HomeMy WebLinkAboutRec'd after 2/28/23 PH IRENE C. VITTI RECEIVED
PO BOX 1337
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. APR - 3 2023
TELEPHONE (631) 765-6798
irenevitti@yahoo,com Southold Town Clerk
March 28, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Appeal of MKS Realty, LLC
1925 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
SCTM # 1000-054.00-04.00-020.000
Honorable Members:
refer to my previous letters of March 1 and March 11, 2023, copies of which are
enclosed, and whose terms are herein incorporated by reference. In those letters, I
summarized the reasons why this Appeal for a Variance should be denied as a matter
of law and public policy, and why it is insufficient to overcome the Board of Trustees
sound denial of a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit for the Applicant's Project.
For your further consideration, I offer the following:
John A:Armentano, in his letter to the Board dated March 14, 2023, arguing in favor of
a Variance for the Applicant's Project, attributed great weight to the decisions in Betsch
and Bombara, referring to them as "binding precedent." However, the Board is not
bound by past decisions so long as it sets forth a rational explanation for departing from
those decisions.
The Betsch and Bombara matters are distinguishable from the instant.case because
they were decided prior to the adoption of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Plans
(LWRP) and the Southold Comprehensive Plan, both of which seek to protect our Town
from natural hazards particularly in its waterfront communities.
Southold Town Board
March 28, 2023
Page 2 of 4
Moreover, neither of those decisions is on point, because Betsch was for the
redevelopment of an existing dwelling, while Bombara was required to adhere to much
stricter standards of location and size than proposed by the Applicant's Project.
You are considering this Appeal and the underlying Trustees' decision, almost 20 years
and 12 years, respectively, since the decisions in Betsch and Bombara. It is not merely
the passage of time since those decisions though, but our heightened awareness of the
escalating global climate-crisis, which causes rising sea levels and more extreme
weather. Severe storms, such as Hurricane Irene in August 2011, Superstorm Sandy in
October 2012, and many damaging Nor'easters since, are all unfortunate reminders of
this peril right here on Long Island.
Now the Board has the opportunity, by distinguishing MKS from the decisions in Betsch
and Bombara, to set a more timely, relevant and unequivocal precedent, by proclaiming
that from this time forward all development on the waterfront will be held to the strict
application of the Town Code, the LWRP, and the Southold Comprehensive Plan.
Compared to similarly situated properties, currently and according to historical market
conditions, the subject parcel was sold to MKS in 2020 for disproportionately less.
Assuming that it is buildable, MKS reportedly purchased the subject parcel for a fraction
of its market value. The difference affords the Applicant a large surplus of value with
which to challenge restrictions on the Project's location, character, and size, in order to
build massive structures designed for resale to the ultra-luxury market, at a very
generous return on investment for the Applicant. Thus, it appears that the true purpose
here may be to develop this parcel for speculation and a substantial profit.
In the Public Hearings before the Trustees on August 17 and December 13, 2022, and
in documents filed in support of the Applicant's Project, conflicting statements were
made by the Applicant and its representatives. On one hand, the Applicant and its
representatives said that the purpose of the Project is for the Applicant's own home. On
the other hand, the Applicant stated this Project is his "livelihood" or in other words in
connection with his business. (The Applicant resides in Nassau County and is a
successful construction contractor engaged in multimillion dollar County projects.)
The Applicant has wielded outsized resources to challenge the restrictions to enable
this Project. It has undertaken elaborate professional studies intended to negate our
common sense understanding of the ever-increasing threats to public safety and the
integrity of the coastal landscape. It has employed an army of attorneys to pressure,
bully, and threaten the Town with what will be no doubt costly litigation and a prolonged
administrative process. Underscoring this are the more than a half dozen professionals
appearing personally on multiple occasions for the Applicant, and many more working
behind the scenes in its attempt to paper over this matter. Furthermore, the Applicant
has vowed to fight for the right to build "until I die" or, presumably, until he gets his way.
Southold Town Board
March 28, 2023
Page 3 of 4
The Applicant's claim of"hardship" is unsubstantiated. It is nota "hardship" for the
Applicant to be required to adhere to the applicable zoning and building codes or to
conform to the character of the neighborhood in location, size and scope of
development. Rather, the Applicant is charged with having known the restrictions
before it undertook to violate them. Additionally, a claim of"hardship" is of questionable
applicability to a dwelling that is not for Applicant's personal occupancy, but rather is
being built for speculation. The only "hardship" to this Applicant may be that its return on
investment will be diminished if the proposed accommodations are not sufficiently large
and attractive to a willing customer to pay a generous premium.
The Applicant's Project seeks to undermine the shared values of the majority of
Southold residents who cherish our rural lifestyle. If allowed to proceed, the Applicant's
Project, and those that will necessarily follow, make it less economically feasible for
Southold's current residents to remain on the North Fork, just as those who have been
priced out or otherwise displaced from their homes on the South Fork.
There remain several unanswered questions;
Is Southold going to continue to permit development of its waterfront which do not
conform with its laws and the policies that were designed to protect it?
What are the valid criteria to sustain a claim of"hardship" to grant a Variance:
Is the restriction of development, which exceeds norms and necessity, a "hardship"?
Does prior knowledge of restrictions, or self-creation, obviate a claim of"hardship"?
Does the concept of"hardship" apply to speculative development for profit?
Did the Applicant pay the actual value of the parcel because it was undevelopable, or
was it undervalued at the time of purchase?
Have the Applicant's representatives provided reliable information and drawn
indisputable conclusions about the natural features, proposed mitigation, and legal
framework of the Applicant's Project, or are these costly efforts merely self-serving, and
intended to intimidate rather than educate the Board?
Is the accuracy and appropriateness of the Applicant's experts' analyses within the
scope of our Board to discern, or is it within the Town's budget to hire its own experts to
verify or dispute their assertions?
Are we are being asked to accept as true matters which are belied by simple
observation of the unpredictable and often disastrous weather patterns that have
befallen coastal communities throughout the world and right here on Long Island?
Southold Town Board
March 28, 2023
Page 4 of 4
How will restrictions on the Applicant's Project be enforced upon the Applicant and
succeeding owners?
How often are restrictions on development or use in Southold evaded or blatantly
ignored, resulting in damage, environmental harm, or requests for "as-built" permits?
What are the unintended consequences for this habitat, from traffic over protected land,
spraying of chemicals to reduce human exposure to disease, and/or malfunctioning of
the sanitary system, pool equipment or fuel supply?
Is the subject parcel an appropriate candidate for preservation, whether by purchase or
by eminent domain, and is either option more cost effective than litigation?
Is there a right to unrestricted use of Southold's lands for a price, and what does this
portend for those who live here because it is rich in beauty, sustains our well-being, and
gives us a respite from the moral hazards of the world?
The Board is challenged to decide whether to grant a Variance for the Applicant's
Project, based upon the established legal framework for sound waterfront development
contained within the Town Code, the LWRP, and the Southold Comprehensive Plan.
