possible. MS. MOORE: It was not trees, you are talking about the shrubs that burned, what they had asked you to remove? Is that what you were talking about? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't think so. MS. MOORE: I don't remember trees, to be honest. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I guess there were some cedar trees. I don't know if they could be saved or not. MS. MOORE: I don't know. There is such extensive damage there. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Exactly. Derek? MR. BOSSEN: Those were cedar trees on that property. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Those are cedars, right? MR. BOSSEN: Yes. MS. MOORE: Where are they, like on the bank? MR. BOSSEN: They are to the south of the staircase. They just look like they were wind burned, and speaking with the property owner, I inspected the property with, I said they would recover just with some minor pruning, but they looked just like they were wind burned from the salt. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Knowing you were a landscape designer, what is your opinion. MR. BOSSEN: They add a lot to the property. I would like to see them kept. There was some invasive privet on the bluff which requires maintenance and people didn't, if those shrubs on the bluff are not removed then someone is always walking up and down the bluff keeping it, allowing it to become this big thing, it will fall and that take off the bluff. Things like that we generally want to see removed, it's non-native species. TRUSTEE KING: Try to maintain the native species that are there, try and save them. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to identify what was there. Are we --


because on the south side is where there were some I think like right on the bank, it was part, the root system was exposed and there was some shrubbery there. I guess I didn't identify as a cedar tree. Is that the privet or cedar? MR. BOSSEN: No, the privet was right up near the top of the crest of the bluff. In talking with the homeowner I mentioned that's a non-native species and generally frowned upon on the bluff because of the maintenance involved. MS. MOORE: Okay, I don't think it's a problem removing the privet, so. So, we'll do our best to preserve the cedars. I mean, I don't know -- we have -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We realize there will be some re-vegetation there. MS. MOORE: Okay. Ian Crowley is doing Catapano, so. MR. CROWLEY: I don't necessarily remember the cedar trees TRUSTEE GHOSIO: They're in the picture. I have the pictures up here. If you want to come up, I'll show you. MR. CROWLEY: Yes, please. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Obviously some of these you can't but there is some that still exist. MR. CROWLEY: That's his stairway and his house is to the right of that. MS. MOORE: Behind the decking there is the house. MR. CROWLEY: No, the beach house, the shed, or whatever you call it. MS. MOORE: Oh, the shed was on the right-hand side of the picture. MR. CROWLEY: I was going to come, I think on this southern end and cut a row down and then that would be the only thing I have to do on the bluff. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay, within reason. MS. MOORE: Isn't that where the cedars are? MR. CROWLEY: Looks to me they are on the other side of the steps. If that's where they are, we have to change that. If that's what you want. We do have to get down there some way, somehow. Obviously we are not going to mow the trees down if we don't have to. TRUSTEE KING: We don't want to see them get annihilated MR. CROWLEY: Absolutely not. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Any other questions or comments? (No response). From the Board? (No response). Aside from that it's a pretty straightforward application. Repairing what was there. 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 as submitted with the stipulation that whatever existing native


plantings that can be saved, be saved. And that if you can remove the non-native species and when you re-vegetate the bluff you US native vegetation. Noting that with approval of this application it will bring it into consistency with LWRP. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 26, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of JANE G. WEILAND requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing storm damaged bulkhead; reconstruct existing stairs to beach; reconstruct the existing stairs with associated covered platform down the embankment; construct a new retaining wall; add fill and re-vegetate area to stabilize the eroded bank. Located: 6485 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was found, once again, consistent and inconsistent. The retaining wall, add fill, re-vegetate is consistent. Reconstruct existing stairs and associated covered platform down near bank is inconsistent. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the ten-foot vegetated buffer along the top of the bluff. I think Dave looked at this. I don't think we were all down there. MS. MOORE: No, you were there. TRUSTEE KING: Oh, yes. MS. MOORE: I just want to add for some reason the description Joe Fischetti did the design here and Ian Crowley is going to do the construction. Mr. and Mrs. Weiland are here as well. When I gave you the description, the drawings came after, so I failed to include the returns, and I should have just put it on the description. The Fischetti drawings do show and identify returns included in this plan. We do have another issue that I want to put on the record because I want to make sure you guys are in agreement. The association built, or somebody from the association, built a stairway and the decking adjacent to this property and they didn't have a permit and they actually built it encroaching on my client's property by about two feet. It's showing on the survey. It was done maybe three years ago, two years ago. MS. WEILAND: I think it was more about six or seven. MS. MOORE: Six or seven, but less than ten, which is a concern for adverse possession. We don't want to have an adverse possession situation. But it was built without Trustee permits. What we would like to do is cut the encroachment, it's a three-foot encroachment, cut that back, rather than have to wait until you issue violations and if you choose to issue violations and get the association to remove it, since we are doing so much work there and we have the returns coming back, it actually might interfere with our returns. Do you see the survey? TRUSTEE KING: Evidently it's a curved property line. You have have a tie line and you have a curved property line. And this


is the encroachment of this deck here? MS. MOORE: Here's the property. Here is the easement. This is the deck that -- TRUSTEE KING: That's the encroachment. That's what I'm looking at here. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a curved property line. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at that. MS. MOORE: That's not a curved property line. TRUSTEE KING: It's a curve with a tie line. MS. MOORE: It's a right-of-way. TRUSTEE KING: Here is the right-of-way. MS. MOORE: The right-of-way is actually a meets and bounds right-of-way with the property line. TRUSTEE KING: They've done it with a tie line is what they have done. MS. MOORE: No, that's not -- TRUSTEE KING: There is your property line. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's called an encroachment. TRUSTEE KING: I know, but this is the property line. It's a curved property line. MS. MOORE: I won't argue because if you are taking it from the street it's curved. TRUSTEE KING: Because have you a right-of-way this width all the way down. The only area you are looking at, this is what you should be worried about, the encroachment. I don't know what we could do about it. MS. MOORE: We are just letting you know we are going to remove it. TRUSTEE KING: That'll start a good neighborhood dispute. MS. MOORE: When you trespass, I mean it was done illegally without a Trustee permit, usually you have a problem with those. I'm not asking you to do anything other than just to let you know that's actually an encroachment. TRUSTEE KING: Now we have the lawyer ratting out the next door neighbor. MS. MOORE: No, I said we don't care what they do, I don't care what you guys do, we just want to make sure you know that it's an area we have to address, so. Since it doesn't have a permit, I don't know if you want me identify, I'm putting it on the record. I don't know. Do what you want. TRUSTEE KING: I'm looking at the field notes Dave filled out. There is no information needed and no modification needed. So I don't think anybody had any issues with this. MS. MOORE: Just make sure the returns are included because I want to be sure the description matches the drawings. TRUSTEE KING: Is this a return here, Bob? Looks like a return. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Looks like the return is on the other property. MS. MOORE: We are going to -- TRUSTEE KING: On the north end of the property. MS. MOORE: Yes, Ian -- TRUSTEE KING: It shows the return actually going on to that


neighbor's property. MS. MOORE: He'll actually straighten it and put it within our property boundaries. TRUSTEE KING: How long? MR. CROWLEY: 16 feet. I think it's noted on the cross section, but not on the site plan. MS. MOORE: 16-foot returns at each end of retaining walls, right above Joe Fischetti's red seal on the drawing. MR. CROWLEY: But the one on the north we would tweak over, make it more of an acute angle and install one on the southern end. TRUSTEE KING: So 16-foot returns on each end of the retaining wall. MS. MOORE: Right. Then he has for the upper retaining wall six-foot returns at each end of the retaining wall. That's the second page of the design. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. All right. So it should say 16-foot returns at each end of the bulkhead. MS. MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: He has retaining wall in here. MS. MOORE: There is two things. He has a retaining wall and bulkhead. MR. CROWLEY: That should be corrected. TRUSTEE KING: See what I'm saying, lower bulkhead is a bulkhead. So reconstruct new retaining wall along the bank. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The plan that we have doesn't show a retaining wall. Unless I'm missing something. TRUSTEE KING: Here is the new retaining wall. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: He drew it in a different place. Okay. TRUSTEE KING: We have it all. MS. MOORE: I know I delivered it to you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It was not on the survey. TRUSTEE KING: Now on the south end we'll have a return there where the deck is. In other words you'll remove the deck and put the return there. MR. CROWLEY: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: That's the game plan. MR. CROWLEY: That's proposed, yes. TRUSTEE KING: It's on their property. I mean. MR. CROWLEY: I wouldn't go cutting it without somebody telling me it's all right. TRUSTEE KING: This is the encroachment. This return is on this edge of the property. They want to straighten it out and put it on their property. And they want to build a return here and in order to put the return here, they have to remove three feet of that deck. MS. HULSE: That has nothing to do with us. TRUSTEE KING: I can't give them permission. MS. MOORE: No, we are just -- MS. HULSE: I thought you were talking about a vegetation issue. Yes, they can certainly give the approval. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We can approve the project, how you build it is --


