The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTR-09/17/2014 John M.Bredemeyer III, President O�*QF Si�UryOl Town Hall Annex 54 Main Road Michael J. Domino,Vice-President ~ ,�, P.O.. Box 1179 James F. King,Trustee � Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dave Bergen, Trustee I0Telephone (631) 765-1892 Charles J. Sanders,Trustee COUNV) Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES RECEIVED �, i�d TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 30prn Minutes Southold Town Clerk Wednesday, September 17, 2014 5:30 PM Present Were: John Bredemeyer, President Michael Domino, Vice-President Jim King, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee Charles Sanders, Trustee Elizabeth Cantrell, Clerk Typist Amanda Nunemaker, Clerk Typist Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attorney CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM WORKSESSIONS: Monday, October 20, 2014 at 5:30 PM at Down's Farm, and on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at 5:00 PM at the Main Meeting Hall MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 20, 2014. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Good evening, and welcome to our monthly regular Trustee meeting. Our names are displayed out front. Those of you who were here earlier, there was a very interesting presentation by Dominic Ninivaggi, heading up Suffolk County Vector Control. At this point we'll get into our monthly agenda. The next field inspection is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15th. Is there a motion to schedule that? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? Board of Trustees 2 September 17, 2014 (ALL AYES). We'll have the next Trustee meeting Wednesday, October 22nd, at 5:30 PM. Motion to approve that date? TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). We'll hold work sessions on October 20th at 5:30 PM at Down's Farms, and on Wednesday, October 22nd, at the Main Meeting Hall. Motion to approve those dates and times? TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make the motion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion to approve the Minutes of August 20th, 2014? TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). 1. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for August 2014. A check for $15,547.41 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the following applications more fully described in Section VII Public Hearings Section of the Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, September 17, 2014, are classified as Type II Actions pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, and are not subject to further review under SEQRA: Kevin & Karen Mannix— SCTM#40-1-12 Dennis Hickey—SCTM# 118-5-2.2 John P. Milazzo Family Trust—SCTM#57-2-19 Cheri Antoniello—SCTM# 122-9-7.20 William &Theresa Kainzbauer— SCTM#57-2-29 Pasquale & Martin Romanelli —SCTM# 145-3-9.1 Alex Kofinas 2011 GST Exemption Trust, c/o Alex Kofinas, as Trustee—SCTM# 110-7-4 Sheila Patel—SCTM#51-4-5.1 David J. Corcoran—SCTM# 119-1-17 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a motion to approve those as Type II actions. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make that motion. Board of Trustees 3 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this time I would like to go through the agenda to indicate items that have been postponed either at the request of the applicant, or the Trustee office has found there is information making the file incomplete. Under Item IV, Resolutions -Administrative Permits, we have two items postponed, number one and number two on page two of the agenda. They are listed as follows: Number one, Alexandra Halsey-Storch, Esq., on behalf of ESTATE OF JENNIE L. PIERCE, c/o PAMELA SCHIDER requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 10.5'x32.9' deck attached to dwelling; and for the existing 10.1'x28.5' shed. Located: 2615 Wells Road, Peconic, has been postponed. And number two, MARY HOVEY requests an Administrative Permit for the existing 12.7'x6.8' shed; existing 8'x13' deck against shed; and existing 6.6'x8' gazebo on top of deck. Located: 4500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck, has been postponed. On page four of the agenda, we have a postponement under Public Hearings, Amendments, item one, Suffolk Environmental Consulting on behalf of CHARLES STABILE requests an Amendment to Wetland Permit#8027 for the as-built+/-3' high by +/-63' long wood retaining wall located within the northeastern section of the property. Located: 9976 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, has been postponed. And the entirety of page seven, items ten, eleven and 12 are postponed. They are listed as follows: Number ten, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of PASQUALE & MARTIN ROMANELLI request a Wetland Permit for the existing 47'x40' dwelling; existing 20'x36.5' westerly wood deck attached to dwelling; existing 9.2'x10.4' wooden deck with 3'wide beach stairs with railings leading to a 5'x6' platform, and 3'x7' platform with stairs to beach; and for the existing 150 linear foot long wooden bulkhead. Located: 515 South Oakwood Drive, Laurel. Number eleven, John C. Ehlers on behalf of FIRM FOUNDATIONS PARTNERS LLC requests a Wetland Permit to install a 16'x36' in-ground swimming pool with 16" bluestone pool coping; a 10'x16' bluestone pool patio; install a pool equipment area; and install pool fencing. Located: 1060 Fox Hollow Road, Mattituck. And number 12, En-Consultants on behalf of SEAN P. FAHEY requests a Wetland Permit for the existing 4'x77' fixed, seasonal timber dock constructed entirely of untreated materials except for 4"x4" treated timber support posts with attached "L" shaped 2'x3' platform on landward end which is accessed by 3'x6' steps attached to a 4'x6' platform off the bulkhead. Located: 1415 North Parish Drive, Southold. V. APPLICATION FOR EXTENSIONS/TRANSFERS/ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item five on the agenda, page two, Applications for Extensions, Transfers and Administrative Amendments. These are items which are under review of the Trustees during the course of the monthly field inspections and during the course of our monthly worksession, if they are items that are otherwise straightforward and can be approved administratively, we will group them together for the sake of efficiency and Board of Trustees 4 September 17, 2014 timekeeping. I believe that items one, two, three and four, we can advance as a group. If anyone wishes to make a motion on that-- do I stand corrected? TRUSTEE SANDERS: And six as well? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: One through four-- let's just do one through four now. Then we'll go through item by item. Number one, Peter S. Danowski, Jr., Esq., on behalf of ROBERT & MARGARET BOMBARA requests a One Year Extension to Wetland Permit #7919 and Coastal Erosion Management Permit#7919C, as issued on October 17, 2012. Located: 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold. Number two, Suzanne Maurino on behalf of JOHN P. KRUPSKI, JR. requests the Last One Year Extension to Wetland Permit#7665, as issued on October 19, 2011. Located: 6025 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. Number three, RICHARD & CATHERINE REINKEN request a Transfer of Wetland Permit#4187 from William Fishlinger to Richard & Catherine Reinken, as issued on June 24, 1993. Located: 1935 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue. Number four, WILLIAM & PATRICIA MOORE request an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8401 to cut the bank back landward to achieve an approximate 45 degree angle on the bank; to reconfigure the stairs to beach to be a 4'x6' top landing to 4'x13' steps to a 4'x4' mid-landing with 4'x10' steps to beach; and to add irrigation onto property. Located: 850 Ruch Lane, Southold. TRUSTEE DOMINO: So moved. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number five? TRUSTEE KING: I'm familiar with this one. PETER ENNERS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#447 to construct a 24' long stone revetment/wall at a 45 degree angle in lieu of a 24' long bulkhead. Located: 15 East Mill Road, Mattituck. This was found inconsistent by the LWRP. It just says the as-built structure didn't comply with the wetland permit conditions. In a way it was not what I would consider an as-built project. Usually"as-built" means it was built without the permit. This project was applied for, it was for a bulkhead attached to an existing bulkhead. And it was voted on by the Trustees and approved, I believe, in 1999. (Perusing). Yes, it was approved July 21 st, 1999. When the applicant went to the DEC, they denied the bulkhead and said he had to put in a row of stone, which was more environmentally friendly. Which he did. But he never amended the Trustee permit for a bulkhead to reflect that it was now a stone wall. And that's what this is in here for now. It's been constructed as per the DEC request, it was just never amended, because we had approved the bulkhead. So I would find, based on the information I'm familiar with, that this is consistent because it is really more environmentally friendly than a solid bulkhead. So I would make a motion to approve this. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. Board of Trustees 5 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item six, Peter Drouzas on behalf of DROUZAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., requests an Administrative Amendment to construct a smaller single-family dwelling with portico. Located: 54120 County Road, Southold. The Trustees reviewed this application. This is a downsizing of the prior application that we had before us. I believe we, on review, we felt this was straightforward. Are there any questions on that? (No response). I'll make a motion to approve this as submitted. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven, En-Consultants on behalf of PETER & DINA MASSO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8067 to reflect configuration of approved bulkhead reconstruction in line with neighboring bulkhead to north; and for the 10'x12' deck adjacent to bulkhead. Located: 5705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. This was one that I went out and looked at. It was correcting some problems that had occurred with the original construction. Everything now that is found there is according to plans, so I would make a motion to approve this administrative amendment. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion has been made. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next item, I will abstain from. I will let Trustee Domino take the chair for the purpose of this one item. MS. HULSE: Are you abstaining or recusing yourself? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'm sorry, I'll recuse myself in voting this matter. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number eight, John Bredemeyer on behalf of JOHN M. BREDEMEYER, JR. &JEANNE R. BREDEMEYER FAMILY TRUST, c/o JOHN BREDEMEYER requests an Administrative Amendment to Administrative Permit#8438A to withdraw the expansion of the non-turf buffer area on north side of dwelling from the permit. Located: 2660 Village Lane, Orient. make a motion to move this application forward. TRUSTEE KING: This has been withdrawn. It was my understanding it was going to be amended down the road some time. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I can provide information on the discussion. TRUSTEE KING: There will be a change in the buffer later on. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Yes, I plan to formalize all the buffers on Board of Trustees 6 September 17, 2014 the property so the small area then at this time is impractical to put into a buffer, so. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Do we have a second? I made a motion. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE DOMINO: All in favor? (Trustee Domino, aye. Trustee King, aye. Trustee Bergen, aye. Trustee Sanders, aye. Trustee Bredemeyer, recused). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item nine, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of MARIO MALERBA& GARY NAPOLITANO requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8490 to replace the 550sq.ft. Pool in-kind and in-place. Located: 1250 Blue Marlin Drive, Southold. The Trustees have been to this site. The applicant has been in contact with the Building Department concerning the need for the pool replacement, and the Building Department indicated it would be appropriate for to us move ahead on this. I would move to approve this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number ten, JOHN PITMAN requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#7771 for the as-built first and second floor covered porches (each +/-1 40sq.ft.); and to construct a set of 4'x3' steps leading to a 4'x4' landing to 4'x7' steps from first story porch to ground. Located: 1100 Ruch Lane, Southold. This project, the Trustees, on field inspection, noted that there were some floats and dock associated with the request that we needed to check the permit history on. We found that all the dock and floats did have a permit. The inconsistency draws from a question concerning the 10x10 deck which was at the top of the stairs leading to the dock and the float. And was found that did not have a permit. I went back to the site to get exacting measurements. That particular deck is compliant with the Wetlands code that we currently have. It's exactly 100 square feet. So I leave it to discussion of the Board whether they want to include it by reference in this administrative amendment and would request amended drawings or leave it up for discussion. The inconsistency dealt with not having a permit for that particular aspect of the project. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Has the applicant come in and requested that this administrative amendment as described be amended for that deck? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To my knowledge, the applicant, unless they are present here in front of us in the audience, is not aware of this discussion between the Building Department and the Trustees. TRUSTEE BERGEN: For myself, I would be uncomfortable amending it without the property owner's or the applicant's input, let's just say. I don't have any problem with approving this Board of Trustees 7 September 17, 2014 administrative amendment because she has addressed the inconsistency, and then recommend that the applicant be told about the issue and then have him come in to address it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Maybe table it to next month to allow contacting them? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Well, no, I'm saying I'm fine with approving this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You're fine approving because we are aware of the inconsistency and we'll draw to a conclusion either a permit or discussion, is that what you're saying? TRUSTEE BERGEN: My understanding from what you said, and correct me if I'm wrong, the inconsistency on this was because this was an as-built structure. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's correct, there is no permit for the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The structure on the house, the covered porches. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It's my understanding -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not the deck. In other words -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: No, what he's applied for has a prior C of O. My understanding from the building, the review we did in the Trustee office, the only issue on the property, it does not have governmental approval, C of O or Wetland permit, is the deck in question we saw on field survey. So we can move the application before us. The inconsistency relates to this deck, which is not part of the application. TRUSTEE KING: Why don't we let them just come in for an Administrative Permit for the deck. Just separate this out from the deck so the inconsistency is there with the deck. MS. HULSE: Do you want to administratively do an as-built? Is that something the Board is willing to do? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Dave felt we should talk to the owner first. MS. MOORE: Patricia Moore. If I may speak. I actually, he's on my street. MS. HULSE: Pat, you can't discuss this. It's not a public hearing. MS. MOORE: No, but I'm trying to answer that the applicant-- maybe you can approve it and -- MS. HULSE: Can you stop for one second. Do you want to recognize someone speaking? It's not a public hearing. Do you want to open this up? TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I don't think we should. Pat, I hate to sound impertinent, but for the sake of orderliness of the Trustees, I think this would be a bad way to go. You understand this is no reflection on you and your trying to help as neighbor. MS. MOORE: I'm trying to help him, because I advised him to clean it up. That's why I'm here. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think Jim's suggestion is a great one. Let's move --the application before us is consistent. Separate it out. Do you want to move that in a motion, Jim? TRUSTEE KING: I would make a motion to approve this amendment, and because this does not include the deck that was found Board of Trustees 8 September 17, 2014 inconsistent, I think we can move it along. And the inconsistency of that deck will be addressed when he comes in and applies for the deck. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's in the form of a motion. Do we have a second? TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I have number eleven, Patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of GREG & CAROL KARAS requests an Administrative Amendment to Wetland Permit#8334 to construct an 8'x12' platform at grade landward of the top of the bluff. Located: 135 Soundview Road, Orient. The Trustees, have been on the site several times conducting inspection. I was there as the area Trustee. The whole Board met onsite with Mr. Karas. The field inspection and the follow on to that, I think it's a general consensus developing amongst the Trustees that the deck being proposed, which is essentially two feet from The Sound bluff, is closer than we would approve in any instance, and we have never approved a deck that close to The Sound. I believe based on the sense of the Board, that the Board believes it's more appropriate to have the existing non-turf buffer not be interrupted, and that the deck should be no closer, the proposed deck should be no closer to The Sound than the landward most part of the landing at the top of the stairs. So I would make that in the form of a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the deck be no further seaward than the landward-most part of the top landing of the steps to the beach. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item 12, Albert Jespersen on behalf of MOELLER FAMILY TRUST, c/o MARGARET JESPERSEN requests an Administrative Amendment to maintain a 5'wide non-turf buffer landward of the existing fence in lieu of an 8'wide buffer from of top of bluff landward. Located: 1155 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion. The Trustees went to this site several times previously on permit application and then on reconsideration of the non-turf buffer. There again, based on the field inspection of the Board and individual Trustee members Domino and myself having been to the site several times, the developing consensus I believe for this application is that the application for a five-foot wide non-turf buffer is less than what actually exists. The non-turf buffer is nearly six-feet wide in one location and is mostly five-and-a-half feet along its length. Therefore, based on the number of field inspections and Board of Trustees 9 September 17, 2014 reconsideration of this non-turf area, I would move to approve this amendment with the stipulation that the non-turf buffer be six-feet wide uniformly from the fence that is at the top of the bluff. So I would approve that with a six-foot non-turf buffer. Is there a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item six, under Resolutions-Other, is a housekeeping measure that reflects that an application initially had a return in a bulkhead design and a revetment design that is no longer needed, and carried through into a formal adoption by the Board in a previous month. Therefore I would move as follows: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees RESCINDS the Resolution Adopted on July 23, 2014 regarding the property located at 450 Harbor Road, Orient, SCTM#27-4-7; and AMENDS to read as follows: RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVES the request from LISA GILLOOLY for a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit for the as-built +/-103' retaining wall with a +/-12' return; add a rock revetment"face" addition to the existing retaining wall along entire length consisting of 1,500-2,000 pound stones; with the condition of the addition of rock armoring along easterly return consisting of 1,500-2,000 pound stones. Located: 450 Harbor Road, Orient, to rescind the resolution of July 23 and amended to as follows: The Board approved and. Coastal erosion has had area permit for the as built. would move that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Item number two under Resolutions, the Trustees on worksession discussed at length that permits that we grant for moorings in our creeks, we have recently had an increase in the fee schedule, with funds from the increase being dedicated to some of the water quality work we are doing in the creeks. And with that increase in fees we have found that some individuals have mooring fees in the many hundreds of dollars, and recently an individual came in and acquired an annual permit that was in late July or August and was concerned that they were paying a $600 fee with essentially only two months left in the boating season. After discussing the issue with the whole Board of the Trustees and the clerks who have to administer the program in the office, we determined that instead of prorating all the permits, which would require additional staff time, which is sorely needed for doing research on our files, that we would propose a new system where the permits issued after August 1 st would be charged the equivalent of half the annual fee, since essentially once a permit is granted in August, by the time a person would place the mooring, it's probably already in September and October, so they would still be paying for a half Board of Trustees 10 September 17, 2014 year mooring but probably effectively only having a couple months. So accordingly I would move the resolution as follows: RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold hereby amends the Mooring and Stake & Pulley System fee schedule as follows: New permits issued after August 1 st will be charged the equivalent of half the annual fee, valid that first partial season only. This amendment does not apply to permit renewals. That's my motion. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Before we go into our public hearings, at this time we'll take a two-minute break. (After a recess, these proceedings continue as follows). VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS WETLAND &COASTAL EROSION PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: At this point we'll reconvene. I'll take a motion to go into the public hearings. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The first item, Trustee Domino has. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number one, under Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permits, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of KEVIN & KAREN MANNIX requests a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to remove and dispose of existing timber deck; construct a 23 linear foot vinyl retaining wall at top of bluff with 12 linear foot vinyl retaining wall return around footprint of deck; add 15 cubic yards of clean sand from an approved upland source; maintain the existing 64 linear foot long timber retaining wall; and maintain the existing 40' long by 3.7' wide timber bluff stairs with associated 21' long by 3.7' wide timber platform. Located: 62945 Route 48, Greenport. The LWRP coordinator found this to be inconsistent. The inconsistency arises from the fact that the structures were constructed without regulatory permits and the benefit of Board of Trustee review. The CAC resolved to support this application, noting the project was not staked. However they supported it with the condition that there be a ten-foot non-turf buffer. The Trustees in field inspection on September 10th, at that time noted that the retaining wall should run at the same angle as the retaining wall presently is from the west. Straight across the property. And that in doing so would probably necessitate the removal of the deck, and suggested pulling the deck back after the retaining wall was constructed. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? Board of Trustees 11 September 17, 2014 MR. PATANJO: Jeffrey Patanjo, on behalf of the applicant. The proposed project does include removal of the deck and all the structural members of the deck. So what we just wanted to do is put the proposed retaining wall in the outline of the perimeter of the deck. There is no vegetation growing under it. There is -- its a sloped off area underneath it as well. That's why we wanted to bring in 15 cubic yards of fill,just to fill up that area. TRUSTEE KING: There is no intention to replace the deck? MR. PATANJO: No, sir. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But you want to expand out the retaining wall? MR. PATANJO: Just in the footprint of the deck. Not further out than the current deck. Just continuing the retaining wall along the line of the deck, so they can have that little alcove area where the deck used to be, but now it will be just a stable area. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We noted during the field inspection and looking at the plans that were submitted on August 25th, and what we are saying is instead of doing that, you should run the retaining wall in the present angle that it has, continue it underneath the deck, and to the east of the margin of the bluff face. And in doing so, pull the deck back, which is presently cantilevered over there. And there appears to be erosion underneath that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do you do the retaining wall there without deadmen or some sort of backstairs? MR. PATANJO: There will be decking. That's on the proposed plan. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: How do you do that without taking the deck up? TRUSTEE KING: The deck has to be removed. MR. PATANJO: We'll remove the deck. That goes away. We'll throw it away in a dumpster. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: You are not replacing the deck? MR. PATANJO: No, it will be grass there. Well, non-turf buffer. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I mean, it's not our business to plan projects for people, but we noticed that the deck had a beautiful contour to match the rock there. I think the concerns were based on field inspection where we saw there seemed to be some erosion there and seemed to be, as far as the property-keeping aspects of a retaining wall, we thought it might simplify construction and give the homeowners, you know, possibly a better project in the end. That was I think the thoughts that we had. MR. PATANJO: Unfortunately they are not here, so I can't speak on their behalf. But from what they indicated to me, they wanted the same footprint of the deck. And the purpose of that is so they can sit out there. Because there is all the shrubbery and bushes there currently. They need that area that extends beyond it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So the current deck-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sorry. I guess if the deck is being removed, if they could make it a compliant submittal Board of Trustees 12 September 17, 2014 subsequently, that would meet the requirements of Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, because that's within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, so that they remove the deck and they would be limited to no more than 200-square feet or in association with stairs going down to the beach, would have to be further reduced to only 100 square feet. If there's a clear, understanding that they may not be able to ever get that deck, again, I guess that's fine. MR. PATANJO: They didn't seem to want the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is that deck presently cantilevered out over the bluff? MR. PATANJO: Slightly. Four or five feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I thought when we looked along the line. So, if I understand it, what he's asking to do is remove that deck, build a wall out on to the bluff, and fill in an area that is presently bluff. And I don't know that I'm all together comfortable with that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: What you are saying, I would not either. But I didn't quite see under there so well. And I'm now at a loss because I thought, visually, there was a lot of vegetation under there. So we have a full aspect of how it's cantilevered, that pulled them out. So I didn't appreciate that. I didn't see much cantilever from my perspective. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Can we go back to the other picture? MR. PATANJO: If we did a retaining wall there, wouldn't that stabilize the bluff a little more, due to like you indicated already there is some erosion there in that area. If we did a retaining wall, it would raise the grade in that area and then the surface runoff from the property would no longer be running down the bluff causing erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That may be so. I think Trustee Bergen's comments, is we don't want to be filling-in out over the bluff because then we'll have more of a face facing north and east. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You'll have a greater angle of incline. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I have to say I'm in full agreement with Trustee Bergen. To me there was -- it's not that--this Board should not be granting permission to extend the bluff forward. And in fact that is why when we discussed it, we noted it at the time, that continuing the wall in the same manner from the west, as said before, to the eastern limit of the deck that is presently there, would in fact stabilize the situation and we would think that you would replace the deck and move it back. Those are my feelings on the subject. TRUSTEE SANDERS: You are kind of looking to go four feet out and then backfill, is what it sounds like. MR. PATANJO: Correct. In the outline of the deck. Unfortunately they are not here and they stressed to me they wanted it to come on out. So, I don't know what to say. TRUSTEE KING: What's the inconsistency? TRUSTEE DOMINO: The inconsistency was it was not built with a permit. Board of Trustees 13 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: Okay. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Are there any other questions or comments with respect to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Maybe as a suggestion, have the agent have an opportunity to go back to his client and explain the situation, and so we table this for this month and give them the opportunity to talk about this and come back before the Board next month. Because obviously the agent has heard our concerns here tonight, that he can take back to the client. I think he's heard, you know, we really do not want to create a precedent where we are extending a retaining wall out on to the bluff and filling in behind it. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Those are my feelings, and I was going to make a motion to table this. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Go ahead Dave, in the form of a motion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). WETLAND PERMITS: TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The next application, under Wetland Permits, number one, Jeffrey Patanjo on behalf of PAUL SENNETT requests a Wetland Permit to install 52 linear feet of vinyl bulkhead with a 12 linear foot vinyl return; install 3'x7' timber stairs to beach; install 60 cubic yards clean sand fill landward of proposed bulkhead; and install a 15'wide non-turf buffer along the landward edge of the bulkhead. Located: 450 Richmond Road East, Southold. The Board visited the site on field inspection with Mr. Patanjo and we did discuss pulling back the eastern side of the bulkhead approximately six feet to protect the existing vegetation and to better conform with the existing lay of the land there. And that the return would be shortened by a corresponding length. We also felt that a ten-foot non-turf buffer would be adequate for this site, not the 15-foot non-turf buffer, because of the typically sandy soils in the area and existing vegetation that we found. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. PATANJO: Jeff Patanjo on behalf of the applicant. And I have no comments other than what was just mentioned. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I was not party to all the discussion that I think was led by Trustee King concerning the relocation. Was that acceptable to the homeowner when we were there? MR. PATANJO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any other questions or concerns? TRUSTEE KING: I would like to see a planted buffer, not a non-turf. Board of Trustees 14 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's a good point. A planted buffer. That sounds very reasonable. Any other questions or concerns? (No response). Is there anyone else here to speak to this application? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). I'll make a motion to approve this application with the stipulation that the bulkhead be pulled back six feet on the eastern side, and that the return be shortened accordingly; and that the project have a ten-foot non-turf buffer planted with indigenous species; and if we could receive an amended project, please. That's my motion. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number two, JOHN P. MILAZZO FAMILY TRUST requests a Wetland Permit to replace a 37 foot long timber bulkhead with a vinyl bulkhead in-place and 18 inches higher than existing; construct a new 15' long vinyl return; replace an existing 5'10"x14' timber patio at grade with a vinyl patio in-place; and remove an existing 6'3"x6'10" platform with steps to water. Located: 1195 Island View Lane, Greenport. This is found consistent with the LWRP. And the CAC resolved to the support the application with the condition the bulkhead is raised no higher than the adjacent property, and the installation of non-turf buffer consistent with the adjacent property. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. MILAZZO: John Milazzo on behalf of the John P. Milazzo Family Trust. I have my affidavit for publication and posting. And I just wanted to request that we amend our application as per our site visit. In the application we asked for a 15-foot return, and during the field visit we kind of kicked around the idea of increasing that return by five feet to 20 feet so there is no scouring behind it. And then when I was reviewing the application I noted I did indicate the pilings would be eight-foot on center. I just want to make sure that's in the record so there is no question when we do the pilings that we are doing eight-foot on center. Aside from that, there are no other changes in the application. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: We were all out there and looked at it. I don't think any of us had any issues with it at all. MR. MILAZZO: Well, that's good. TRUSTEE KING: And I think we agreed on the increase in the Board of Trustees 15 September 17, 2014 height. I think, I don't know what direction that would be, the neighboring bulkhead. There is none on the one side. MR. MILAZZO: On the southerly side -- TRUSTEE KING: The bulkhead is your own. So it would be consistent with your own bulkhead. So I don't think it's an issue. Is there anyone else to comment on this application? (No response). TRUSTEE KING: Being none, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to approve the application as submitted, with the additional length on the return; and I don't think its necessary to have the eight-foot on center piles. Its a typical bulkhead construction. MR. MILAZZO: I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. TRUSTEE KING: There is no issue on that, that I can think of. MS. HULSE: Can you state the length of the return? TRUSTEE KING: It was increased from 15 to 20. The return would be 20 feet. MR. MILAZZO: Yes, sir. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I'll second that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. MILAZZO: Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, CHERI ANTONIELLO requests a Wetland Permit to install a 15'x30' in-ground swimming pool with a 2' high build-up above ground; and a 4' high pool enclosure fence around perimeter. Located: 2404 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be consistent. And the CAC reviewed it. The CAC supports the application with the condition of drywell to contain the pool backwash. The Trustees did go out and looked at this. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MS. ANTONIELLO: Cheri Antoniello. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm looking at the plans here, Ms. Antoniello, and I do not see -- I do. Sorry. The proposed backwash drywells. You have two of them listed there. So they are on the plans. I don't think we had any questions on the application. We did have one question. We noted on the property to the south of the garage, it looked like there was some dredge spoil; very heavy black material dredge spoil. It didn't look like it was on your property. It might have been on the adjoining property. Do you know anything about where that came from? MS. ANTONIELLO: I believe that came from the excavation, to put in the drywell for the garage. So I actually believe it was deep down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. That is not surprising at all, since it was all on filled land. That's very interesting. Okay. Board of Trustees 16 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE KING: That might not be on their property. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other questions from anybody in the audience? (No response). Okay, any questions from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: No. That solved the one question. MS. HULSE: And that is not pertinent to this public hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application as described. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next item, number four, Costello Marine Contracting Corp., on behalf of WILLIAM &THERESA KAINZBAUER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a 4'x64' fixed catwalk with a 4' wide stairway at offshore end; add install seasonal storage racks for kayaks along sides of catwalk. Located: 295 Island View Lane, Greenport. This project has been deemed to be inconsistent by the LWRP. It's located within a significant fish and wildlife habitat. The plans did not show the mean low water. There was concerns specifically dealing with the depth of water and the intended use are the primary concerns. There are concerns about dock construction adversely impacting the salt marsh, as well are concerns under the LWRP inconsistency. And there is a note here no wetland permits were found for similar dock structures to the west of the proposed dock as shown on the application. I believe some of those were historically in existence prior to the town adopting a wetland ordinance. I remember they were in various states of dilapidation through the years that I have been a Trustee. Is there anyone here wishes to speak on behalf of this application? MR. COSTELLO: Jack Costello, on behalf of the applicant. The dock is very minimal in nature, and I think it would be better environmental impact to have it there than not to have it there. You can see trudging through the wetlands will cause more harm than the dock being there. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Okay, I think we saw, it was proposing flow-thru, open-grate decking. MR. COSTELLO: Yes, of course. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So that would address some of the primary impacts of the vegetated wetlands. It's a side issue, not directly relating to the application before us, that Costello Board of Trustees 17 September 17, 2014 Marine has brought, but during the course of field inspection the Trustees questioned what they saw as new deck construction there, and a review by the Building Department brought out the old file for the C of O for the deck. And I revisited the site on, I guess it was Monday, and what I found was the deck exceeds the C of O for the original house approval, deck approval, by 4'x22', all on the seaward side, so that there is no permit, there is no permit for the deck to the seaward. And I think a point that was seen by all the Trustees on field inspection is that the deck for this house is extremely close to the vegetated tidal wetlands. So this will become an issue for requiring a permit or possibly revisiting by the Trustees or the constable. I just want to let you know that came about as a consequence of field inspection. MR. COSTELLO: That's all news to me. I was unaware of that. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: This all came about, literally, it was Monday or Tuesday. I have to check my notes when I was there. was there on the 15th. That was Monday. MR. COSTELLO: Well, I think if the Board approved this application and they are not objecting to it, contingent on to figure out the deck issue. Which is kind of unrelated to the dock. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: It is, I'm just bringing it up as a point of information for the Board. Because that was only yesterday. And I had not had the opportunity to inform them. They had requested the information and research and the Building Department, and I'm just bringing everybody up to speed on this. Is there any Board questions or concerns? TRUSTEE KING: The piles, will they be 4x4's? MR. COSTELLO: Yes. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: There is a concern that the underwater lands for that creek are held in title by an individual other than the upper landowner, and I believe based on a prior permit history further to the westerly there, that there may be one or more owners who own bottom lands there, and there is a specific grant that carries through with the underwater owners. Can you speak to that issue? MR. COSTELLO: Well, the underwater ground is privately owned. That's why we actually moved the location of the dock, so we gain access on the client's property. We didn't want to go through the legalities of getting permission to go on to the underwater land. Beside what the applicant owns. So this dock is fully on his property. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: To address the concerns of the LWRP coordinator, can we get an updated survey showing the mean low water mark on your project plans? MR. COSTELLO: We can certainly do that. There is not much of a deviation there because there is quite a drop off from the marsh edge to where the erosion line is down to the water. There is a sheer drop. So the actual distance from high and low tide is minimal. Because it's a severe drop. Board of Trustees 18 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And they proposed to use this for launching their kayaks? MR. COSTELLO: Yes, rather than trudging through the upland marsh. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Right. Actually you can see quite a good trail beaten through the marsh already that they are using quite a bit. So probably a structure with flow-through decking would allow the marsh to revegetate where they are trampling at present to access. TRUSTEE KING: Jack, what's the height of the catwalk above grade? MR. COSTELLO: Two-and-a-half, about. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Can we get it lower? MR. COSTELLO: I just have to look and see what the DEC stipulated. I don't have the DEC stipulations. TRUSTEE KING: Because I know they were going along with us on some of these 18 inches. MR. COSTELLO: I mean everybody tries to lower them. The DEC is starting to understand the through-flow decking, you guys want it to be a minimal structure, out of sight. So we'll keep it as low as permittable. (The Trustees have a brief conference with counsel off the record). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: On the advice of counsel, which the Board just went into conference briefly with counsel, just to point out for clarity's sake for the record, on the advice of counsel, we should probably include that the deck extension I spoke of is not permitted to be part of this application. I think in keeping with what the advice of counsel is, if we table this application, it would afford you the opportunity to check with the DEC, we can get the height lowered to accommodate the through-flow decking, and you could give us an amended project plan showing the deck and the mean low water line to accommodate the requirements of the LWRP coordinator. And then getting an application in to discuss this deck addition so that it's part of an omnibus overall application, we'll target the specific concerns of the Board and the LWRP on the dock, and then we can handle the deck issue then in the final permitting as well, quite possibly, or removal, or whatever the Board will deem is appropriate for the deck. MR. COSTELLO: I think that's fair. I think that's probably the way the applicant should go and get it all taken care of now. Because I don't really think the deck has an environmental impact whatsoever. But I would rather legalize it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: So you'll notify the applicant about that deck issue, otherwise we will. MR. COSTELLO: He's right here, so. TRUSTEE KING: Now you know. MR. COSTELLO: So we'll table it, straighten out the deck and get the low water mark on there with the DEC. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Fine. Any other questions or concerns, any Board of Trustees 19 September 17, 2014 other comments? (No response). Hearing none, I'll make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SANDERS: Number five, page six, En-Consultants on behalf of DAVID J. CORCORAN requests a Wetland Permit to construct approximately 40 linear feet of vinyl retaining wall in-place of existing timber retaining wall; construct +/-9' and +/-6' vinyl returns and backfill with approximately 100 cubic yards of clean sand to be trucked in from an approved upland source; remove and replace approximately 257 square feet of existing storm damaged deck landward of retaining wall; permanently remove approximately 123 square feet of existing storm damaged deck cantilevered seaward of retaining wall; provide six(6) new timber pilings to stabilize existing 8'x15' cabana; and repair existing 6'x14' stairs and retaining walls landward of new retaining wall as needed. Located: 10120 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue. The LWRP has found this consistent. The CAC supports the application, and recommend a complete engineering plan for reconstruction of the cabana because of the apparent erosion. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: The LWRP has both attributes. It is both consistent and inconsistent, this particular application. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Where is it inconsistent? (Perusing). Okay, I'm sorry. So that's been corrected for the record. The LWRP, the inconsistency; the proposed action to remove and replace approximately 257 square feet of existing storm-damaged deck landward of retaining wall, provide six new timber pilings to stabilize existing 8'x15' cabana, and repair existing 6'x14' stairs and retaining walls landward of the new retaining wall as needed are inconsistent with the policy standards, and therefore are inconsistent with LWRP. It states 6.3 is to protect and restore Tidal Freshwater Wetlands. The Board, on September 10th, we went out and we examined this property, and the issue for us was the cabana. There is a CO from the Town but there is not a CO for the cabana from the Trustees on the cabana. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak regarding this application? MR. HERRMANN: Sure. Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant, David Corcoran. And Tom Samuels from Samuels & Steelman, the design professionals for the project, is also here. For the substance of the application, this is a still-lingering project that dates back to damage that had occurred after Hurricane Sandy. The history of the site, like many of the bay front projects that came up along Sandy, you won't find any-- one reason you may not find any Trustee permits is because the structure predates the Trustee Board of Trustees 20 September 17, 2014 jurisdiction. As part of our research for this application, we did try and look into the history of all of these structures as much as we could, and I'll just summarize briefly what our findings were. The one component of the structural array that you see there that has a permit from the Trustees specifically, is the retaining wall. The retaining wall was issued a grandfather permit for repairs that were needed at the time back on October 23rd, 1998, as part of permit number 4974. And I have to assume, I don't recall, I spoke to Liz about this a little bit today. was trying to remember, but based on the application that was submitted by Creative Environmental Design in 1998, there must have been some policy in place by the Trustees at the time, to establish the pre-existence of a structure prior to 1992, which again is this date that has often come up in association with Trustees'jurisdiction of upland structures along the bay. I can't say for sure, but what was submitted with Creative Environmental Design's application were affidavits at the time from two neighbors, one Thomas Meaney, attesting to the fact that what he called the beach house was just a cabana, had been located there since at least 1990, and another letter from a Lawrence Niebling and Diane Niebling attesting to the fact that the retaining wall had been there since before 1991. The problem is I don't know to what extent the Board took that into consideration at the time, because during that time period the Board didn't have a public hearing. It was simply entered as a resolution. There was a resolution passed, Trustee, doesn't say who, moved to approve the application. But it had, that the bluff area behind the wall had to be replanted with beach grass and Rosa Rugosa, a motion that was seconded by Trustee King. Who is still around. And the resolution was passed. TRUSTEE KING: I still have a pulse. MR. HERRMANN: Now, for a structure like this that would be considered pre-existing nonconforming, we were asked the same question by the DEC during their review. And we, as a result of their inquiry initially, had contacted Aerial Image Resources in Bohemia, which is an aerial photography company we often rely on for trying to date pre-existing structures, and they had come back to us and indicated it was a little difficult to see, but you could definitely see the cabana in place in 1976. But could not necessarily see that deck that extends seaward of the cabana that has the railing around it. But we actually didn't purchase the photo because I was then re-contacted by the Marine Habitat Protection staff at DEC letting us know that they had found an aerial of Nassau Point from 1976, and just indicating that you could see the cabana, and they said a small seaward deck and retaining wall. But that since we were proposing to reduce the deck back to the retaining wall, that they didn't have an issue with the rest of the project. Again, the DEC will typically take the position as it is Board of Trustees 21 September 17, 2014 written into the Article 25 regs that if you have a pre '77 structure, they won't compel you to get rid of it. Now, the pictures that you see there are very similar, the same pictures that were submitted by Creative Environmental Design to the Board back in 1998. 1 don't know that I need to submit these for the record because they are in your file. But this is the photo in 1998, as you can see looks substantially similar, except for the fact that all this bank and beach grass that was there has now been flattened and lost. So as far as our proposal for the maintenance, the cabana is not being proposed to be reconstructed or replaced, but merely stabilized with the addition of posts. The deck around it is being proposed to be replaced inplace, again, with the exception of the removal of the seaward deck. And that was really designed, that was suggested by Tom Samuels and myself just trying to actually be proactively consistent with the kind of mitigation this Board will typically require on a project like this. And we would not normally see a deck like that cantilevered over a bulkhead or a retaining wall, and so rather than going through a debate about why we should be allowed to keep it, we are trying to be consistent with your code and consistent with the LWRP by offering to remove it as mitigation as part of the project. So that's the history as best I can provide it. It does certainly seem that the cabana has been in that location long before the Trustees'jurisdiction, as has the retaining wall. And the Board, again, from what I can tell from the 1998 record, appears to address those issues and accept the status of those structures at the time. TRUSTEE SANDERS: You have the CO in 1976 for a cabana. I mean, that's not from 1976, 1 would argue that. But a structure was there in 1976. Are you are saying in order to move forward you would remove the cabana? MR. HERRMANN: No, we are proposing to remove --what is in front of you now is the removal of that section of deck that is located seaward of the retaining wall. So that whole section of deck with that railing would be removed. That's part of the application that is before you. And I think that is part of what, I mean in the LWRP review, the removal of that section of deck is deemed to be consistent, but the replacement of the rest of the deck is deemed to be inconsistent. But of course we are offering to remove that section of deck as mitigation for the replacement of the rest of the deck. Again, all of those structures were there. They were, you know, there is a record of them in your application when you approved the retaining wall, including an affidavit concerning the cabana at that time. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, I don't have the plans in front of me. Weren't there proposed piles underneath the cabana? MR. HERRMANN: Yes, which I just mentioned. We are not proposing Board of Trustees 22 September 17, 2014 to reconstruct the cabana. TRUSTEE KING: How are you going to get them in there without moving the cabana out of the way? MR. HERRMANN: Well, that's where Tom comes in. MR. SAMUELS: Tom Samuels, Samuels & Steelman Architects. The cabana structure is basically intact. It's a little racked because it's been undermined. But any indication that we would be reconstructing it is not what our intention is. It doesn't need reconstruction. It needs to be supported. With the retain wall in front and the expectation that we would have significant erosion behind that retaining wall, we believe we could put in pilings that would not go below sea level, like you might expect for a dock or some other structure that really would have wave action against that structure. So we believe that they could be put in, they could be augured in by hand, um, six-inch diameter pilings, maybe 12' long or such that would go into the ground as far as we can get them, stood up straight, and then a timber linking them and then the structure would sit upon them. So it won't be done with water jets or any of that. It should be able to be done by hand. TRUSTEE KING: I just had in my mind, if you had to move the cabana out of the way to put piles, now would be the time to address that second retaining wall behind it. Because that's in bad shape. MR. SAMUELS: And if you are giving us flexibility in terms of how we would do it, that's fine. But I'm just telling you we don't actually need to do that. I know there is an issue with the retaining wall in the back. TRUSTEE KING: I mean, if you are going through all this trouble now, now is the time to fix that second retaining wall. MR. SAMUELS: Right. Although my feeling is, and maybe Rob is better suited to speak to this. By replacing and restoring the retaining wall in the front, we believe that the issues behind it will become less critical. MR. HERRMANN: Jim, it is included in the plans. And didn't we meet the Board -- MR. SAMUELS: On September 9th, whatever date you stated there. MR. HERRMANN: Yes, because I feel we had actually amended this plan. And again, I could be wrong now, but I thought we had specifically included language on the plan that you'll see that point to what I think is what Jim is talking about, that runs along the landward side of the cabana, and says existing timber retaining wall to remain but repair as needed and backfill. So there is a proposal to repair that retaining wall -- TRUSTEE KING: Somehow I missed that. I didn't see that. MR. HERRMANN: Yes. As necessary. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So what we in essence would be doing is permitting in that retaining wall, and then that would give you the opportunity to do repairs on a permitted structure. MR. HERRMANN: That's correct. That was the intention. Again, it was even really the client's desire to try to keep both the work Board of Trustees 23 September 17, 2014 and associated expense on this as minimal as possible. So we tried to phrase all the language in here in a way that would include some of these adjacent walls, that they would be included in the permit and allowed to be repaired as needed, as opposed to saying we are going to blow-up the whole site and reconstruct everything. Because that's not the desire. What I do want to do is I want to make sure, just in the project description, that we have that language. I mean, it's on the plan. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, the retaining wall is landward of the new retaining wall as needed. MR. HERRMANN: (Perusing). Yes. And repair existing 6x14 stairs and retaining walls landward of new retaining wall as needed. So we did get that. TRUSTEE KING: It would have been better if you said landward of the cabana that's eroded away. MR. HERRMANN: I was just trying to include any of these walls that were going to go behind the new vinyl wall. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think the picture that you submitted before, from going back, I think was in the '70's, which showed, I'll call it a bluff or bank in front of this -- MR. HERRMANN: That was 1998. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Thank you. 1998. Underneath and in front of this cabana, it shows since then to now, erosion has taken away that material. So now what we are facing is replacing a retaining wall and a cabana that is right at the edge of the bluff, really. In my opinion. You know, I draw some similarities to a house that had a lot of room in front of it, it gets eroded away, you move the house back, you rebuild the bluff, what do you do. So what is being asked here tonight is to permit in a cabana essentially right on top of this retaining wall. And I'm not sure if I'm very comfortable with that. Again, when it was built, it was not out where it is now. Now, because of erosion, it's right, you know, we've lost a lot of land there. MR. HERRMANN: Well, that whole strip, as you are familiar with, lost a lot of material in Irene and in Sandy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Irene was the real bad one over on that side. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: As a point of reference, we may have lost a significant amount of beach and vegetation there with Tropical Storm Sandy, with recovery of sand material in front of the retaining wall, and planting of American beach grass to try to re-establish some toe protection there, could be a consideration. MR. HERRMANN: Absolutely. From our end, sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you were going to do that, I don't know that I would drop sand out front there. I would do some kind of toe protection with rocks. Because you can see where the rack line is there on normal high tide. It's not far from the seaward edge of this retaining wall. And so any-- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Interlocking rocks. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. Any significant weather situation, your Board of Trustees 24 September 17, 2014 water will be up pretty close there. I think if you put sand there it is just going to get eroded away. MR. HERRMANN: Well, but the proposal is to replace the retaining wall with a more properly engineered retaining wall. That's what is going to provide your toe protection. So I don't know that then occupying more of the beach in front of it with stone is necessarily the right thing to do in a situation where, you know, you'll have -- I mean wasn't Stuchberry pretty near here, Dave, when we came in with Plantings By The Sea plan to terrace, similar situation, it was up the beach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Stuchberry was, and if I'm right, that was a cabana we picked up and moved up -- no, that was a different one. I apologize. Because there was one two houses down where there was a situation where the cabana was out almost cantilevered, out and he moved that up. MR. HERRMANN: Yup. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And created -- I mean, the finished product is beautiful. He's very happy with that finished product. That's why I was wondering in the field, if there was an opportunity if, again, going back to a question that was previously asked, if the cabana was going to be picked up for purpose of installation of pilings or whatever, there's the opportunity to move the cabana up on top of or behind that other retaining wall. That's all. MR. HERRMANN: I think the effort here was to try to maintain what was historically an existing condition. I mean, the reason that the retaining wall was approved for repair in 1998 was to maintain the structure. So without having the structure and the deck there, it sort of begs the need for having the retaining wall in the first place. So again, the attempt here is really to maintain the existing condition, and had that cabana been destroyed, as we had seen in some other instances after Sandy, think probably the tone of the conversation would be a lot different. But I think we came in with the hope here, with the feeling that really this thing got, you know, limped, and we are trying to stabilize it and improve the retaining wall and really not change the existing condition, other than for the better, by removing the seaward deck area as part of the project. That's what we are pitching to you, anyway. And just for the record, we did end up getting a DEC permit for what we have proposed. TRUSTEE SANDERS: One thing I didn't read in the record was the LWRP states there were permits were not found in town records for the as-built structure. We have proven that there are permits for the Building Department, but not for the Trustees. It is recommended that the Board delineate a top of bluff line, and then pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider the recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. MR. HERRMANN: Do you want me to respond? TRUSTEE SANDERS: Sure. Board of Trustees 25 September 17, 2014 MR. HERRMANN: The point of delineating the top of the bluff would be a situation where we were proposing a structure that had to be setback from the bluff some certain distance. There is no concealing the fact of where this structure is. We know the top of the bluff is behind it. This is down at the toe of the bluff. I mean, you know where it is. I don't know how delineating top of buff landward is going to tell you anything you don't already know. I mean, the topographical survey shows you where the top of the hill is. TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'm not sure how to proceed from this point. TRUSTEE KING: Are you putting clean fill in front of the new retaining wall and plant some American beach grass? MR. HERRMANN: We don't have any issues with that, Jim. It would be great. It would be similar to other projects. TRUSTEE KING: It would be an improvement. If you have a major storm, it would get wiped away. But, take the chance. MR. HERRMANN: I mean, that's not that different from a lot of things we've come in with. TRUSTEE KING: It will be a vast improvement over what is there now. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I think that's a good idea. MR. HERRMANN: I mean, we could revise the plans essentially to try to recreate the same kind of berm in front of that wall that was present in the photos in 1998 and plant it. I mean, that's what was there. You can see where the bottom, they didn't build the wall with the intention of having a gap between the bottom of the wall and the beach. So I don't see any reason why they would have an objection to that. TRUSTEE SANDERS: There is really only two things I'm looking at that are going to be changed. The cantilevered section of the deck will be removed, correct? MR. HERRMANN: Which is proposed already. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, and then beach nourishment in front of the retaining wall with revised plans to reflect changes. And plant with American beach grass. MR. HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Does anybody else have anything do say? Anything else from the Board? TRUSTEE KING: I think we covered it. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Okay, I'll make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE SANDERS: I'll make a motion to approve this application with the added section of beach nourishment, American beach grass in front of the retaining wall, with revised plans to reflect changes. This will correct the inconsistencies with the LWRP and deem it consistent. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made. Second. All in favor? (ALL AYES). Board of Trustees 26 September 17, 2014 MR. HERRMANN: Thank you, for hearing us. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Number six, Michael Kimack on behalf of ROBERT J. MUSCO requests a Wetland Permit to remove the existing wood decks and steps; construct an irregularly shaped (+/-26'x16') in-ground swimming pool with a +/-500sq.ft. pool patio and associated pool fencing; construct a short retaining wall along northerly line of patio; install a drywell for pool backwash and pool equipment area. Located: 497 Ripple Water Lane, Southold. The LWRP coordinator found this to be consistent. The CAC voted on July 17th to support this application, with the condition the area north of the pool is limited to non-turf plantings. The Trustees on field inspection on September 10th noted that oaks should be replanted. And it specifies a number. Approximately 300 bayberry plants in the revegetation plan. Construction: All construction and fences should be landward of the 50-foot non-disturbance line indicated on the plans. And that a silt barrier in place as soon as possible. Non-disturbance covenants to be put in place. Is there anyone here to speak to this application? MR. KIMACK: Mike Kimack, on behalf of the applicant. May I make some clarification on the drawings. I had submitted on behalf of the applicant an updated survey, twice, actually. Kind of like groundhog day. As a clarification, the irregularly shaped pool is 32x16. And the swimming pool and the patio, associated patio, is 1,315 square feet. It's on both sets of drawings; one that I submitted with a 15-foot wide incursion into the non-turf area, and I just submitted another one about three days ago where I pulled it all back. TRUSTEE DOMINO: The one submitted on September 16th? MR. KIMACK: Yes, as we looked at it, basically there was an objection to have that fence 15-foot into the non-turf area. We pulled it back. We had discussed perhaps one to two feet away from the wall. Which is what is shown there. Take the vegetated area --we disturbed the area with bayberry and high bush blueberry, four to five foot on center, and plant three black oak saplings. I know we discussed scrub oak, but scrub oaks would be appropriate --that's mostly found in the pine barrens. So it would be black oak that would go in there. And they are generally are centered 15 to 20 feet apart. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I believe on field inspection we corrected that. We didn't want scrub oak. MR. KIMACK: I'm just following through. I realized black oak really was the one going in there. TRUSTEE DOMINO: This plan submitted September 16th shows the pool fence within the 50-foot non-disturbance zone. MR. KIMACK: We talked about that onsite, John and I. 1 asked whether we can could have it within one or two feet of the wall. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think it might have been a misunderstanding. TRUSTEE SANDERS: We were talking about incorporating the actual Board of Trustees 27 September 17, 2014 wall of that-- MR. KIMACK: Yes, I had the swim guy basically give us a retaining wall design, because Dave had asked for that, basically, and it's stepped in like this a little bit. We talked about perhaps having it on top, tied in with the top of the bluff. I originally thought he was going to design an actual reinforced retaining wall. But he did a block step design. With a reinforced retaining wall with a toe about two feet and a heel of about three feet it would have been fine. Then the vinyl pool would have been inside it. But he chose that design. So it would be difficult to place the wall on top of it. We could put the fence right up against the bottom of it. If that's the request. can jam it in. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Is the bottom of this retaining wall going to be right on the 50-foot line? MR. KIMACK: Right on the 50-foot line. That's the proposal. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Because it's my recollection that we were clear that we did not want the fence within the 50-foot, and that were going to put it on top of the retaining wall. And we discussed -- MR. KIMACK: Well, we can set the fence at the 50 and then whatever is on the inside of it, Mike, whether it's the retaining wall or the pool or patio, we can basically establish the fence right on the 50-foot line. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I want to also point out this revegetation plan, September 16th, notes that the bayberry, proposed high bush blueberry or bayberry will be four to five foot on center. But when we were in the field, we were discussing three foot to four foot on center. MR. KIMACK: The original plan called for three to four. When we moved everything back, when I checked on the bayberry, the growth expectation of the bayberry, the plants basically spread out three to four feet. So four to five feet is not unexpected in term of the density of the plans. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Well, we discussed three to four, and the trees, because of the significant amount of canopy that was removed, that was a violation. So my position -- MR. KIMACK: You would like to plant three to four? TRUSTEE DOMINO: Yes. MR. KIMACK: And basically the saplings placement is in the open area between the 50-foot line and where the other trees are, basically, and if you are growing a black oak, you don't want it thicker than that. TRUSTEE DOMINO: I personally don't have a problem with the placement of those. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Since, ecologically, with respect to where the existing trees are, that's part of the southerly. Seems to make sense MR. KIMACK: So three to four setting on the bayberry and blueberry; set the fence on the 50-foot line and have fun with what you want for the pool and the deck. 1,315 total between the Board of Trustees 28 September 17, 2014 pool and the deck. That would be however it would work out in terms of pulling it back and reshaping it within that 1,315 foot area. That's all he has to work with. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Anyone else wish to speak to this application? TRUSTEE KING: I agree, I think you need to pull the pool closer to the house by a few feet, then you -- MR. KIMACK: He may have to, Dave, because of the way he did the wall. Basically he may have to pull it back a foot or two. He's taking away from his patio space, but that's the way it will be. The fence will be on the 50 foot line, so the fence will determine -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's where I was going with my conversation. You know the fence has to be outside the 50-foot non-disturbance area. So you start with the fence and engineer or construct things going landward from there, and that will end up with a reduction in space between the house and the proposed pool. Unless you reduce the size of the pool. MR. KIMACK: Well, the pool could be shaped differently, and patio can be shaped differently in terms of the sitting space. mean, he's got the 1,315 to work with. We'll have to figure out exactly how to maximize it between the pool and patio, given the fact the fence will be right on the line, and everything will be landward of that, the 1,315. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Now the proposed three black sapling oaks, 20 foot on center. MR. KIMACK: One to two inch caliber, probably. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, my question was --first off, I was thinking more in lines of a three-inch caliper. But also where you have them placed now, I'm just thinking of the future, as they grow, it will shade during --well, no. It's on the northern side so maybe it won't shade. I was thinking we are facing maybe shading the pool area and the guy coming in and whacking down the trees because it shades his pool. I'm trying to avoid that. You know what I'm saying. I'm thinking toward the future here. MR. KIMACK: I'm not going to be alive at that time. I'm not going to be breathing like Jim will be breathing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I would move those saplings a little farther toward the water. MR. KIMACK: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that way you won't have that problem in the future. MR. KIMACK: If I remember, there was only about 15 feet anyway between that line and the set of tree lines that is there now. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's just a suggestion I'm making to try to avoid in the future -- MR. KIMACK: I'll pull it back a little bit and I may spread them out a little bit. One of the things, too, is we'll put it in a location, he has the pool so he's not looking in the tree. So that will probably then in the future want him to kind of do something with it. Board of Trustees 29 September 17, 2014 TRUSTEE DOMINO: You'll probably need new plans to reflect these changes. MR. KIMACK: I'll make the adjustments. TRUSTEE KING: Right now, Mike, you have the trees just about ten feet off the pool. MR. KIMACK: Well, there is only 15 feet to work with, Jim. If you could recall -- TRUSTEE KING: I would move the tree out to probably 15 feet north. MR. KIMACK: That's where the other trees are. Did you want to mix them in with the other ones? I mean they were stuck with the fact that the only place to have them is about 15 to 20 foot between that fence line and the other mature trees that are on the property. I can mix them in a little bit. But I'll pull them back away as far as I can to kind of spread them out. And I'll send in an amended plan pulling the fence back, moving the trees around and showing three to four feet on the bayberry plants. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I would request three-inch caliper trees, not one to two. MR. KIMACK: Okay, will do. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have been consistent with that with other similar situations. MR. KIMACK: I didn't know, that's why I used the word sapling. But I was not quite sure what you expected in the caliper. TRUSTEE DOMINO: We usually specify two-and-a-half to three inch. MR. KIMACK: That's fine. As I remember, you measured that four feet off the ground, if I remember correctly on the caliper. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: And tree guards on that. Because that size is a favorite of the deer to rub their antlers on. TRUSTEE DOMINO: Any other questions? (No response). Hearing no further comments, I make a motion to close this hearing. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOMINO: I make a motion to approve this application with the submission of new plans reflecting the fence will not be in the 50-foot non-disturbance zone. That the plantings will be three to four foot on center. That the three oaks will be two-and-a-half to three inch caliper. And that's it. That's my motion. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Next application, Michael Kimack on behalf of ALEX KOFINAS 2011 GST EXEMPTION TRUST, c/o ALEX KOFINAS, AS TRUSTEE requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing septic system and demolish existing dwelling with attached garage, walkways, patio, and foundation; construct new two-story Board of Trustees 30 September 17, 2014 2,421.7sq.ft. Dwelling with a 614.2sq.ft. Screened porch; a 162.3sq.ft. North porch; a 1,937.4sq.ft. Raised patio with pergola; a 1,034sq.ft. Swimming pool; a 168.8sq.ft. Cabana; the installation of a drywell system; install 5' wide concrete walkways and steps; construct 2-tiered long wood retaining walls, each 67' in length; add sand fill and vegetate with rosa rugosa and Cape Ann beach grass. Located: 805 West Road, Cutchogue. The Board met with Mr. Kimack during the course of field inspection. I believe that generally the sentiments of the Board, it's a very standard application, it will be upgraded to new sanitary, putting a new house in that will have Chapter 236 drainage requirements. The prime considerations, based on our field inspections, that it would be a non-turf buffer, and that it would be removing the existing cabana and deck over the bluff, since there is new plans have a provision for a cabana upland. And that would be installed hay bales and a silt fence during the construction phase to keep construction debris and/or runoff from going into the bay. The LWRP indicates that it is consistent. There are conditions that were set by the Zoning Board of Appeals that will have to be met. MR. KIMACK: Yes. Mike Kimack on behalf of the applicant. As a little history, the Zoning Board of Appeals did approve it based upon the fact that we would take the deck down, we would take the storage shed down, and we would also have the ten-foot non-turf buffer on the easterly or westerly side there. At some point in the future it is his intention to come back and ask for, perhaps if he wanted to, a dock or something like that would be back in. But not right now. So all of that would be taken off. That non-turf buffer will match the non-turf buffer on the other side. And the retaining wall going in will be put in such that we will not touch the non-turf buffer. That's pretty much it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I think that was pretty much straightforward in keeping what we were looking at and discussed in the field. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on behalf of this application (No response). Hearing no further discussion, I'll make a motion to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this application as submitted with the stipulation that the cabana and deck will be removed, and there be a hay bale and silt fence deployed prior to construction. And continuation of the non-turf buffer to the west of ten feet. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? Board of Trustees 31 September 17, 2014 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number eight, Michael Kimack on behalf of SHEILA PATEL requests a Wetland Permit to remove existing upper wood landing, gate, pergola, platform and staircase; and replace with new+/-56' long and 4' wide bluff stairs consisting of a 87"x48" upper landing with a 3'x3.6' gate, and a 42"x68" pergola above; a 52"x48" mid-platform; and end at an existing 3'x8' bottom landing; and for the two (2)existing 50' long by 12" diameter poles on the bluff to be left in-place. Located: 19965 Soundview Avenue, Southold. This was found inconsistent with the LWRP. He states here the shoreline Section 275-68 requires proposed structures be certified by registered land surveyor or registered professional engineer licensed by the State of New York. The proposed structure is located in a high energy CEHA, where severe erosion has occurred in the past and the steps are located within the structure should be certified as required. The stairs received a grandfather permit number 4566 in 1996. However the proposed action does not conform to the dimensions of the permitted structure. The permitted structure includes 4'x36' stairs on the east side, three platforms 7x4, 3x4 and 4x4. And we are to consider this recommendation. The CAC supports the application, recommends erosion control measures are taken during the demolition/reconstruction activities. Is there anyone here to speak on behalf of or against this application? MR. KIMACK: Michael Kimack on behalf of the applicant. I can have the drawings stamped by the architect. That's not a problem. These, I'm not quite sure what was historically there. The dimensions on the drawings that I submitted, the cross section dimensions, are exactly what is in place. The difficulty with changing it anyway is because you have so many steps and risers that you have a beginning point and an ending point. And I have no doubt that the way I put it together it won't fall down. But I'll get an architect to stamp it. TRUSTEE KING: Okay. Now, while we were out there, we made the discovery of clearing on the bluff. MR. KIMACK: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know if a violation was issued on that as yet. I don't know. MS. HULSE: I spoke to the bay constable today about it and he has not issued a violation on that yet. MR. KIMACK: I'm aware of it obviously because I was out there, and other people are aware of it also. I was two for two. I showed up and there was a violation. How many more do I have. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Sooner or later the albatross leaves. TRUSTEE KING: In my mind, I'd kind of like to move ahead with this and hold the permit up until -- MR. KIMACK: I can get the cross section stamped and I can resubmit it. But essentially the dimensions on the cross section Board of Trustees 32 September 17, 2014 are an exact replica of what is there in place. TRUSTEE KING: Table it? (Trustees respond in the affirmative). TRUSTEE KING: All right, I'll make a motion to table this application. We'll get the plans stamped and see if we can get this violation taken care of. MS. HULSE: There is no violation. TRUSTEE KING: Well -- TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Meaning we need to table it just to get the plans stamped. TRUSTEE KING: Okay, we'll table it for new plans. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: A motion has been made. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number nine, Samuels & Steelman Architects on behalf of DENNIS HICKEY request a Wetland Permit to fully enclose the existing 11'x9'10" (108sq.ft.) Covered porch on the seaward side of existing 1 & 2 '/2 story dwelling with attached garage. Located: 175 Clearwater Lane, Cutchogue. This was reviewed under the LWRP and found to be exempt. And the CAC resolved to support the application. Now, I know in the file here is a letter dated September 15th from Tom Samuels to the Board of Trustees. And I'll let Mr. Samuels comment on it in a minute. But the applicant has agreed to remove a pool and the terrace surrounding the pool; is that correct? And, sorry, I'll let you introduce yourself for the record. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. Tom Samuels of Samuels & Steelman on behalf of Dennis Hickey. The swimming pool was constructed long before Mr. Hickey and his wife owned the house. As far as the terrace is concerned, it's not the entire terrace structure on that side of the house. I mean there are some stone walls, there is some stone paving, but we are not suggesting that will all, that we'll take all of that away. The swimming pool, I think, is something he doesn't want. The fence, the closing fence, is required for state code. He would like to remove also. And that was reflected in that letter. And I don't see it in the description but I understand you guys realize that now, our intention. But not all the deck terracing on that side, Dave. That's not the proposal. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Just so the Board realizes, the application was only for an existing covered porch to be enclosed. The rest of the work was basically non-jurisdictional for us. So the only amendment that the applicant is asking for is the filling in of the existing pool. MR. SAMUELS: Correct. And removing the fence. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Removing the pool enclosure fence. Okay. MR. SAMUELS: Yes. And as you say, it's only the enclosure. I mean, apparently there may have been things done on that property before my client bought it, having to do with these Board of Trustees 33 September 17, 2014 walls. Everyone said we have the permits that we needed. We are not proposing to touch most of it except for the pool and the fence. There may be issues for Building Department to consider. Apparently they have been talking about it a lot. But as far as this application is concerned we are just talking about what is now otherwise a completely enclosed porch and adding a window walls on two sides. There is a foundation, I mean we may need to upgrade the foundation, but the roof is there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's removal of a chimney and I don't even know if that's jurisdictional or not. MR. SAMUELS: Right. It's on the edge. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All right. Any comments from the Board? (No response). Since there is nobody else in the audience, I guess there is nobody else in the audience to comment. I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Dennis Hickey, with the addition of the removal of the existing pool and pool fence. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: All in favor? (ALL AYES). MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: That's it. I'll make a motion to adjourn. TRUSTEE SANDERS: Second. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Motion made and seconded. (ALL AYES). Respectfully submitted by, � &Aftlojw- John M. Bredemeyer III, President Board of Trustees RECEIVED OCT 2 8 2014 .3o Sout old Town Clerk