First and foremost, you must determine whether the Trustees acted properly in denying
a Coastal Erosion Hazard Permit for the Applicant's Project, but you may also consider
whether there is precedent for granting of a Variance, if this is justifiably a case of
"hardship", whether the Applicant's Project been presented credibly and correctly, and
perhaps most importantly, if it is in the best interests of Southold and its citizens.
By denying this Appeal, you will acknowledge the greater challenges Southold will face
in the future, reinforce its standards for all future waterfront development, and preserve
our quality of life. Please be guided accordingly.
Sincerely,
fi
Irene Vitti
encls.
IRENE C. VITfI
PO BOX 1337
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TELEPHONE (631) 765-6798
irenevitti®yahoo.com
March 1, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1825 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
Honorable Members:
The appeal of MKS Realty, LLC (MKS), to obtain a variance for a Coastal Erosion Hazard
permit to build a 4,600 square foot home and accessory structures, comes at a time when
the residents of Southold are more aware than ever that your decision in this matter will
have consequences for all who live here now and all who follow us.
's and
New development in this environmentally stadardssensitive of the Soueho d Codetween , the Local McCabe's
beaches, must be held to the highest
Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and the applicable regulations.
As we all know, development on this fragile site will adversely affect wildlife and ground
water. It will increase the hazards of coastal erosion and flooding, endangering
neighboring properties as sea level continues to rise. While the beach and the dune
system may be stable now, the past is not necessarily indicative of the future, as
catastrophic coastal storms are becoming more common.
it is undeniable that the Application for a Coastal Erosions Hazard permit failed to meet the
standards for issuance, and the Petition appealing that decision, fails to meet most if not all
of the criteria for a variance for a number of reasons.
This is a self-created hardship, it was the applicant's choice to purchase this site, when
they knew or should have known that our laws have stringent restrictions on waterfront
development. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
Southold Town Board
March 1, 2023
Page two
The proposed measures are not mitigation, They are the bare minimum required by law for
all new construction in Southold: Development of the beach and dune area are already
forbidden under Chapter 111. An I/A system for wastewater management is required for
all projects wherever located in Southold. Compliance with FEMA construction standards
is mandatory, not voluntary. MKS has offered nothing more than what is required to
develop any site, without consideration for the vulnerability of the instant one.
Moreover, the areas of beach and dune that are proposed to be left undisturbed is
irrelevant because there is no right to disturb them, and the beach and dune will not act as
protective features, if there are structures built on or near them.
Quite notably, the variance requested is not the minimum necessary to overcome these
difficulties. It is to the detriment to the environment and the community because the
proposed structures have not been located as far landward as possible and they are too
close to the dune. The proposed 4,600 sq ft residence with a 2,400 sq ft footprint is three
times the code minimum of 850 sq ft and out of character with the community. MKS'
application does not comply with the variance requirements.
The Petitioner's effort to use the Bombara case or the Betsch home as precedent in this
matter, similarly fails. It is inappropriate to compare this project to the development of the
adjacent Bombara parcel which was proposed over 15 years ago, before Superstorm
Sandy and subsequent amendments to Chapter 111. The Bombara home is entirely in the
less hazardous "AE" zone, while the proposed structures on the MKS site are located
substantially in the "VE" flood zone. In addition, MKS's proposed development is more
than twice the size of Bombara's. Finally, the Betsch home is completely incomparable to
the MKS proposal, because it was a rebuild of a preexisting home, more than 20 years
ago, prior to Superstorm Sandy, subsequent amendments to the Code, and even to the
adoption of the LWRPI
For all these reasons, the application for a for a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit should be
denied and the Petition for a variance should not be granted, because to do so will deviate
in every meaningful way from the letter and spirit of the laws of Southold, which were
designed to protect the environment and serve and preserve our community.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
ZZL
Irene Vittl
IRENE C. VITTI
PO BOX 1337
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TELEPHONE (631) 765-6798
irenevitti@vcihoo.com
March 11, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1925 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
SCTM # 1000-054.00-04.00-020.000
Honorable Members:
As you know, the Southold Board of Trustees (Trustees) denied the application of MKS
Realty, LLC (the "Applicant") for Tidal Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits (Permits), in
the determination dated December 27, 2022. This decision is now appealed to the Town
Board, in their capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, for substantial
variance relief from the requirements of Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, to
construct an outsized principal dwelling and accessory structures substantially located on
a Primary Dune in the FEMA WE 13" Flood Zone (Applicant's Project) .
The Trustees' decision was made upon a reasonable basis, supported by the Town Code
and all the information contained within the record. As such, the Trustees' decision should
be upheld, and the Applicant's request for a variance should be denied.
In making its determination, the Trustees exhaustively reviewed and considered all the
documentation provided by the Applicant, the applicable laws and regulations, the facts,
circumstances, and the entire record in this matter, including:
1. Chapters 111 ("Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas"), 148 ("Flood Prevention") and 275
("Wetlands and Shoreline") of the Southold Town Code;
2. Three site inspections by the Trustees on August 9, September 7, and October 12,
2022, and several Trustees' work sessions;
3. Findings of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Coordinator that
the application was "Inconsistent with the LWRP," specifically Policy 4;
Southold Town Board
March 10, 2023
Page 2of3
4. Recommendations of the Southold Conservation Advisory Council, which voted
unanimously on January 12, and August 10, 2022, to "Not Support the
application'
5. Correspondence and oral comments from the Applicant, its representatives, and
numerous concerned Southold residents, at Public Hearings held by the Trustees
on August 17 and December 14, 2022; and
6. The historical record of the proceedings in regard to the history and development of
the nearby properties, specifically the Bombara, Mastro and Betseh residences.
The Trustees clearly fulfilled their duty to thoroughly review this matter, and their denial of
Permits for the Applicant's Project was made upon a reasonable basis, as follows:
1. The Applicant's Project does not conform to the requirements of the various laws,
regulations, and policies of Southold;
2. The Applicant's Project is not based on sound environmental planning and
undermines the environmental goals of our Town;
3. The Applicant's Project does not reflect the numerous suggestions of the Trustees;
4. The Applicant's Project does not accommodate the concerns expressed by local
residents; and
5. The Applicant's Project is outsized and is inconsistent and incompatible with the
character of the neighborhood.
Although plans for the Applicant's Project were revised at least three times during more
than one and a half years that it was under consideration by the Trustees, the Applicant
did not make sufficient revisions to the location, size, scope, and nature of improvements
to mitigate such substantial disturbance and construction on the Primary Dune.
The Trustees denied Permits for the Applicant's Project, presumably based upon the
Applicant's most recent submissions of December 2 and 6, 2022, because these plans,
like previous versions, continue to deviate from, exceed or evade acceptable standards:
1. The residence and pool remain seaward of the Primary Dune line;
2. Substantial portions of the residence and pool are located in the VE13 FEMA Flood
Zone (whereas the Bombara dwelling is entirely located in the AE12 FEMA Flood
Zone);
Southold Town Board
March 10, 2023
Page 3 of 3
3. The residence is out of character with the area, with a footprint of 3,053 sq ft;
4. The residence exceeds the maximum allowable height;
5. The massive windows create a hazard for birds and additional light pollution;
6. The pool is too large and the retaining walls surrounding it are too high;
7. The driveway is excessive, and greater than the minimum.required for access;
8. The amount of fill to accommodate the sanitary system is excessive;
9. The septic system is located inappropriately;
10.There is an excessive use of concrete;
11. An access path to the beach is unspecified and not included in lot coverage; and
12. Lot coverage is not based upon buildable acreage and has therefore been
undercalculated.