MS. MOORE: Our decision. Yes. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? (No response). Nobody else, 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 that includes 16-foot returns at each end of the lower bulkhead and six-foot returns at each end of the retaining wall, and the new retaining wall. And I think that's it. In the area between the bulkhead and retaining wall will just be left in its natural state. MS. MOORE: Well, there is some, was there a decking? It has a permit already. TRUSTEE KING: There is a deck there. We don't want to see sod or something like that. MS. MOORE: No, no, not at all. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve with the returns on the bulkhead and retaining wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Good luck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 27, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of BEE-HIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new single-family dwelling; new sanitary system; gutters to leaders to drywells on the dwelling; proposed brick paver patio on grade on seaward side of dwelling. Located: 440 Old Cove Boulevard, Southold. This was considered consistent by LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council moved to approve with a condition of a 15-foot non-turf buffer. This was subject to ZBA action. The ZBA required a ten-foot non-turf buffer. As field notes of the Trustees are in conformity with the ZBA recommendation, we discussed possibly a wider buffer but with the feeling of the Board, at least in the field, in the initial discussion, was that given the proximity of the property to bulkhead and the fact that the lands, if anything, are flat or have no real slope it would make an issue as far as a maintained lawn area we felt the ten-foot non-turf buffer would be appropriate, if it's agreeable. That was it. It was very straightforward. It was basically a return from the ZBA. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak for or against? It was pretty straightforward. MS. MOORE: It's very straightforward. And one of the few new applications you saw tonight. My client is here but you don't need to hear from us. Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any additional comments?


(No response). If not, I'll make a motion to close the here nothing this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted continuing the condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals for a ten-foot non-turf buffer along the edge of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 28, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of INA HASDAY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 140'+/- bulkhead along Peconic Bay; to add a 25' +/- return on the east side of the bulkhead; to construct 4' wide steps to beach; and to restore area landward of bulkhead. Located: 100 Macdonald's Crossing, Laurel. This is found to be consistent by LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council voted not to support the application because there was insufficient information and noted that the application should include numbered street addresses because of difficulty locating the property. The Trustees visited the site and the only note we have, everything seemed to be straightforward, the only note was that the eastern return should be increased from 25 feet to approximately 60 feet to better protect this property and adjacent properties. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore, I'm here. I don't think that it will be a problem. TRUSTEE KING: We met the property owners there, Pat, and talked it over with them. I showed them the property to the east is to protect them because the property to the east is not very well protected. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And they don't anticipate it getting protected soon, so there was a concern. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I think they are looking for the maximum protection. So that's fine. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, that was the only change we wanted to see. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve the application as submitted, in addition with the condition that the return be increased from 25 feet to approximately 60 feet. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor?


(ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: Do you need me to submit revised drawings or just mark off, because you had very simple drawings from my client. TRUSTEE KING: I could just draw a line on it. MS. MOORE: That's fine. I'll come back next week. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 29, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of DAVID M. DALY & OTHERS requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 3'6"x25'4" steps to beach (not damaged in storm); remove damaged 31'6"x10' deck on beach; construct new deck landward of new bulkhead; reconstruct damaged 82' long bulkhead. Located: 625 Town Harbor Terrace, Southold. The Conservation Advisory Council did visit this and they resolved to support the application to reconstruct the damaged bulkhead but not support the application to construct a new deck. The Conservation Advisory Council supports reconstruction of the bulkhead at same height, no boardwalk, and recommends the installation of a 25' non-turf buffer landward of the new bulkhead with native plants. The lower damaged deck should not be rebuilt. The LWRP coordinator finds this to be consistent with LWRP noting that in 1992 the Board issued a letter of non-jurisdiction, not requiring a permit for the bulkhead and the stair structures. MS. MOORE: Actually our proposal is not to rebuild this deck into the beach but to bring it above, landward. TRUSTEE KING: That's what I thought, yes. MS. HULSE: Which is probably why it was found to be consistent. MS. MOORE: Good, but I don't understand Conservation Advisory Council comments. Sorry. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was an interesting month. The Conservation Advisory Council may have gotten some of these without the benefit of the whole file because we had extended the month and then everything else. MS. MOORE: No problem. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: When we were out there we noted that we would like to see, you know, the boardwalk as we have been doing, give it a slight pitch so it's inclined a little bit inward, landward, to make sure the runoff goes landward rather than over the bulkhead. Aside from that it was another straightforward one, correcting a problem and bringing it more into compliance with what we would like to see, under the reconstruction after the storm. I don't think there was any other issues, right? Any other questions or comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No, I just thought it was good getting the deck off the beach. It's an improvement. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Seeing no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MS. MOORE: I don't know that you need drawings for this but


maybe in your description just ask that, in the description when you are typing up the permit, just refer to the boardwalk pitching slightly toward, on the landward so that our contractor will understand the proposal. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the only requirement being that the boardwalk be slightly pitched landward so that the runoff will not go toward the bulkhead but away from it. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 30, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of BRICK COVE MARINA, INC., requests a Wetland Permit to restore two (2) shoreline areas along the southern section of subject property that experienced severe erosion as a result of Hurricane Sandy; subject areas will be restored by the placement of boulders (2.0 ton ±) landward and parallel to the high water mark; the existing concrete rip-rap will be re-configured where necessary in order to make the placement of the boulders optimal; additionally, the area landward of the proposed boulders and the escarpment is to be backfilled using clean fill obtained from an upland source (50 cubic yards ±); the backfill will be graded & groomed, and planted with Cape American Beach Grass (Ammophila breviligulata). Located: 1760 Sage Boulevard, Southold. TRUSTEE KING: This was found to be consistent with the LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the application. We have nothing in our notes to indicate any problems with this. Is there anyone here to speak for or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Brick Cove Marina. We met out there, I think everyone understands what the application is, if you have any questions. I have no desire to prolong this evening, so. TRUSTEE KING: No, we don't need a real long presentation. MR. ANDERSON: I don't think so. TRUSTEE KING: This is pretty straightforward. We all looked it at it. I don't think anybody had any issues. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No. TRUSTEE KING: So 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. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Next application, number 31, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of STEVE SACHMAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead


(100.0'L +/-), construct two returns (20.0'L +/-), all with vinyl sheathing; reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft. +/-); and to deposit clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original bulkheading (700.0 cubic yards ±). Located: 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. It was determined to be inconsistent because of a lack of a prior permit history. The Conservation Advisory Council tabled the application because the runoff going into the right-of-way should be addressed. The plans are incomplete and Conservation Advisory Council recommends a site plan for the project; the information provided is inadequate. The Board looked at this and on field inspection we felt that it was all a quite standard bulkhead replacement. We did discuss the existence of the right-of-way because Trustee Bergen is a Nassau Point resident and familiar with the area. I don't recall a discussion on the runoff issue. It didn't seem largely evident. And certainly it would be unusual for us to stop a project for a site plan approval for standard bulkhead replacement. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Bruce, is this the proper picture? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is that a proper picture? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that's what we have in the file. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for the applicant Sachman. I'm not aware of any runoff issue which affects Carpenter Road, which is a walking right-of-way that runs along the northern side lot boundary. The survey indicates a wood retaining wall around it but I don't think there is an actual issue that I'm prepared to address here or maybe that even needs addressing. But I'm open to any suggestions anyone has. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: We might have been to this right-of-way previously, that was brought to our attention by Trustee Bergen, the runoff coming off a town road at the road end may have and up as a discussion but I don't think we saw anything that pertains here. Derek, did you go out on this one? MR. BOSSEN: No, I was not there for that one but we did talk about it at the meeting, the natural flow of the land pitches toward that roadway and that the property owner can do something to address whatever issues are arisen at his property to address any runoff issues. It's really addressing the runoff issues. MR. ANDERSON: I could tell you this. What we do have here is we have a flattened area at the bottom of the slope, so when the bulkhead is replacing, you can see on the survey, there is about a 15-foot area between the bulkhead and the bottom of the stairs. You can see it right on your photo there, it's a flattened area. Now, we would fill to just below the top of the bulkhead so we don't have any water flowing over the top of the


bulkhead. But it's flat, it would be vegetated by beach grass, and it seems to me you would have adequate capture and recharge of whatever is running across land, which, by the way, is all sand anyway. It's a sandy bluff. And we intend to use whatever fill we are talking about will be clean sand and will be vegetated with beach grass one foot on center. That's the plan before the Board. So if that's not adequate to address it I'm not sure what else I would do. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: What was the inconsistency? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The inconsistency was complying with Trustee regulations, in other words permitting. MR. ANDERSON: We are here because we didn't have a permit. Otherwise I would have just done it with an emergency permit. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Exactly, it was lack of a permit history and there apparently was a waiver for the steps in 2000. The inconsistency can be addressed with the permit process. Any additional 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 the application as submitted and thereby permitting the application will bring it into consistency. So moved. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 32, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of DEAN BLAIKIE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead (100.0'L+/-); construct two returns (20.0'L+/-), all with fiberglass sheathing; reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft.±), wood deck (350 sq.ft.±), upper steps (350 sq.ft.±); and deposit clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original bulkheading (1,200.0 cubic yards ±). Located: 6925 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent because of the lack of permit history. The Conservation Advisory Council did not have an opportunity inspect therefore no recommendation was made. The Trustees visited this site and noted the extensive erosion and made no comments or suggestions. It's pretty straightforward. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environment Consulting for the applicant Dean Blaikie. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.


TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is a good photo? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Some of the ones in Nassau Point got mixed up. That's why I ask. MR. ANDERSON: No, that's not it. I have photos for you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That was the big blowout. MR. ANDERSON: Big blowout. The beach house and the deck are now almost cantilevered over the top of the bluff. There is what the house looks like from up top. This is from the top looking down. This looks about right. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That looks like it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other comments from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: It's a massive amount of erosion. It's unbelievable. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I make a motion to approve this application as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Number 33, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of ELIZABETH SPERES requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing lower bulkhead (100.0'L +/-), construct three (3) returns (12.0'L each +/-), and reconstruct the upper retaining wall (100.0'L +/-), all with vinyl sheathing; reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft. ±), wood deck (350 sq.ft. ±), upper steps (350 sq.ft. ±), and a portion of the existing concrete walk towards the shoreline (100 sq.ft. ±); deposit clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original bulkheading (500.0 cubic yards ±); and install a splash pad (1,200.0 sq.ft. ±) between the upper and lower walls. Located: 9675 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This project has been variously deemed to be exempt, consistent and inconsistent. It is exempt for aspects that are minor points of the applications. And inconsistent is not explicitly stated; presumably to bring all the structures up to permit. I just don't see it here. I'll take a second. If you bear with me, I just want to review the LWRP coordinator's report. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is this it, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It merely states what the definition of "minor structure" was. I'm of the impression that the LWRP coordinator basically gave a shotgun review of this to make sure that we were including the project with permitting to cover this. MR. ANDERSON: I think it's inconsistent because it predates. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It predates permitting and it doesn't state


it here. It just describes minor action. I can't interpret it further. And I have nothing to go on other than permitting. The Board had no problems. The Conservation Advisory Council supported the application with the condition the drainage is retrofitted into the non-porous walkway and pitched away from the water. MR. ANDERSON: Say that again? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The Conservation Advisory Council wants, there is a non-porous walkway. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's true. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I guess they want to have a feature that would handle water on the non-porous walkway. I guess that would be most important where it would be pitched toward the bluff. I'll be honest with you, I remember, vaguely, concrete, but I'm not entirely picturing how it runs up to the bluff. MR. ANDERSON: I'll say this. There will be no runoff over the bulkhead whatsoever. If you look at the cross section you'll see we provided the two feet splash pad rip rap. Underlying that is filter cloth and underlying that is sand. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Two-foot thick splash pad -- MR. ANDERSON: That's as sufficient recharge as you could possibly have. And I don't want puddles on the steps themselves. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: If there was a concern about the existing concrete walk, they could always put a small non-turf or flower bed area to handle runoff in the immediate vicinity where runoff to either side to the bluff. I think -- MR. ANDERSON: The bluff will be restored using all native plants anyway, so that's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You don't have a problem with that, would you? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think everything seems to be pretty consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there something else? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, there was an amendment to the permit 4174 to add a 12x22 deck, and that's what, 264 square feet, and they have a 350-square foot deck. I think that's where the inconsistency is. MR. ANDERSON: Say that again, now. TRUSTEE KING: There was a permit, the Trustees granted an amendment to permit number 4174 to add a 12x22 deck above the bulkhead. This deck is, it's the same deck. The deck is 350 square feet. MR. ANDERSON: We are fine with that. It scales to 12x22 exactly. So I think the 350 square feet is an error. It should be 12x22, so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's 264 square feet. MR. ANDERSON: Correct, that's exactly what it scales to. TRUSTEE KING: That's what they had the permit for. MS. HULSE: That's fine. As long as it's consistent. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, any additional comments?


TRUSTEE KING: So I just changed the description to be 264. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the upper steps will be 350? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Not hearing any additional comments I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: I think it's the same deck. They can both be 264. There shouldn't be another deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm sorry. The wood deck is 264, right? MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Then it says upper steps. Is that included as part of that or is that another? MR. ANDERSON: It's another deck. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The upper steps says 350 square foot. What is that? TRUSTEE KING: Is that the square footage of the steps? MR. ANDERSON: No, there is two steps that lead to the top. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: So the 350 square foot that is mentioned in the description after the upper steps, does that get scratched off? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that scales to whatever it was, the 264. It's part of the 264. The 350 is an error. It should read 264. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The upper steps on your plan show 15 square feet. The wood deck is -- MR. ANDERSON: That's the steps that lead down to the deck. We are trying to be as specific as possible. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We are doing 264 and scratch the one after that, that's fine. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It seems like it was redundant. It should have been the 15 square feet if you were going to describe the upper steps. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Is that what the plan says? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, it says 15 square feet for the upper steps. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor to close the hearing? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll move to approve this application subject to the correction in description that the wood deck is 264 square feet, the upper steps are 15-square feet, and that a stipulation be made that to improve the drainage for the concrete walk that a pervious area of, whether it be stone blend or flower bed or such, of a minimum of say a foot to two feet be installed for the last, I don't know, five feet before the upper steps. MR. ANDERSON: Where is that? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: In other words this area here. I'm pointing to either side. MR. ANDERSON: Got it. Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That a non-turf type buffering area, whether it be flower bed or gravel. MR. ANDERSON: How wide? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Either side, say a minimum of two feet. Two feet on either side for the last fight feet of the concrete walk


so it won't direct water over the bluff; to help diminish the water near the bluff face. So moved. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And that would also address the inconsistency. TRUSTEE KING: Number 34, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of CHRISTOPHER STABILE requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing bulkhead (140.0'L+/-), construct one return (20.0'L+/-), all with vinyl sheathing; applicant proposes to reconstruct the existing lower steps (60.0 sq.ft.±), wood deck (350 sq.ft.±), upper steps (350.0 sq.ft.±); deposit clean fill obtained from an upland source in order to replace lands lost along the shoreline and landward of the original bulkheading (700.0 cubic yards ±). Located: 9975 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was found to be inconsistent with the LWRP. It's another one of a case where there were no permits on the structures. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the bluff and the crest of the bluff is planted with native vegetation. We have no questions on the field notes. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting for applicant Stabile. I have nothing to add. The bluff will stabilized with natural vegetation as will the area immediately landward of the reconstructed bulkhead. TRUSTEE KING: We have another issue with upper steps 350-square feet. I don't understand. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Did you get some new software, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. How do you like it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Very nice. Doesn't constitute an endorsement. It's just an offhand comment. TRUSTEE KING: Wood deck, 350-square feet. Upper steps, 350-square feet. Can you straighten me out on this, Bruce? I'm getting confused here. MR. ANDERSON: Sure. What's the question? TRUSTEE KING: Reconstruct existing lower steps, 60-square feet. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE KING: Wood deck, 350-square feet. They show a deck here 20x10. MR. ANDERSON: No, I don't know where that 350 keeps coming up. It's 20x10 which is 200-square feet. TRUSTEE KING: That's what is on the drawing. I'm looking at the description. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: We'll change that to 200-square foot deck. TRUSTEE KING: I think something got transposed between the description because it's almost identical language. MR. ANDERSON: I think that's what happened. MS. CANTRELL: We have some problems with some of the project