In addition to the broad scope of the Trustees' review and the sound basis for their
decision, the looming impact of climate change on our coastal communities must certainly
have been on the minds of the Trustees. As the Coastal Erosion Board of Review, you
should also consider this when deciding whether to grant a variance from the laws and
standards which were intended to protect us from this peril. New development on
previously undisturbed land must be held to the highest standards of the Town Code. Any
hardship in this case was entirely self-created by the Applicant, who knowingly purchased
an environmentally sensitive and restricted parcel. Granting a variance in this case would
set a reverberating, negative precedent.
The Board of Trustees reasonably and properly denied a Coastal Erosion Permit (and a
Tidal Wetlands Permit). The Trustees' decision should be upheld and the appeal of MKS
Realty, LLC for a variance should not be granted.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Irene Vitti
Noncarrow, Denis
From: Butler, Philip <PButler@FarrellFritz.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 3:35 PM
To: Russell, Scott; Evans, Louisa; Doherty,Jill; Nappa, Sarah; Doroski, Greg; Mealy, Brian;
DeChance, Paul
Cc: Armentano,John C.; Noncarrow, Denis
Subject: In the Matter of MKS Realty-Appeal to Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review [F-
F.FID13040501
Attachments: 3-14-23 Post-Hearing Ltr to Town Board.pdf, Exhibit 1.pdf, Exhibit 2.pdf; Exhibit 3.pdf;
Exhibit 4.pdf, Exhibit 5.pdf
Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members:
Regarding the above-referenced appeal, please see the attached letter from John C. Armentano, dated March 14, 2023,
with Exhibits 1-5, submitted on behalf of the applicant, MKS Realty, LLC. Please confirm receipt.
Thank you. � U ..•�.N • • '�—_I; p':;
a
Best regards,
Philip A. Butler, Esq. MAP 1 22023
Counsel
FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. E
100 Motor Parkway, Suite 300 1 Hauppauge, NY 11788 `+ c .;f
Direct: (631) 367-0704 1 Fax: (631) 367-07861 Mobile: (516) 254-1557 ---- - - - _"
Email: pbutler(')farrellfritz.com I Website: www.farrellfritz.com
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review,
retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive
this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the material from any
computer.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
�_ _ FARRELLFRITZP.�
AriTIANLYS
John C.Armentano
Partner
Direct Dial:631.367.0719 100 Motor Parkway
Direct Fax:631.367.0788 Suite 300
Icarmentano@farrellfritz.com Hauppauge,NY 11788
www.farrellfritz.com
Our File No.
39642-100
March 14, 2023
BY EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Supervisor Scott A. Russell and
Members of the Town of Southold Town Board RECEIVED
53095 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 MAR 1 4 2023
Re: In the Matter of the Application of MKS Realty, LLC
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal Southold Town Clerk
SCTM: 1000-054.00-04.00-020.000
Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members:
As you know, this firm represents MKS Realty, LLC ("MKS") in the above-referenced appeal
before the Town of Southold Town Board in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of
Review(the"Town Board").We submit this letter to supplement the record in this proceeding and
to clarify and correct certain information and statements presented at the public hearing on
February 28, 2023. For the reasons set forth herein, and upon the documents and information
produced at the hearing, the Town Board should grant MKS' appeal for a variance from Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code (the "Town Code") to allow the construction of a single-family
dwelling and other improvements on the above-referenced property on North Sea Drive.
At the outset, the Board should adopt a finding that MKS' proposed dwelling is properly situated
based upon its distance from the landward toe of the primary dune, which is the "Natural
Protective Feature" on the property. MKS has demonstrated through documentary evidence and
professional testimony that its development proposal complies with the seaward limit of
development,as established by this Board's own precedent in the prior appeals of Bombara(1725
North Sea Drive) and Betsch (2325 North Sea Drive). Both of those decisions granted variances
for residential development seaward of the CEHA Line, but landward of the landward toe of the
primary dune. The presence of other lines and boundaries on the subject property, such as the
"pier line" and the FEMA flood protections zones, is irrelevant for purposes of this appeal.
Furthermore, MKS, and prior applicants, have demonstrated to this Board that the beach and
primary dune along North Sea Drive have been stable since at least the 1950s, and in fact, have
accreted (expanded)over the last 60+years.They are presently the largest they have been since
at least 1957. Nonetheless, MKS' proposed development will be entirely landward of the seaward
ALBANY I NEW YORK I UNIONDALE I WATER MILL
'F'
FARRELLFRITZP.d_
ATTORNEYS
John C.Armentano
Partner
Direct Dial:631.367.0719 100 Motor Parkway
Direct Fax:631.367.0788 Suite 300
jcarmentano@farrellfritz.com Hauppauge, NY 11788
www.farrellfritz.com
Our File No.
39642-100
March 14, 2023
BY EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Supervisor Scott A. Russell and
Members of the Town of Southold Town Board RECEIVED
53095 Main Rd
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 MAR 14 2023
Re: In the Matter of the Application of MKS Realty, LLC
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal Southold Town Clerk
SCTM: 1000-054.00-04.00-020.000
Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members:
As you know, this firm represents MKS Realty, LLC ("MKS") in the above-referenced appeal
before the Town of Southold Town Board in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of
Review(the"Town Board").We submit this letter to supplement the record in this proceeding and
to clarify and correct certain information and statements presented at the public hearing on
February 28, 2023. For the reasons set forth herein, and upon the documents and information
produced at the hearing, the Town Board should grant MKS' appeal for a variance from Chapter
111 of the Southold Town Code (the "Town Code") to allow the construction of a single-family
dwelling and other improvements on the above-referenced property on North Sea Drive.
At the outset, the Board should adopt a finding that MKS' proposed dwelling is properly situated
based upon its distance from the landward toe of the primary dune, which is the "Natural
Protective Feature"on the property. MKS has demonstrated through documentary evidence and
professional testimony that its development proposal complies with the seaward limit of
development,as established by this Board's own precedent in the prior appeals of Bombara(1725
North Sea Drive) and Betsch (2325 North Sea Drive). Both of those decisions granted variances
for residential development seaward of the CEHA Line, but landward of the landward toe of the
primary dune. The presence of other lines and boundaries on the subject property, such as the
"pier line" and the FEMA flood protections zones, is irrelevant for purposes of this appeal.
Furthermore, MKS, and prior applicants, have demonstrated to this Board that the beach and
primary dune along North Sea Drive have been stable since at least the 1950s, and in fact, have
accreted(expanded)over the last 60+years.They are presently the largest they have been since
at least 1957. Nonetheless, MKS' proposed development will be entirely landward of the seaward
ALBANY I NEW YORK I UNIONDALE I WATER MILL
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 2
limit of development established in Bombara and Betsch and will leave the primary dune and the
adjoining beach completely undisturbed. In total, MKS will preserve approximately 23,100 square
feet of natural open space—an area larger than most of the adjoining properties that are already
developed with single-family homes—and will revegetate another 7,300 square feet of the
property with native, non-fertilizer-dependent plant species. All areas of the site that are not
developed will be preserved as a permanent "non-disturbance buffer area". The proposal
incorporates several other environmental protection measures, including those measures
required by the Board when it granted the Bombara application.
In stark contrast, the assertions of environmental harm alleged by certain audience members at
the hearing were completely unsubstantiated. The specific claims that MKS' proposal will
destabilize or degrade the primary dune, beach, or natural habitat on the property were baseless
speculation that were soundly disproven by the professional testimony and exhibits provided by
MKS' consultants. Moreover, the claim of self-created hardship is not one of the enumerated
criteria for the granting or denial of the variance and should be disregarded accordingly.
Indeed, the record shows that MKS amply demonstrated its satisfaction of each of the variance
criterion set forth in Section 111-20 of the Town Code. Based upon that showing, and the binding
precedent in Bombara and Betsch, the Board should grant MKS' variance application, as
presented.
Background
As the Board is aware, MKS seeks permission to construct a new single-family dwelling, with
garage, deck, pool, gravel driveway, onsite sanitary system, and other accessory residential
improvements on a vacant parcel (SCTM: 100-54-4-20) on the north side of North Sea Drive in
the Town of Southold. On December 27, 2022, the Town of Southold Board of Trustees ("Board
of Trustees") denied MKS' application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 111 of the Town of
Southold Town Code upon a finding that "the project, as applied for, is not permitted under
Chapter 111 insofar as it is located in a primary dune area..." and "will have a detrimental effect
upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town...and adversely weaken or
undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity' (see Exhibit "1" [Trustees Denial]).'
MKS timely appealed to this Board seeking a variance from Chapter 111 of the Town Code
seeking permission to construct a dwelling seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Line(the
"GENA Line") established by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and
within the primary dune area that extends from North Sea Drive to the beach abutting the Long
Island Sound.
The Board conducted the public hearing on MKS' appeal on February 28, 2023, after which it
reserved for decision and held the record open for additional submissions. MKS timely submits
the within letter and exhibits in further support of its appeal and as further justification,for granting
of the requested variance from Chapter 111 of the Town Code.
' The Board of Trustees also denied MKS' request for a wetlands permit pursuant to Chapter 275 of the
Town Code. Because that decision was not appealable to this Board, it is the subject of an Article 78
proceeding that is currently pending before the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, captioned MKS Realty,
LLC v Town of Southold Board of Trustees(Index No. 601105/2023).
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 3
The CEHA Line
Two lines are relevant for purposes of this appeal: the CEHA Line established by the DEC, and
the seaward limit of development previously established by this Board in prior cases, most notably
Bombara and Betsch.The CEHA Line triggers the need for the variances from the Board,whereas
the seaward limit of development establishes precedent for what constitutes the buildable area
on properties on the north side of North Sea Drive. To be clear, MKS seeks a variance from the
CEHA Line to allow for the construction of a new single-family dwelling on its property. The
seaward limit of development established by this Board's precedent in Bombara and Betsch is
cited as the relevant guidance for identifying the proper seaward limit of development on MKS'
property on this appeal.
On April 15, 2008, the DEC issued a memorandum in connection with the Bombara application in
which it explained the rationale behind the location of the CEHA Line. It wrote:
...the landward limit line of the natural protective feature area (a.k.a. the CEHA
line)was mapped based on the determination that the primary dune was the most
landward protective feature. North Sea Drive was built on a portion of this primary
dune. During the initial mapping phase which occurred over twenty years ago and
was concluded by a public hearing, a decision was made to place the CEHA line
along the north edge of North Sea Drive instead of continuing further landward to
a point 25 feet from the landward toe.
As a result.of the DEC's decision, the subject property, like Bombara's and Betsch's properties,
is entirely seaward of the CEHA Line. Consequently, development of MKS' property, also like
Bombara's and Betsch's, is subject to Chapter 111 of the Town Code. The need for the variance
from Chapter 111 of the Town Code is triggered,by the fact that the construction of a single-family
dwelling on a vacant parcel is regulated activity that is not specifically contemplated by Section
111-13 of the Town Code. None of these facts are in dispute.
Notably, previously filed applications approved by this Board and the Board of Trustees, including
Bombara and Betsch, recognized that there has been no history of erosion to the beachfront or
dune systems in this area. This fact is important because the purpose of the CEHA regulations is
not to prohibit development, but rather, to protect development in areas where erosion has
occurred. The State's mere placement of the CEHA Line on a map is not definitive proof that
erosion has or will occurred in a given location. Indeed, MKS' consultants, and past applicants,
have submitted evidence to this Board that the beach and dunes in this area have been stable for
over 60 years.
The major issue the Board deliberated at the public hearing on February 28th involved the proper
limit of seaward development based upon the location.of the landward primary dune ridge, which
spans the entire length of the properties on the north side of North Sea Drive. As explained at the
hearing, the Board's prior decisions in Bombara and Betsch provide the most recent precedent
on this issue, and they both hold that the proper seaward limit of development is eight (8) feet
landward of the landward toe of the primary dune ridge, as shown in Exhibit"2".
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 4
Turning first to Betsch, decided in 2004, the approval for that project clearly contemplated the
primary dune ridge seaward of the residence as the Natural Protective Feature setting the
boundary of development.The Authorization, dated February 16, 2005, reads"the dune seaward
of the house [shall] be restored to the height of the existing dune to the east and west ... with no
disturbance of the existing beach vegetation seaward and east and west of the existing house ...
The primary dune area seaward of the house will be planted property line to property line." (see
Exhibit"3", p. 1). However,the Town Board did not focus specifically on the location of the primary
dune ridge until its later decision in Bombara.
The focal point of the Bombara application was the proper location of the primary dune and
ensuring that the construction of Mr. Bombara's home did encroach upon the dune ridge. After
several years of proceedings, the landward toe of the primary dune ridge was established by Mr.
Bombara's consultant and confirmed by the Town's Coastal Management Specialist, Robert E.
Herrmann, thereby establishing the "Herrmann Line". Ultimately, Mr. Herrmann concluded that
although the entirety of Mr. Bombara's property is seaward of the CEHA Line and within a primary
dune area, Mr. Bombara could construct his then-proposed residence, if all activities were
restricted to the portions of the property 8 to 10 feet landward of the landward toe of the dune
ridge. The Town Board adopted Mr. Herrmann's conclusions in its written decision approving the
project (see Exhibit "2', p. 14). Mr. Herrmann also developed the other mitigation measures
imposed on Bombara's project, such as requiring non-disturbance buffers, a vegetative
restoration plan, stormwater management infrastructure, and a prohibiting fertilizer-dependent
plants (id. at p. 16), all of which have been incorporated into MKS' proposal.
Like Bombara, MKS has identified the location of the landward toe of the primary dune ridge on
its property and has designed the project to be entirely landward of that line across the entire site.