descriptions, we had to revise. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Just scratch the 350 on the upper, because that makes no sense. TRUSTEE KING: And the wood deck is only 200. MR. ANDERSON: Right, as per the plans. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And the bulkhead is 140-foot long. TRUSTEE KING: This covered entrance, what's the square footage on that; do you know, Bruce? Is this anything we can scale off? MR. ANDERSON: It measures 13x12. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: 13x12 covered entrance is at the top of the bluff. Should be 156-square feet. MR. ANDERSON: That's correct. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else on this application? (No response). Seeing no other questions, 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 to reconstruct the existing bulkhead, one return, reconstruct existing lower steps; wood deck is 200-square feet, 20x10 wood deck; the beach stairs and the upper covered entrance of 156-square feet. Did I miss anything? I think everything else shown in the drawings. There is a buffer. Everything to look for. So with those change to the deck sizes, I would 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 with the changes to those deck sizes, and that would bring it into consistency with LWRP. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Number 35, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of VINCENT MATASSA requests a Wetland Permit to demolish existing two-story single-family residence, and construct a new two-story single-family residence with deck in approximately the same footprint. Located: 920 Sandy Beach Road, Greenport. This application is to demolish AN existing two-story dwelling and construct a new two-story dwelling in the relatively same footprint. I took a look at this one. The Conservation Advisory Council resolves to support the application. The LWRP finds this to be consistent with the LWRP, however is recommending a 15-foot landscape buffer landward from the edge of the wetlands. And when I was out in the field it was all staked, I checked everything out. It is relatively in the same footprint. It is a home that does need,


you know, does need to be replaced or renovated, one or the other, so I have no problem with this. The only comment that I had was what was happening with the dock and the catwalk. MR. ANDERSON: Okay, we are going to fix the dock. The interesting thing about this particular property is the immediate shoreline including the dock is within the Village of Greenport. So we did not make an application for the dock extension. Our intent is to extend the dock so it lines up with the existing pier line on either side, but I don't believe it's within the jurisdiction of the Trustees. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I was curious, because it looked dilapidated. The only other comment or suggestion I had was kind of in line with what the LWRP coordinator is suggesting, which is perhaps setting up a 25 or 30-foot non-disturbance buffer there only because of the consistency of the wetland there. For example if the applicant decided to do go in and do a landscape buffer, it would really break up the consistency of that style of wetland on that, it's kind of a beachy area. The wetland is notated on the survey, so I mean it would be pretty simple to do. We are showing the edge of the wetlands, you know, and the flood zone line and it's roughly 25 feet from the edge, from the mean high water. MR. ANDERSON: That exists today. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Correct. I don't have that on here as a non-disturbance buffer. Well, it is in the village. MR. ANDERSON: What I have is a 15-foot buffer landward of the wetland boundary. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Right. MR. ANDERSON: Which we could provide with like a beach grass, 15 foot slot landward of that line, which I'm sure would be fine with the client. And we'll provide plans to that effect. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That way we can try to maintain that continuance of shoreline. MR. ANDERSON: It would be low and windswept, which is the character of the area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. Good. Any other comments or questions from the Board? (No response). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I would like to make a motion to approve the application as submitted with the addition of a 15-foot planted buffer just landward of the edge of the wetlands as noted on the survey, to be with natural vegetation. MR. ANDERSON: We'll probably just go beach grass. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Beach grass will be fine. And if we could note that on the survey. MR. ANDERSON: I'll do so. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Do I have a second?


TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number 36, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CHRISTIAN BAIZ requests a Wetland Permit to repair the existing concrete sea wall (480.0'L +/-) located along the shoreline where needed; repair the existing timber jetties (2) located along the shoreline where needed (i.e., replace sheathing); repair/re-sheath the existing timber bulkhead and return (78.0'L +/- overall) located within the southeastern corner of the property where needed; install a proposed bulkhead return extension (12.0'L) off the existing return within the southeastern corner of the property; install a proposed bulkhead return (20.0'L) off the northern terminus of the existing sea wall within the northeastern corner of the property; install a secondary bulkhead/retaining wall (480.0'L+/-) located 15.0'+/- landward of the existing concrete seawall, and comprised of vinyl sheathing, two (2) tiers of timber walers (6"x6"), two (2) tiers of timber backing clamps (6"x6"), timber top cap (2"x24"), timber pilings (8"-12" +/-), timber deadmen and lay logs (8"-12" +/-) with tie-rods; deposit 700 cubic yards ± of clean fill obtained from an upland source between the existing concrete seawall and proposed secondary bulkhead, grade and groom same, and plant with native plantings (i.e., Cape American Beach Grass @ 1.0' o/c, etc.); and relocate existing shed situated within the northeastern section of the property to the southwest (landward) to a minimum distance of 100.0 f +/- from the existing concrete sea wall. Located: 120 Bay Home Road, Southold. This was found to be consistent by the LWRP coordinator. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition that the west end of the concrete wall move landward ten foot and the groin should be replaced and reconstructed as a low profile groin. The Trustees in their field inspections noted that there should be no modifications to the application. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting. I have, when we were reviewing this, we had a discrepancy or project description and our project description speaks to vinyl bulkhead on the secondary -- vinyl sheathing on the secondary bulkhead, is item number six in the project description. But I notice that our cross section listed it as fiberglass. What I want to do is substitute vinyl so it's consistent. So I have those plans with me. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Can you show me that? MR. ANDERSON: Mike, what I'm referring to is, just so you know, if you go to page two, here, this was changed to vinyl. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Right here? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, that's the change. So I'll provide you guys, I don't know how many copies you need.


TRUSTEE KING: You can leave it as either. Fiberglass or vinyl. MR. ANDERSON: Fiberglass is more expensive. We are trying to keep our costs down. TRUSTEE DOMINO: On the changes, duly noted in the file. Hearing no further comments I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the change noted, the sheathing will be vinyl rather than fiberglass on the return. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number 37, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of PRINCIPI PROPERTIES, LLC, c/o MILL CREEK PARTNERS request a Wetland Permit to clear a portion (22,000 square feet ±) of the westerly section of subject property in order to provide areas of additional parking and gravel driveways, storage for boats and trailers, and a portion of a proposed cul-de-sac (24,500 square feet ± overall) all within the western section of the property in order to facilitate the commercial use of the contiguous property to the east (Mill Creek Partners, LLC). Located: 64600 Route 25, Greenport. This was found consistent with LWRP. The Conservation Advisory Council supports the application with the condition the concrete debris is removed from the wetland area. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. ANDERSON: Bruce Anderson, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, for the applicant. Just by point of order, this is integrated to the hearing that follows, which deals with the marina. Also for the record, I thank the Trustees for meeting me out on the site so we could see what the parking layout would look like in the field. And my point number three is I apologize in that what I did not realize until after I spoke to the client, after you left, was that there was a planting plan in place before you that talks about the planting of all native, indigenous plantings that surround the parking area, which is a gravel parking area. They are noted on the plan. Specifically the plan before you prepared by Samuels & Steelman which is dated December 5th, 2012. So you'll note it will say non-turf plantings typical Uva Ursi, Bayberry, American beach grass and switch grass. And these will be planted in the areas immediately adjacent to the parking field. The other thing I did not know at the time was that the overall project being regulated by the Planning Board caused the applicant to prepare what is called a SWPPP, which is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. That plan was prepared and accepted by the town and the native plantings together with the grading, which as I understand is a slight lowering of that area to meet existing grade on the periphery is really, I think what


you were looking for in the field, but I was not prepared to articulate to you. But that's really already part of your record. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. I think we were out there, Bruce, our only concern was just maybe berm it up a little bit along the edge there so nothing goes down into the wetlands. And I think the one comment from the Conservation Advisory Council mentioned removing concrete from the area. I would recommend removing all manmade materials out of that wetland. I saw an old battery; it's been a little dumping ground, from the way it looks, for years. I would like to see all that manmade material removed from the wetland area. MR. ANDERSON: We are in full agreement. TRUSTEE KING: Other than that -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's got a huge drainage plant. TRUSTEE KING: I don't think they can do much more. Is there anyone else here to comment on this application? MR. LARSSON: My name is Lars Larsson. I'm at 170 Dolphin Drive. We are here to give our objections to the site plan as proposed and to ask you to give consideration about the possible encroachment on the freshwater wetland and what actually does signify the wetland. In specific, one of the questions I have is we walked the site, we see where the trees have been marked from the surveyors, or from the environmental people, and I'm just wondering what would the setback be from the outer limit of the wetland? Am I making myself clear on this? TRUSTEE KING: You want to know the distance from the parking area to the wetland? Is that the question? MR. LARSSON: Well, we are looking at, when we walk the site, we can see where the, I would imagine the environmental people marked off the end limit of the wetland. Just curious to know if there is a setback from those markings where it can't be encroached upon. TRUSTEE KING: There not much -- there is not much area there. MR. LARSSON: Do we know an actual footage of what it was or what it should be? I mean I'm not familiar with the Town Code. I had dealings with EPA people when I was employed, and I'm of the understanding now that the setback on it should be a hundred feet. I believe when I was working it used to be 150 feet, but I think now it's a hundred feet. I'm not sure. And I don't know if the town can change that or. TRUSTEE KING: As far as parking, I don't think there is a setback, required setback on the parking area. MS. HULSE: Are you talking about from the Trustees’ position? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I know there is a setback for homes and stuff like that. MR. LARSSON: If I go by the markings on the trees and I look back, we are encroaching on the freshwater wetland. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The parking structure is a pervious structure and we routinely write pervious structures into almost our permits; non-turf buffers, splash pads, all matter of --