A temporary fence will be installed to delineate the limit of disturbance to ensure that the dune
will not be impacted during construction activities, and all impacted areas of the site will be
revegetated post-construction pursuant to Land Use's revegetation plan. Accordingly, the Board
should adhere to its precedent in Bombara and Betsch and permit MKS to construct its dwelling
on the condition that there be no disturbance seaward of the landward toe of the primary dune
ridge, as identified by MKS' geologist and other consultants.
Since the public hearing, MKS has commissioned a second study of the landward limit of the
primary dune ridge and its relation to the proposed development on MKS' property. The report
prepared by Coastal Planning & Engineering of NY, P.C., dated March 13, 2023, is attached
hereto as Exhibit 'W'. The report concludes that the landward limit of the dune ridge is 12 to 15
feet seaward of the proposed dwelling structure on MKS' property (see Exhibit "4", p. 8). It
concludes further that all development on MKS' property is "landward of the dune system", and
that "the property is well protected by the berm and dune features seaward of the proposed
structure" (id. at p. 12). Therefore, MKS has demonstrated that its project will comply with the
"Herrmann Line" that has been previously used to establish.the seaward limit of recent
development on properties on North Sea Drive.
To the extent other lines and boundaries exist on the subject property, they are not relevant to
setting the seaward limit of development. The "pier line", by code, applies to docks and other
maritime structures (see Town Code § 275-2 [defining "pier line" as "[t]he average seaward
projection of one or more existing permitted docks, piers, wharves or floats"). Nevertheless, the
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 5
development proposal was designed to honor the "pier line" established by the location of the
adjoining homes to the east and west such that the proposed dwelling does not extend farther
seaward than either of the adjoining residences, as demonstrated in the exhibits submitted at the
February 28th public hearing (see Sheet RM-1).
Additionally, the reference made by one of the hearing participants regarding the location of the
FEMA flood zones is, likewise, irrelevant. As demonstrated in the application and discussed
during the hearing, the proposed dwelling and accessory improvements will be constructed on
pilings and utilizing flood resistant design and construction methods. The fact that the location of
the dwelling straddles the AE and VE flood zones is immaterial. In fact, the Betsch residence also
straddles this boundary. Nonetheless, the Town Board and its consultants determined that the
project was reasonably safe from flooding and erosion because that home, too, is constructed on
pilings.
Finally, while the subject property is in an area subject to the Town's Local Waterfront
Revitalization Program (LWRP), it is noteworthy that the LWRP reports have almost unanimously
rejected proposals for shoreline development, and that despite those objections, the Town Board
has previously—and correctly—approved those applications, with certain protections.
For all these reasons, MKS submits that the proposed dwelling and accessory structures are
properly located landward of the landward toe of the primary dune ridge, as identified and mapped
by MKS' geologist and other professional consultants..
MKS'Satisfies All Criteria for a Variance Under Town Code-6 111-20
Pursuant to Town Code § 111-24, the Town Board serves as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board
of Review, with authority to hear and decide appeals for variances from Chapter 111 of the Town
Code. In deciding whether to grant such variances, the Board must decide whether strict
application of Chapter 111 would impose "practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship" upon the
applicant (see Town Code § 111-20).
In the instant appeal, strict application of Chapter 111 to MKS would result in practical difficulty
and unnecessary hardship because the subject property cannot be developed to any extent
without the requested variance. This same difficulty and hardship served as the basis for the
Board's prior decision in Bombara(see Exhibit"2", p. 14). Therefore, MKS should be granted the
variance it seeks upon a showing that it meets the relevant criteria for a variance, as set forth in
Section 111-20 of the Town Code.
MKS' Ecologist, Kelly Risotto, fully addressed each of the criteria required for a variance from
Chapter 111 of the Town Code at the public hearing on February 28, 2023. Her testimony,
summarized again below, amply demonstrates MKS' entitlement to the requested variance.
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 6
1. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available.
At the outset, MKS does not own any other property on North Sea Drive or elsewhere in the Town
of Southold. Therefore, the subject property is the only viable location for MKS to construct its
proposed single-family dwelling.
There is also no other reasonable or prudent site for the proposed residence on the subject
property. As explained by Ms. Risotto, the site topography consists roughly of three zones: the
beach, the vegetated dune ridge, and the southern third of the property nearest to North Sea
Drive. Because MKS is prohibited from building on the beach and the dune ridge, which take up
two-thirds of the property, the southern third of the property is the only viable location for the
proposed dwelling.Thus, all development has been pushed landward to be as close to North Sea
Drive as possible while still maintaining zoning setbacks that are both comparable to MKS'
neighbors and that allow adequate space for parking and drainage needed for the home. MKS'
proposed dwelling is at its closest only one foot closer to North Sea Drive than Bombara's, which
was also situated to accommodate onsite parking and drainage infrastructure in the front yard.
MKS has also taken steps to further concentrate the proposed development and preserve open
space by, among other things, relocating the proposed pool to the east side of the dwelling,
instead of behind it; reducing the size of the proposed driveway; reducing the proposed front entry
stairs; and eliminating accessory structures, including a proposed gazebo and catwalk.
The,proposal allows MKS to construct a dwelling of a size that is commensurate with the size of
its property while maintaining 79.4% of the property as a permanent "non-disturbance buffer
zone". It also respects the seaward line of development that existed on North Sea Drive in 1994,
just three years after the Town enacted Chapter 111 of the Town Code The enclosed Exhibit"5"
from Land Use, dated March 9, 2023, depicts the line of seaward development in 1994 overlaid
on an aerial image of the north side of North Sea Drive today. The proposed development, which
is also depicted, will be landward of this line of development in the same way it will be landward
of the line of development established in Bombara and Betsch.
MKS respectfully submits that the plan utilizes the only reasonable and prudent site on the subject
property and that it incorporates reasonable measures to concentrate the development and
maximize the preservation of the beach, the dune ridge, and the overall natural environment on
the property.
2. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural
systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's
design at the property owner's expense.
The exhibits to Land Use's Project Narrative entitled "Dry Shoreline Change", and "Vegetated
Dune Limit"show that the beach and dune ridge along the entirety of North Sea Drive have been
stable since at least 1957, and that they have in fact accreted (expanded)over the last 60+years.
Ms. Risotto and MKS' geologist, Doug Adams, both confirmed this information at the public
hearing.A similar finding was made when this Board approved the variance for the Betsch project
in November 2004.
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 7
Notwithstanding the demonstrated stability of the beach and dune system, MKS has made
substantial modifications to its design in response to the Town's concerns, as described above.
MKS has also incorporated specific mitigation measures imposed by the Town Board when it
approved the Bombara application. Specifically, in Bombara, the Town Board required that the
applicant, among other things:
• Install and maintain a fence limiting the area of disturbance for the duration of construction
• Located all structures and construction at least 8 feet from the landward dune/beach ridge
(the"Herrmann Line")
• Maintain all undisturbed portions of the property as a non-disturbance buffer
• Restore all disturbed area with native, nonfertilizer-dependent species
• Avoid the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and similar chemicals
• Install leaders, gutters, and drywells to capture stormwater runoff
MKS has committed to all these same conditions, and has already incorporated them into its
project design. Specifically, previously indicated, all development will entirely landward of the
landward dune/beach ridge on the property. The proposal will preserve 23,100 square feet of
open space that will not be disturbed, and will restore an additional 7,300 square feet of disturbed
land area with native, nonfertilizer dependent species. Finally, the project design calls for roof
leaders, gutters, and drywells, which are shown on the plans provided.