MR. LARSSON: Are you talking about silt screens and hay bales and stuff? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm talking permanently permitted structures that are protective of wetlands, that are areas that are added to as conditions of permits, and the proposed construction is a pervious type of driveway construction with a town-approved drainage plan. MR. LARSSON: Now, I have not seen the drainage plan and I don't know if this is the entire proposal on the site plan. It's a little hard for me to read. I was just wondering if you had a copy, had a visual. TRUSTEE KING: Do you want to see the new one? MR. LARSSON: I received this in the mail. TRUSTEE KING: There is a setback requirement for driveways on residential areas of 50 feet. MR. LARSSON: Okay, this is show the typical. MR. ANDERSON: Maybe I could be of assistance. MR. LARSSON: I don't know if it makes any difference to whoever but you have your EL pole mismarked. It's not 851, it's 852. 851 would be on the west side of that existing driveway. That's the same plan that I have. MR. ANDERSON: It may be helpful. The components of interest I would think would be as follows: Number one is a pervious surface. It is a required act that is being required of us by the Planning Board to bring the parking into compliance with the use of the site. That's why it was added. And the client, in an effort to address Planning concerns, actually obtained a lease on the property so that they could address that. The design itself, again, was subject to a stormwater pollution prevention plan is actually graded away from the wetlands so there would be no storm waters that would fall upon the gravel surface would be directed into the wetlands. As to the setbacks, the setbacks are variable. By scale they are as close as ten feet. They are about as far away as 60 or 70 feet toward, as you go toward the south, where the parking area narrows. And I think it's also worthwhile noting that if you were in the field, you'll notice that the parking area takes place over previously disturbed, largely previously disturbed and filled area. That's very evident when you simply step into the wetlands area, you look back, you'll see two or three feet of fill. Probably as a result of when the basin was created. I'm guessing. TRUSTEE KING: And they put all the spoils up there. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. So we are developing a disturbed area as spoil area as part of this application. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This was a requirement that the ZBA put on you, right? MR. ANDERSON: The Planning Board actually. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Sorry, Planning Board, yes. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. So there has been a lot of professionals involved in designing this and I'm going to say the design process has been ongoing for a year-and-a-half or so.


TRUSTEE KING: I was going to say it's over a year now already. In my mind, I mean this is zone marine two. It's a commercial piece of property that has been defunct for quite a while now and I would like to see it up and running myself. I think you have done all you can to protect the wetland. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You are right. And we walked it you can certainly see this is probably a spoils area. You can step right down, where the delineation and marks and the flags, or the marks that you saw, as we stepped down you could see there was a definite delineation. MR. LARSSON: When you are talking about the spoils area, or where you see what you say are the spoils. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm assuming probably was spoils. MR. LARSSON: You are, you now, the way I understand spoils is an everyday actions of doing construction and putting up your spoils. To me it looks like junk and garbage, and looked like someone ripped up a curb and put it there. But I don't know if that was because of, I mean, I have been there for what, 15 years now, and I don't know if that was done prior to me coming there, although it's been laying there I don't know how long. And if it is a wetlands area and you are concerned about the spoilage and the wildlife that inhabits the area, we are poisoning them. I mean part of this plan, I was happy to hear you say that will be cleaned up. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And I think there is a spit of confusion here. When I say spoil, what I'm speaking of is the earth that was excavated within the basin, to create the basin, was deposited in this area and probably throughout the whole site. That is what is called spoil. Spoil is a description of soil. Disturbed soil. That's why that phragmites that you see to the right of the cedar occurs there. When I talk about refuse, I'm talking about construction demolition debris, there is concrete, there is all of that is going to be removed. Not just adjacent to the parking area but throughout the remainder of the property. Because in flagging it, as I did, I did all the delineations on this, and inspecting it, there are various areas throughout, this has been used as a dumping ground, I suspect, for many decades. So all of that will be cleaned up and removed from the wetlands. So what you'll see is a wetland that is free, not even a wetland but wetland and adjacent upland areas, that are free of all refuse. That's the point we are trying to make today. MR. LARSSON: How far, as far as your grubbing area is concerned? MR. ANDERSON: No, we are going to remove any piles of debris -- TRUSTEE KING: Talk to the Board. I want to move this along. Are you finished, Bruce? MR. ANDERSON: I'm finished. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There was something that we noticed when we were out there and was discussed. MR. LARSSON: Another concern that I have is in regard to the drainage plan, now you are putting in the drywells. I see that


according to my plan, which is the same as yours, they are all tied in. The outlet, I would assume that is, I'm looking at here, it's a little hard for me to see, but the outlet on that is going out to Rt. 25? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No. It's all self-contained. TRUSTEE DOMINO: State law prevents that. MR. LARSSON: Looks like all your drywells are tied in, correct, for your drainage? MR. BOSSEN: What he is confused about is there is a French drain across the entrance that is tied into a drywell. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. MR. BOSSEN: There is a grate that goes across the driveway that catches any runoff from the roadway that would go into 25. So that anything that instead of having it go out to the street, it goes into a catch, the French drain, and into this drywell and takes it further back. It's not tied into anything on 25. MR. LARSSON: So anything that drains from here, starts here and drains down here. TRUSTEE KING: I think we are seeing too much discussion on drainage issues here. This is getting a little out of hand. MR. LARSSON: I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get an idea where the outlet would be. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: There is no outlet. It's a self-contained system. MR. LARSSON: Okay. All right, I just wanted to -- MR. JOCHEN: My name is Ernest Jochen, I live at 160 Blue Marlin Drive. When you say there is no outlet, is this dug down to a sandbank? So is there a percolation to it? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MR. JOCHEN: There is no percolation to the soil there because it's all clay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This is all done to specification of the Town Engineering Department. It's really not our purview to pass on an already approved drainage plan. And they have very strict standards. The SWPPP is a new requirement of state law, so based on the area of the property, they had to meet the engineering specifications of the Engineering Department. It doesn't allow any movement offsite. They have to have proper excavation down to sand and gravel. And all those terms are known. It's well-known this was a brick yard. Lord knows, back in the day when I was a sanitary inspector for the Health Department, I was there when they were digging by the hour to put new cesspools in. Blue Marlin Drive, I think they did an excavation for a home sanitary system was forced to dig and they went down through 65 feet of blue clay. It's well-known. The Engineering Department knows this. It's a given. This is a highly engineered plan that has passed with the approval of the Engineering Department. We are not engineers. We are interested in protecting the wetland. And that aspect has been removed. MR. JOCHEN: Right. So you can't answer whether it goes down to a sand vein or not.


TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can sure you that it has been designed so that it will handle the capacity. We have a professional engineer and a licensed PE and a license architect in our Engineering Department reviewing these plans. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments on this application? MR. BENFIELD: My name is Cliff Benfield, I live at 50 Blue Marlin Drive. I'm immediately adjacent to the wetland under discussion. I'm not questioning the commercial use of the land. I understand it's their property and they have to get the best out of it but we would like to see it done in the best way. I have a question about the boat storage area, and I have worked from a little map. I came into the planning office and spoke to the planner and he described a bit of it to me. But starting in the north, the Main Road, you see the entrance has moved over and there is a curb where they are going to put the guardrail that came around on the east side of that property. It's a driveway and it comes down behind the boat storage, and comes down to approximately, as I estimate, 240 feet from the water line and turns at a right angle into the driveway, which shows as a driveway along the dock side to the turnabout. Do you follow that? What I'm saying is that it doesn't show that it's a driveway, but it is a driveway, and if cars are coming in and parking there and pulling all or you put them nose to nose, I don't know, I think the scale would approve nose to nose, and between a storage area, they are going to back out into a parking area or there will be traffic down that road. Now I see nothing in the plan that says that is a graveled driveway behind the boat storage. And it's true, in the winter, they may put boats there, they may not. As being next to the wetlands, I'm concerned about, well, we see boats, we are in a maritime area, I think that's fine. I would not want to see high racks. I would not want to see us be adjacent to the Port of Egypt. The fact is if there is traffic coming down that road and leaving that road or backing into that road, there is going to be lights and motion. Now, when that gets cleared out, as shown on the map, as you look at it, most of the heavy foliage will be gone out of there. From our houses on the road, and my own, you are looking right through. And if we could see right through trees that are not very thick, we are going to see lights coming through trees that are not very thick. And I think that these kinds of things should be worked out before these things are put into stone. I think the whole area where they put the guardrail there is there for a reason. That's because cars are going there. And if it's going down all the way to below the cul-de-sac at the base of the water line there, I think it should be shielded. MS. HULSE: Just a question, sir. Did you appear before the Planning Board during their hearing? Because some of the points you are presenting are issues that they considered at their hearing. It's really not within the purview of the Trustees to decide some of those issues you are raising.


MR. BENFIELD: No, I received no notice of that. No, I didn't attend the meeting. I did speak to the planner and he thought these were things I should bring up at this meeting. So I do believe there should be shielding on that side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not something we would address. TRUSTEE KING: That is not something we would address. That is not an issue for us to address. MS. HULSE: There are requirements in the code as to how much lighting could be permitted in a location. TRUSTEE KING: Not in the wetland code. MS. HULSE: No. But there are code restrictions to that. MR. BENFIELD: There are only two pieces of that property that are being returned to anything that is environmental. Number one, refurbishing with foliage below the last boat storage down to the water line, and what little piece of lawn that goes up according to DOT specifications to have along on the highway. That doesn't seem to do it, as far as I'm concerned. There are other things, I mean, that could be brought up. I mean, I don't know if this is the proper time or whether this is the proper meeting. That dock master house, two-story house, 279-square feet, has two bathrooms, showers and a second story, that doesn't seem very feasible there. And if it does house showers and toilets, where is the surge going? If it's in a cesspool and that area is going right back into the bay. And I can't believe that it's going to be carried all the way up to the main road. I think there are several issues there that have not been really thoroughly addressed. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. That's the other application. That has nothing to do with this. Any other comments from anybody? Yes, ma'am? MS. SCHIAVETTA: Eileen Schiavetta, Southold Shores. Mine are more environmental concerns. I live in front of wetlands, behind wetlands, whatever you want to call it. And through the impacts of encroaching on wetlands, taking down trees that have lived in water for maybe 50 years and more, the area has become totally flooded. And the same thing is going to happen in this area. Because you are going to be removing trees, you'll be removing brush, and even if you put some wetland plants, big deal, what will it drink. You are talking about roots above the ground that have been drinking this water from time in memorial, from back when they had those brick yards. And that's clay. And if they do this, I guarantee you some of it will go out to the bay. And as it is, there are fishermen that earn their living. And it's nice to have boats and it's nice to have three marinas in a row, but I think it's overkill. And it's overkill for the environment, as far as I'm concerned. And somebody must take the responsibility for the damage to other people's land. Because we are encroaching further and further and further into wetlands with no regard for the existing homes, no regard for the fishermen, the baymen. You know what's happening with the fish. This is not new to you. You know what's happening out


there. Walk along the beaches. When I been coming out here for 40 years. Walk along the beaches in Southold. You'll see oil. The rocks are oil, and there are all kinds of junk and garbage. And yes, somebody dumps stuff in wetlands. Well, you take it out. People dump during the night behind Sage Marina. Nobody takes it out. There is an oil barrel lying right in the creek. Nobody mentions it, nobody takes it out. Nobody follows up with anything. And I think what I would also like to suggest at this time is we need a full-time Trustee or two. Because we have to be able to talk to somebody when people are cutting down things, destroying things. I had a neighbor behind me is moving, selling the property. He new what he had when he bought the house. He bought it brand new. The builder was allowed to encroach about the land. And, you know, these builders, they tell you they'll build one thing, then you close your eyes and they build another. They don't care about the environment. They care about greed and money. This is what this is about. Principi pulled all kinds of stunts when he built that building to begin with. He added on where he shouldn't have. What, he doesn't know who the Trustees are? He's new to this area? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Would you please keep your comments pertinent to the hearing at hand. This is really far afield. MS. SCHIAVETTA: I'm saying, keep encroaching and we are going to have a disaster. Either you approve it and you are responsible, the guy that is leasing the land is responsible or the person that owns the land is responsible because he's leasing it. Or is it going to be the person encroaching on it for their own commercial use? Who is going to be responsible when that land is ruined, like it is behind me? We are people living there 37 years. Never had water in their basement. Once you broke the rules and you let people come within 20 feet, 50 feet, you know what happens? I'll tell what you happens. Houses get flooded. Water has to go somewhere. And it will. It will go somewhere. And nobody follows up, nobody cares. What about the people that live around us. Do these people care? Do you think they care? You know, you've turn down things before. This has been going on for four years. Because of improprieties. Now you are going to agree to all the improprieties, it will be a two-story restaurant, and at one time it was a catering hall, now it's a dock house. And it's an upstairs living quarters or whatever he's going to do, and it showers and it's bathrooms. Now it's parking in the wetlands. I don't care how it was created. It's been there for over 50 years and it takes care of the water problems in the area. The clay is not going to take care of the water problems. But somebody has to stand up and make a decent decision. You either want to have fish in the bay, you want to have healthy water for people to swim in or all you want is marina after marina after marina. Okay, fine to have a marina. But how about reducing the size of things. How about the wetlands? You know, I'll give you a letter I gave to the Planning Board. And it's not really, it's not totally a


Planning Board issue. It's an environmental issue, all you people. So somebody is going to take responsibility. Because they have to. And that's all I have to say. You know, you either care about the wetlands or you don't. Make up your mind. You read an article, you care. Then you read an article, it's horrible. This has been going to forever. Who told them to expand the building? They didn't know to come to you? You might have said no, so they do it. They, the upstairs was supposed to be for storage. They set it up, you can clearly see what it is going to be. Who approved that? They do that before it gets to you -- no, they do it after it gets to you, but there are things you did not agree to. Now you are going to allow it all. I don't understand. You have rules or you don't have rules. This town has rules and doesn't have rules. You need a couple of full-time Trustees. I have two houses and I'm not going to mention them but they are two houses -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Please just address this application. TRUSTEE KING: This is out of hand. It really is. I'm sorry. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Okay. Whatever. Someone will take responsibility. I don't know which one of you or any of you. But it's either the town or somebody. MR. SCHIAVETTA: Robert Schiavetta. That's my wife. She is definitely quite upset, and I think she should be. We have been fighting this fight for a long time for Southold Shores. We all know it's a very sensitive area. And this is another part which will be infringing on that wetlands. We were talking about these parking lots, I mean you are talking about the slope that goes down three foot to a marker that says this will be the end of the parking lot. I mean, you'll fill this area in. And not only are you going to stop there, you'll go further because you can't just stop where that mark is. So you'll be filling this whole area down for a thousand feet. Which is going to take more of this wetlands away. We already have problems with pooling in the area. We've got areas that, you know, in the last ten years went from, you know, 30 foot to 200 feet pools. What these things bring, they bring high, you know, the water table is higher, you you have mosquitos, right; you've got flooded basements. And from what I could see here we'll end up with septic in these pools also. I mean I don't think that anybody has shown anything where they can -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is septic going in here? This is just drywells for road drainage. MR. ANDERSON: Correct. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's what I thought. MR. SCHIAVETTA: He was talking about these 38 and 37 being -- MR. ANDERSON: It's fine if we combine them. I think that is probably useful. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: To discuss both of them, okay. MR. ANDERSON: The cesspools, just so you know, have been designed, it's been through health department review, there will be hydrological connection through the clay to sand barriers, as