Notwithstanding the foregoing information, which was presented to the Board at the public
hearing, certain members of the public and a representative from the North Fork Environmental
Council objected to the project based upon alleged environmental harm. Generally, these
comments alleged destabilization of the dune system and the beach, and overall degradation of
the natural environment. None of the objectors provided actual data or evidence to support these
assertions. Moreover, they are directly contrary to the empirical evidence produced by MKS'
consultants. Again, MKS' consultants have demonstrated that the beach and dune system are
stable, and that they have been for the last 60+ years, even after Superstorm Sandy and
Hurricane Irene. Furthermore, the subject property has not been identified. as a host site for
threatened or endangered species, nor for shoreline bird nesting.
The objectors' assertions are further belied by the known fact that almost every other parcel on
the north side of North Sea Drive is already improved with a single-family dwelling and various
accessory structures, and there have been numerous instances of construction activities
occurring on and near the primary dune ridge within the last 20 years. Even if those projects are
distinguishable from MKS' development proposal in some way, they are nonetheless proof that
the dune system and beach continue to be stable despite the presence of residential development
and related activities in the area. Therefore, MKS' respectfully submits that the Board should
dismiss the unsubstantiated claims of potential environmental harm that were offered as a basis
for denial of the variance as speculative and without merit.
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 8
3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage.
As indicated on the plans submitted, the proposed dwelling, decks, and pool will be constructed
on pilings that will elevate the structures according to FEMA standards. That said, the total
building elevation will be 35 feet from grade to the flat roof,which is zoning-compliant.The project
will also be constructed using flood resident design and construction methods, and will otherwise
conform to State and local building code requirements. The Town Board previously found these
same measures as providing reasonable safety from flood and erosion in both the Bombara and
Betsch decisions.
4. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical
difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance.
Because the entirety of MKS'property is seaward of the CEHA Line,there is no site on the subject
property for which a variance from Chapter 111 of the Town Code would not be required.
Therefore, the question becomes whether the selected location is the least disruptive to the
primary dune ridge and beach. For all the reasons previously submitted, MKS submits that the
proposed development, as presented on the enclosed revised site plan, is the minimum variance
required to allow MKS reasonable development of its property while honoring the spirt and intent
of Chapter 111 of the Town Code.
5. Where public funds are utilized,the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-
term adverse effects.
Public funds are not proposed for MKS' project. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
6. Other Considerations
Certain opponents of the project have asserted that the Town Board should deny MKS' appeal
because the hardship is self-created. Even if true, this fact is irrelevant. It is not a relevant factor
for consideration under Town Code § 111-20. Rather, it is one of the criteria set forth in the NYS
Town Law for the granting of use and area variances (see Town Law§ 267-b[2], [3]). The need
for the variances in Bombara and Betsch was undeniably self-created; Bombara desired to build
a new home on vacant land, whereas Betsch sought to rebuild and expand his seasonal cottage
into a year-round residence. In neither case did the Town Board count the self-created nature of
the variance against the applicant. Therefore, the fact that MKS acquired the subject property
after the enactment of Town Code Chapter 111 is immaterial to whether relief from that chapter
should be granted.
Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members
March 14, 2023
Page 9
Conclusion
Wherefore, upon the foregoing documents and information, and the documents, information and
professional testimony produced at the public hearing,the Town Board should grant MKS' appeal
seeking a variance from Chapter 111 of the Town Code. We are happy to respond to any further
questions or comments from the Town Board or staff.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Respectfully,
PO& e, Ameo maa
John C. Armentano
Enclosures
JCA:pab
FF\13377190.1
EXHIBIT I
BOARD OF TRUSTEES DECISION
QF_SOU_ Town Hall Annex
Glenn Goldsmith,President 54375 Route 25
A.Nicholas Krupski,Vice President
o '= ` r c:�
P.O.Box 1179
Eric Sepenoski Southold,New York 11971
Liz Gillooly 41C
G @, Telephone(631) 765-1892
Elizabeth Peeples .-® yo. Fax(631) 765-6641
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
December 27, 2022
Tom Wolpert
Young &Young
400 Ostrander Avenue
Riverhead, NY 11901
RE:;� MKS REALTY, LLC
1925 NORTH SEA DRIVE, SOUTHOLD
SCTM# 1000-54-4-20
Dear Mr. Wolpert:
The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on
Wednesday, December 14, 2022 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, Young &Young on behalf of MKS REALTY, LLC applied to the Southold
Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town
Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, and Chapter 111 of the
Southold Town Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, application dated November 18,
2021, and,
WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory
Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings
and recommendations, and,
WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed applications be
found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and specifically Inconsistent with the following
coastal policies: Policy 4 - Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding
and erosion,
1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard
areas. Locate new development which is not water-dependent as far away
from coastal hazard areas as practical.
2
a. NO DEVELOPMENT is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as
specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8.
b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal
Erosion Hazard Areas.
1. THE ENTIRE PARCEL 1S LOCATED IN THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD
AREA and the primary dune, a natural protective feature. No new development is
permitted on a primary dune.
2. The entire structure is located within a VE EI 13 flood zone. VE coastal areas are
subject to high-velocity water including waves, defined by the one percent annual
chance flood and wave effects three feet or greater. This means that the flood
has a one percent chance of being met or exceeded in any given year.
3. The parcel and any development on the parcel will be adversely impacted by sea
level rise over time.
Policy 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features;
Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by avoiding
alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition;and
WHEREAS, On October 17, 2007, a site visit of the area was conducted by
representatives of the Trustees, the LWRP coordinator, and NYS DEC Environmental
Specialist who collectively confirmed that the actions proposed on a neighboring parcel,
more landward than the proposed actions herein, were entirely located seaward of the
CEHA line and within a primary dune; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory Council resolved to NOT support the
application, as the proposed setbacks are too close to the wetland boundary within the
primary and secondary dune, and within a flood zone. They noted the environmentally
sensitive area, and any development of the property would deplete the natural habitat.
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said
application on August 17, 2022 and December 14, 2022, at which time all interested
persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the
premises in question and the surrounding area, and,
WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted
concerning this application, and,
3
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the structure, as applied for does not comply
with the standards set forth in Southold Town Code Chapter 275-12A. Adversely affect
the wetlands of the Town; B. Cause damage from erosion, turbidity or siltation; D.
Adversely affect fish, shellfish or other beneficial marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and
vegetation or the natural habitat thereof, E. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide
damage, H. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity; I.
Otherwise adversely affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the
Town, and J. Adversely affect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas; and
WHEREAS, some of the proposed structure, as applied for, is located in a primary dune
area with the proposed deck and proposed pool encroaching seaward of the proposed
dwelling into an environmentally sensitive area valuable to the people of the Town of
Southold, and as applied for does not comply with: 111-9 Issuance of Permit. A coastal
erosion management permit will be issued only with a finding by the Administrator that
the proposed regulated activity: A. Is reasonable and necessary, considering
reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity and the extent to which the proposed
activity requires a shoreline location; B. Is not likely to cause a measurable increase in
erosion at the proposed site and at other locations. C. Prevents, if possible, or
minimizes adverse effects on natural protective features and their functions and
protective values, existing erosion protection structures and natural resources; and,
111-13. Dune Area A. In primary dune areas: (1) Excavating, grading or mining of
primary dunes is prohibited; (2) Clean sand of a compatible type and size is the only
material which may be deposited. Any deposition requires a coastal erosion
management permit; (3)All depositions must be vegetatively stabilized using species
tolerant of the conditions at the site and must be placed so as to increase the size of, or
restore, a dune or dune area; (4)Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be
disturbed, unless such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity
approved, in writing, by the Department; (5) Nonmajor additions to existing structures
are allowed on primary dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and
subject to permit conditions concerning the location, design and potential impacts of the
structure on the primary dune; (6) Stone revetments or other erosion protection
structures compatible with primary dunes will only be allowed at the waterward toe of
primary dunes and must not interfere with the exchange of sand between primary dunes
and their fronting beaches, and
WHEREAS, the project, as applied for, is not permitted under Chapter 111 insofar as it
is located in a primary dune area; and
WHEREAS, at the Public Hearing on August 17, 2022, the owner of that neighboring
parcel, Robert Bombara, of 1725 North Sea Drive, testified that the Trustees must follow
precedence which established, in a prior application before Trustees, during the
application process and appeal before the Southold Town Board, through testimony
taken before the Board, the location of the primary dune in this particular area, and no
structure shall be located seaward of the primary dune line; and
4
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the request, as applied for, will have a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town,
and, adversely weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that for foregoing reasons, and because the proposed action is located
within the coastal erosion hazard area and in a primary dune area, and because the
proposed action is not permitted in such areas pursuant to Chapters 275 and 111 of the
Town Code, that the Trustees deem the proposed project to be impermissible under
Chapter 275 and Chapter 111, and,
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that for the foregoing reasons, the Board of Trustees DENIES the Wetland
and Coastal Erosion Permit application of MKS REALTY, LLC to construct a two-story
3,053 sf footprint dwelling with garage; a proposed 21'10"x 11'9" ( 253.5 sf) seaward
bedroom balcony with railing system; a proposed 10'4" x 20'2" (191.7 sf) mezzanine
level bedroom balcony& railing system; a privacy screen wall along the west side, and
a 6' wide spiral staircase to ground; a 1,484 sf raised deck with a 448 sf pool on
seaward side, privacy screening along portion of east side, a 3'9"wide stairs with
railings to ground to west, and a 3'6" stairs with railing to ground to east; proposed 10'
wide bar/grill area on pool deck; 513 sf of non-pervious front entry stairs; proposed
3,183 sf of stone blend driveway; 1,200 gallon underground propane tank, new I/A
OWTS sanitary system, ie. one (1) 500 gallon wastewater treatment unit and four(4)
8.51 by 2' effect. depth sanitary leaching galleys; public water service connection; new
storm water control structures for roof runoff and driveway runoff; approximately 480 cy
of clean material from the excavated areas will be used to fill the site to the proposed
grades; and all mechanical equipment (ie. A/C unit)to be located above the second-
story structure; and as depicted on the site plan prepared by R. Shatarah Consulting
Engineers, P.C., last dated October 11, 2022.
This determination should not be considered a determination made for any other
Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or
similar project.
Very truly yours,
Glenn Goldsmith, President
Board of Trustees
GG/dd
EXHIBIT 2
BOMBARA AND BETSCH DECISIONS
TOWN BOARD
COASTAL EROSION HAZARD
BOARD OF REVIEW
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
In,the matter of the.Application of
ROBERT BOMBARA
I.-725 North Sea Drive DECISION
'Slouthold,NY
SCTM-#1000-54-64-19
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
Based upon the application,documents contained in the Board's file,site
inspections and testimony received at the.public hearingsheld
don January 20,2009,
,
February 3,2009,and June 2,2009 and September 1,201-0,the Town Board finds and
determines as follows:
ISSUE
Applicant has filed an application with the Town Board,as the Coastal Erosion
Hazard Board of Review(the"Board"),dated November 12,2008,requesting the
following relief-
1. A reversal of the Board of Trustees' ("Trustees") October 15,2008
determination denying the applicant's
9 application for a permit under
Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas,of the Town Code,pursuant to
the-provisions of§111-25. -
2. In the alternative,and should the Board affm the Trustees determination,
the applicant has requested a.variance of the provisions of Chapter 111 of
the,Code as provided in§1.11-20.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A.Description.of the property:
The property that is the subject.,of this application is.16catedon.the seaward
-(north)side of North Sea Drive and.11s'betmi-een the Long Island Sound and North Sea
Drive. It is approximately 24,979 sq.ft.or.6 acre and iss-16cated in-the R-40zone,with
approximately 100$..of Toad frontage on North Sea Drive. Unlike many other properties
m this area Which are developed with single-family residences,this lot.has never been
developed. and d remains an unspoiled beach area. As.confirmed by the Board of-Trustees,
and abknowledged by the applicant,the property is located entirely within the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area('CERN)as established by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
4-
f
The applicant who purchased the property in 2006 is proposing to construct a
single-family residence on this lot with associated garage,pool,water supply and sewage
disposal system on this property.
B.Trustees Procedural History:
I. Applications
The applicant first appeared before the Trustees with an application filed in
October 2006 which requested a CERA permit allowing the construction of a 4,138 sq. ft.
2-story house(5-6 bedrooms),with 484 sq.ft. detached garage and 800 sq. ft.pool
entirely within the CERA. In its determination dated December 13,2006,the Trustees
denied the application,without prejudice,on the following grounds:
L The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council did not support the
application because the development was proposed seaward of the CERA and
is prohibited under Chapter 111.
2. The LWRP coordinator recommended that the proposal be found inconsistent
with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program as no construction is
permitted seaward of the CERA and that the proposal was inconsistent with
policy standard 4.1,4.2,and 6.3.
3. That the proposal was located entirely within a natural protective(beach)area;
4. That the proposal was located in an environmentally sensitive area containing
valuable habitat valued by the Town for nesting areas for threatened and
endangered species and for recharge of the aquifer and the proposed
construction would negatively impact an environmentally sensitive area.
Thereafter and in July 2007,the applicant revised its plans and submitted three
"alternative"proposals to the Board of Trustees as follows:
1. Alternate 1: 5-6 bedroom house comparable in size to the alternative
presented to the Board in 2006,with the garage attached and an 800 sq.
ft.pool on the seaward side of the home.