with the as with the drainage. What is proposed here is vastly improved over what is here. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Isn't what you are doing excessive? TRUSTEE KING: We can do that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Bruce, can you clarify for me the drywells, one of them at least will be penetrate the clay? MR. ANDERSON: Yes. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I think for just clarity's sake, since we are discussing both at the same time, really, we might as well just open up the other one, too. TRUSTEE KING: Number 38, Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc., on behalf of MILL CREEK PARTNERS, LLC requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing concrete wall along the northern section of the property and replace with a new stone veneer wall and pedestrian entry stairs (240 linear feet ± overall); install a new free-standing sign along the northern property boundary; install a new timber curb (w/guard rail along boat basin side and bay side) along the gravel driveway within the eastern section of the property (1,300 linear feet ± overall); install non-turf plantings along the northeastern corner of the boat basin (350 square feet ±); install new drainage systems within gravel driveway (i.e. 6 drywells); install new lighting, underground utilities (electric, etc.) Where required; construct new Dock Master/Marina building (290 square feet ±) atop existing decking along the eastern section of the property, and install attendant sanitary system to the immediate northeast; install native grass plantings along the southern shoreline; remove all non-indigenous materials (i.e., bricks) along shoreline of boat basin, maintain existing vegetation and reestablish native plantings in disturbed areas; construct driveway and parking area; reconstruct/reconfigure all dockage within boat basin: East Side - floating dockage @ 4.75'Wx460.0'L +/- (overall); finger docks 3.0'Wx24.5'L (seven (7) total), 4.0'Wx35.5'L (one (1) total), and 6.0'Wx35.5'L (two (2) total), two (2) 10.0'W slips, fourteen (14) 13.5'W slips, six (6) 18.5'W slips; West Side. Floating dockage @ 4.75'Wx320.0'L +/- (overall); finger docks 3.0'Wx20.5'L (twelve (12) total), and 3.0'Wx24.5'L (two (2) total), twenty six (26) 10.0'W slips, two (2) 13.5'W slips; install new handicapped accessible dock access ramp and deck (285 square feet ±) off the northeastern corner of the boat basin; install new dock access ramp, stairs and deck (185 square feet ±) off the northwestern corner of the boat basin; install new dock access (120 square feet ±) off the southeastern section of property; install low-sill bulkheading around the east and west sides of the boat basin, East Side @ 615.0'L +/- (overall), and West Side @ 330.0'L ± (overall); native plantings installed landward of the proposed low-sill bulkhead and seaward of the AHW (shoreline); install rock rip-rap (5.0' - 10.0'W +/- x 290.0'L +/-) along the southern shoreline of the property, inclusive of stone steps (8.0'W), and backfill with 200 cubic yards of clean fill obtained from an


approved for upland source; remove dilapidated wood bulkhead (35.0'L +/-) within the southwestern section of the property; and maintenance dredge the boat basin (and southerly channel outwards into Peconic Bay) to a navigable water depth of 6.0' +/- (as determined at low tide); amount of resultant spoil @ 4,890 cubic yards ±; and spoil transferred to on-site temporary de-watering area within southern section of the property (35'x60') prior to being removed to an approved-for upland location. Located: 64300 Route 25, Greenport. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What's the status with the sanitary? The previous plan had a forest main that was going to take the stuff from, there was a communication here from Mark Terry that was sent to Elizabeth Cantrell. What's the status with the sanitary? MS. ANDERSON: A Suffolk County Board of Review hearing was held, I believe it was last week, concerning the septic system. The essential, there are two essential technical difficulties with this application. The first is that we have high degree of clay, which the Health Department views as unsuitable soils. So you address the unsuitable soils but excavating, essentially punching a hole through them, backfilling with clean stand and gravel so the septic system as well as the drainage works. The second component is the fact that you are trying to keep your drainage structures a hundred feet away from surface waters, which is a bit of a lesser problem because of the thickness of the clay takes you well below the bottom elevation of the basin. So there is no sideward leaching of septic into surface waters in this application. It's physically impossible. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: How far down do you believe you'll be going? MR. ANDERSON: We'll be going down approximately 65 feet. Now, the bathrooms associated with the bathhouse is something that the current environmental rules encourage, and most marinas, in fact all that I know of, will have some sort of exterior septic capacity. And the reason for that is they don't want people overloading their boats with sewage in their holding tanks and pumping them out. So the operators of marinas today provide pump out. They also provide restrooms, and that, too, is integrated into this project. So these are all elements that modern regulation pushes, too. To improve the environment. Not to make it worse but to make it better. MR. BURGER: Eugene Burger, property owner/contractor. To answer your question about the bathroom facilities in the dock master's building, we are putting in a pump station and the effluent from those buildings will be pumped forward to the main septic systems. And those deep holes he's referring to are called wick holes. And we had our hearing with the Health Department and pretty much ironed everything out, so we are expecting that in a short period of time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, it was noted, this question concerning the new map, because it didn't show the sanitary. So we'll be getting a revised plan with what the Suffolk County Board -- MR. BURGER: It's generally the same area as what was there. We


are just doing new specs for them. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I will say that I did sit with Eugene and go over some of the septic issues that were there and even looked into it, together, we looked into a new system that has been introduced that has not come to Suffolk County yet but we did a lot of research on some environmentally appropriate septic designs for this. You know, ultimately he ended up with the Health Department, I guess, in getting something designed MR. BURGER: I actually brought that paperwork to the reviewer. But, you know, I think the flow in this place is greater than that would be able to handle. This looks like it will meet the flow for the amount of slips and the amount of seats in the restaurant. We pretty much ironed all that out, so. MR. ANDERSON: We don't have a design flow issue. These are just technical things the engineers have worked out. MR. BURGER: And one more thing about the trees. We are not clearing into the woods. It's very minimal amount of stuff getting cleared along the edge of the woods. It's basically where the old spoil goes, where it drops off. I know you guys are thinking maybe we are clearing the woods. It won't be the case. MR. LARSSON: Can I ask him a question? TRUSTEE KING: No. MR. LARSSON: Can I address it to you? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. LARSSON: My question in regard to that is you fellas walked it, did you see the stakes that say parking area? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. LARSSON: What I would like to know, is that where the guardrail is going or is that the limit. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if there is a guardrail going in there. MR. LARSSON: It's showing on this plan. MR. ANDERSON: On the other side. On the water side. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I'm only seeing a guardrail at the very end and I guess that's a guardrail to keep people from driving into the water. MR. LARSSON: I'm seeing a guardrail around the whole area. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: No, just at the very bottom. Right where the cul-de-sac is. MR. LARSSON: This here (indicating). TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's not a guardrail. It's pointing over here to this line at the bottom. That's a guardrail there. The arrow points to this guardrail here. MR. LARSSON: Okay, I couldn't see that. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: That's why I was confused for somebody talking about a road. It's not a road. MR. LARSSON: Is there a limit of the grub, the serrated line? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The serrated line is, yes. What you'll see on the outside of that is where they'll put the hay bale line for the temporary --


MR. LARSSON: The hay bale I'm familiar with. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: (Continuing) that's right. TRUSTEE KING: Bruce, we'll do these two at once. MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir. MR. SCHIAVETTA: Just one more question on the back end over there, where they'll clear that entire area down toward the water, partially to put their turnaround in, but the other part will be replanted. Why do they need to clear the entire area if they are just going to put replanting in there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's already cleared now, isn't it? At one time they were hosting parties down there in recent years, right? TRUSTEE KING: I think he's talking right here. MR. ANDERSON: I think it's worthwhile noting that part of this program involves removal of some of the invasive vegetation and it's replacement with natural vegetation. TRUSTEE KING: Have we beat this up enough yet? MS. SCHIAVETTA: I have a question. Where the wetland marker is and it says parking lot, is that the furthest point of the parking lot? Or is that where it begins? There is stakes there that say parking lot. Does that mean it starts there or it ends there? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The side that is in the woods, you mean? MR. LARSSON: I asked about that. That's the limit of the grubbing. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Yes. On the plan that you are holding, as I'm reading it, the squiggly line is the limit of clearing. Just to the east of that would be the hay bale line. That's right. And I believe that was reflected by the stakes that we saw. MS. SCHIAVETTA: What would protect the gravel from leaking cars with transmission fluid and oil? What will protect that? Will there be something under the gravel so that can't seep into the clay? MR. SCHIAVETTA: You have boats also leaking because it will be a storage area. MR. LARSSON: They'll be painting boats back there, they'll be cleaning boats? TRUSTEE KING: We don't know that. You don't know that. You can't even paint the bottom of a boat unless you are a licensed applicator. They can't just go in there and paint or even clean the bottom. MR. LARSSON: Well, a licensed applicator will go in and clean and paint the bottom of the boats. TRUSTEE KING: We are getting off the -- TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's a legitimate question. MR. LARSSON: I don't think we are getting off of it. MS. SCHIAVETTA: My problem is mainly the dripping all from the boats. You don't know when they put it in storage and they have to have oil in your tank, you don't know that's not going to leak. What will be underneath the gravel to keep it from seeping into the clay and the wetlands? TRUSTEE KING: I think you are assuming every boat leaks oil. And that's not the case. MS. SCHIAVETTA: You don't know when they do. Don't you have to


protect them if you are allowing them to put gravel in wetlands? That's common sense MR. SCHIAVETTA: You also have a parking lot, so we are talking cars, too. MS. SCHIAVETTA: I mean my boat was put in storage and my boat ended up needing a new tank. All the oil and gas left the boat and landed right where it was. So how do you know? Nobody knows. You maintain your boat. You think my boat is the only boat that does that? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Where was yours stored? MS. SCHIAVETTA: Mine was stored in a marina up front. MR. LARSSON: One last question as far as I'm concerned is, because I really didn't get an answer on it, but as far as the limits of the wetland are concerned, I don't know if you guys answered it for me, what is, is there a rule on the distance on a setback from the limit of the wetland? TRUSTEE KING: No. There is on residential property, it's 50 feet is the required setback, which can be waived. But that does not apply to this commercial property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It generally doesn't apply for pervious structures. And best management practices now and the requirements of the state do require licensed pesticide applicators to go in and they are subject to state sanction if they don't do what is appropriate. The marina operators are very cognizant of the rules and regulations, they are subject to all kinds of inspection, and the property zoning is not only consistent with the intended use, it is in one of those areas that has been determined through the town master plan as one that is the most conducive and the most viable for these sorts of activities. So these decisions are decisions that were not made by a Town Board of Trustees. And your questions are very valid. But I'm not sure any of us could live in this town if we were concerned about what left our vehicles. I put a pervious driveway in so I recharge the groundwater on my property. Is it possible oil would occasionally leak? Sure. I have a couple of old vehicles. I have not been able to get any new ones. But I do my best and most of the people in this town do try. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Are you parking in wetlands? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It doesn't matter. Everything you do in this town ends up in a wetland. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well you know it's different now because there is many more boats. You have to face it. There are many more houses on the water, there is many more boats, there is many more houses on wetlands. I have people I know that have a 20-foot setback. I mean, and when you close your eyes, that's why you need a full-time Trustee, when you close your eyes, they'll take more trees down and guess what they put: Grass and fertilizer. And that can't surprise any of you. Because they do it and you know it. You close your eyes. You don't go back again and make sure people are obeying the law. TRUSTEE KING: I think everybody has had adequate time to make


comments about this application. MR. LARSSON: One last thing, as an officer in the Southold Shores Association I'm voicing my objection to the plan as such. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MS. SCHIAVETTA: And also who will take responsibility? Will this be the town that gets contaminated or will it be Mr. Principi or will it be Mr. Burger? Who will this lie on? The town as a whole? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to talk a little more about the marina part of this. We all looked at this. This has been going for quite a while. It was actually held up by the Planning Department. I'm familiar with everything that they plan on doing here. I think it's basically cleaning up the basin and restoring the shoreline, the bulkheads, replanting. There is a lot of good things going on with this project. MS. SHCIAVETTA: Yes, there is, but you still have to protect the environment. You can't pick and choose. TRUSTEE KING: Like I say, this type of thing, the town has encouraged marinas to clean things up and provide access for people. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Did Mark Terry? MS. HULSE: It's not appropriate to discuss personnel like that. TRUSTEE KING: We have to stop these comments coming out like this. It’s inappropriate. Really. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well, it's inappropriate making fun of people. You're making fun of people. That's inappropriate. TRUSTEE KING: I'm not. MS. SCHIAVETTA: I saw what you did before. That's inappropriate. You made a motion. That's inappropriate. TRUSTEE KING: What is she talking about? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I don't know. MS. HULSE: Ma'am, the Trustees don't enforce the code, they just administer it. I'm clarifying your statement because if you have an enforcement issue you should contact the bay constable or police department. But this is not their duties. Their duties are to administer. MR. SCHIAVETTA: I just want to say one more thing about this whole situation. No one is trying to keep anybody from running a business and making a profit. The problem we ran into here is the fact they wanted to double the size of everything they had. They had a two pound bag of property and they want to put five pounds of stuff into it. That's why we have this pushing on to the wetlands. And it is a problem that they created and we are going to suffer for. I just want to get that down in the record. Thank you. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The original plan as I recall didn't include this, right? This came up because the Planning Board wants you to do this. MR. BURGER: Correct. And also we have not increased the seating in the restaurant. It's still what was originally approved when we acquired the property. We've just complied to the parking


spaces and just trying to make everything that was there legitimate and legal. We spent a lot of money on the drainage and septic to really do the right thing for the environment. It's meeting every EPA and New York State and SWPPP. TRUSTEE KING: It's my understand you are required to have a certain number of parking spots because you have a certain amount of slips. MR. BURGER: Including handicap spots even for the slips, too. TRUSTEE KING: So if you don't have enough parking then you have to take slips away. Then it reduces the business. I mean, to have a viable business you have to have enough money coming in. MR. ANDERSON: That is correct. And there is a lot of money being invested into this to bring this up to code. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Is there any plans to operate this as a maintenance facility? MR. ANDERSON: No. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: It's strictly storage and that's it, right? MR. ANDERSON: Boat storage, boat dockage, restaurant, that's it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: And the DEC didn't chime in on this because it's an unregulated wetland? MR. ANDERSON: The DEC approved the project. TRUSTEE KING: I mean as far as it's area near the freshwater wetlands. MR. ANDERSON: DEC does not consider it a regulated freshwater wetlands. TRUSTEE KING: But they approved this. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. And they approved the overall project and that approval arrived last week. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: This is all wetlands that was created as part of the moores drainage, right? MR. ANDERSON: It is. There is wetland vegetation and some standing water various times of the year because of the high clay nature of the soils. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: And this whole area, the whole moores drainage has changed over the last 150 years, every time something happens, it changes its flow. You have buildings that are in wetlands that were not in wetlands that are in wetlands now. MR. ANDERSON: Sage Basin was a brick facility and became a basin when the 1938 hurricane broke into it. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: I know the issues of drainage there, in an ironic sense, I think with all this drainage and the pervious driveway, I think it may actually get better. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I agree. I think it will tend to dry out. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? MR. LARSSON: Just to, a little addendum to your last comment where you are hoping it's drying out. The majority of that water comes from runoff from Rt. 25. So it will never dry out. As long as it's going to rain and snow, that will never dry out. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: But instead of having it run into the bay at least we can get it down into the sand, I think. These drywells


will be pretty deep. That's my hope. I mean there are no guarantees in life but based upon what I'm seeing I think we may end up with a situation that is even better than what we have. Reduce runoff, is what I'm hoping. MR. BENFIELD: As an environmentalist, that can't be too good. Because as deer come down from Hashamomack, we get ducks and geese every day drinking out of that stream that goes through the wetland. There are probably any morning I can pick out 15 varieties of birds. I can't see that happening if that land ever disappears. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: The land is not disappearing. MR. BENFIELD: It's shrinking. TRUSTEE KING: Anybody else? Everybody heard enough? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Unfortunately, I sense their frustration. Many of the issues they raise are legitimate but not in our purview. The lady mentions too many people, but we don't have any control of the population. I think the gentlemen are constrained by the code, the number of parking spaces and so forth, and their concerns would have been better addressed at the planning sessions rather than here. TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Excuse me, lesser things were turned down when Principi built the building. Lesser things were not allowed. Now all of a sudden is a new builder and a new owner and it's allowed? What has changed except expansion? So what was the difference when Mr. Principi was building? What held him up? Do you have any idea? Were you involved? Why were you turning down Principi? Why did he have to give up his land and his building? What did he do wrong that someone else is doing right now? TRUSTEE GHOSIO: You have to ask him. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Mr. Principi is not involved in this application. MS. SCHIAVETTA: But he was. It's the same building, same property. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Those are legitimate questions but not for this Board. MS. SCHIAVETTA: Well then doesn't make sense. It's been to the Planning Board, it's been to the Trustees. You were involved with Principi. You were involved in denying him. Now you are saying everything is okay. And it's bigger? It makes no sense. It's article after article in the paper of what you have done to Principi. All of a sudden everything is peachy and it's bigger. Amazing. I hope you write that down. TRUSTEE KING: All right, I have heard enough. I make a motion to close these public hearings. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I think there has been a lot of things said here tonight. People are just frustrated because things change. I would make a


motion to approve this application as submitted. 37 and 38. The other marina, the low sill bulkheads, we all looked at that, we have been out there numerous times and I think that will be an improvement to that whole basin. Removal of all the debris there and replacing it with low sill bulkheads and natural plantings, it will be beneficial. So that's my motion. I'll tend to approve both applications as submitted. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I second the application. And I'll second your notion, I think it's very frustrating, but given the level of land disturbance, the fact there is spoil and it does cover a large amount of area, the fact they'll be cleaning up the debris and material that is in the wetland, cleaning up the old brick fragments and debris that is strewn along the boat side; the fact it will put a working marina back into service for the town, consistent with the town's master plan, is all laudable. And I understand people's frustrations, but things change. TRUSTEE KING: It's properly zoned for this, I think they've met all the requirements they need to meet. So that's my motion, to approve it. It's been seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, very much. I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE GHOSIO: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that.

Respectfully submitted by,

James F. King, President Board of Trustees

January 23 2013 - Southold, NY

Documents

Transcript of January 23 2013 - Southold, NY