2. Alternate 2: 5-6 bedroom house comparable in size to the alternative
presented to the Board in 2006,with the garage attached and an 800 sq.
ft.pool on the seaward side of the home(sanitary system and shape of
the house is different)
3. Alternate 3:A 5-6 bedroom two-story. house(approximately 5,238 sq.
ft.).on piles with a 512 sq.ft.pool surrounded by an approximate 30 ft.
x 45 ft.brick patio.
II. Documentation in the Trustees Record
Additionally,the applicant submitted the following materials in support of the
application:
-2-
1. A report of Dm Associates,Inc.dated October 17,2007 discussing the
environmental impacts from the proposal and concluding that the proposed
activity complies with the permit issuance standards set forth in 6 N.Y.C.R.R.
Part 505 and that the issuance of a permit for development of the property is
"compatible with the CERA and Tidal Wetlands protection,since the
resources protected by either of these programs will remain unaltered by the
proposed home.
'2. A report from First Coastal,dated October 17,2007,concluding that the
section of shoreline upon which thisproperty is located is"dominated by low
profile beach ridges that are vegetated by mature shrubs and tree fronted by a
sandy beach and(m)argin of beach grass'
3. An affidavit of John Ehlers,surveyor attesting that there has been no erosion
at the site.
4. A coastal assessment report,dated October 2008.and prepared by Applied
Coastal Research stating that overall,net change in shoreline position since
1955 has been approximately zero,,which does not mean the shoreline did not
move during this time,but suggests that regardless of variation in shoreline
movement during this 52 year period,net shoreline location is generally
unchanged. The Bombara property.is outside the 50-year wave impact zone.
The record before the Trustees also contains a memo data October 2,2007 from
Environmental Technician,Heather Cusack and attached data regarding piping plover
nesting in the area of the property. The memo indicates that the attached data show a nest
east of Kenny's Beach in 2004 and a'2005 map shows a nest between Kennys and
McCabe's beaches. The memo concludes that given the nesting patterns,the parcel is a
piping plover habitat. Additionally,the memo points out that the State Department of
State included the stretch of beach east to McCabe's beach in the Significant Coastal Fish
and Wildlife habitat.
The record before the Trustees also contains_a memo discussing the
.environmental review of the proposal dated September 17,2007 which indicates that the
lot is located in the CEHA-and that the natural protective features on site include a beach
and primary dune.
On-April 15,2008,"the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation conducted a site visit to the property wherein the DEC confirmed:
"that the landward limit line of the natural protective feature area(a.k.a.
the CEHA line)was mapped based on the determination that the primary
dune was the.most landward natural protective feature. North Sea Drive
was built on a portion of this primary dune. During the initial mapping
phase which.occurred over twenty years ago and was concluded by a
public hearing,a decision was made to place the CEHA line along the
north edge of North Sea Drive instead of continuing further landward to a
point 25 feet from the landward toe."
-3-
,
On October 1,2008;the LWRP Coordinators submitted a written
recommendation to the Trustees that the proposed actions were inconsistent with the
LWRP standard and that the proposals did not comply with Town Code Chapter 175,
Wetlands,and Chapter 111.
117.. Public Hearing.
The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on August 22,2007 and on
October 15,2008 at which time all those interested were given the opportunity to speak.
Peter Danowski,Esq.appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented
information in support of the application,the relevant portions of such information is
summarized below. Mr.Danowski,pointed out the differences in Alternatives 1—3 with
a prior application to the Trustees by the same applicant that was denied by the Trustees
in 2006. Mr.Danowski also set forth certain information regarding the location of the
beach area which was verified-by the applicant's engineer,Doug Adams of Young&
Young. Mr.Danowski also mentioned that the Trustees had granted coastal erosion
permits to other property owners in the community,namely,Paskov,Betsch,Von Zubin,
Pearlstein,Rosicki and Sonnenborn;and requested that the records of each of those
permit applications be incorporated into the Trustees-record by reference.
Additionally,several members of the public and surrounding community testified
M opposition to the proposal. Those comments in pertinent part included the following:
1. That the proposal was inconsistent with the LWRP.
2. The Conservation Advisory Committee's refusal to conduct a full
review of the proposal because of its location seaward of the coastal
erosion hazard line.
3. Trustees should not allow nearby pre-existing construction to
legitimize new construction that is not compliant.
4. The applicant did not make substantive changes to the plan,and
therefore should not be considered by the Trustees.
At the October 15,2008 hearing,Mr.Danowski,again appeared on behalf of the
applicant and presented the testimony of Mark'Butns stating,that this particular beach
community has experienced accretion as opposed to erosion.
Again,several members of the community presented information in opposition,to
the application including:the potential impact of the rise in sea level and global.climate
change on the storm surge in the area and erosion;the proposal is located in a primary
It is noted that the applicant filed an appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hakard Board of the 2006 Trustees
determination which was never decided,and is deemed moot by the applicant's submission of an alternate
application to the Trustees.
-4-
dune area on a rare virgin beach,and there are endangered species and rare wetlands
located on the property.
IV. ?Trustees Determination
On October 15,2008,the Trustees issued a determination denying the Applicant's
request(for all three alternatives)for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit based upon
the following:
1. The Conservation Advisory Counsel provided comment that the
location of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line is landward of all proposed
activities,and,as such,a full review of the application could not be
conducted.
2. The LWRP Coordinator recommended that the application be found
inconsistent with the LWRP because the proposal was inconsistent
with Policy 4.1,4.2,6,and 6.3.
3. The Board conducted a site visit with the LWRP coordinator,and the
New York State Department of Environmental Specialist Robert
McDonough,which confirmed that the proposed actions were entirely
located seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard line and within a
primary dune and a primary dune is a natural protective feature
4. The proposed structures,as applied for,are located on the natural
protective feature of aprimary dune and governed by§111-13 which
prohibits all activities-in such areas.
C. The Town Board proceeding
On November 12,2008,the Applicant timely filed an appeal of the Trustee's
determination pursuant to Town Code 111-25 and in the alternative seeking a variance
r from the standards set-forth in the Code with the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of
Review(the Board). The Board held.duly noticed public hearings on January 20,2009,
February 3,2009,June 2,2009 and September 7,2010 at which time all_ interested parties
were given the opportunity to present testimony on the application.
Peter Danowski,Esq.,appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented
"testimony on both the appeal and variance request. The testimony presented on the
appeal reiterated the information provided to the Trustees as set forth in Section III
above. With respect to the variance application,-Mr.Danowski requested that the Board
consider the purpose of Coastal Erosion Hazard Law,i.e.to-protect property.owners from
erosion in conjunction with the expert reports entered,into the record indicating that this
sound front community has accreted. Additionally,Mr.Danowski also incorrectly noted
that the,Town is required to update the Coastal Erosion Map every10 years which it has
not done?
2 The Town does not have the authority nor the jurisdiction to change.the Coastal Erosion Hazard Map.
Pursuant to Chapter 111,the Town must follow the map as established by the NYS DEC.
-5-
Aram Terchunian,a coastal geologist,also testified for the applicant that the there
is no documented evidence of sea level rise in this area and,as such,it should not be
considered by the Board. Mr.Terchunian also testified that applicant meets all the
criteria for a variance,that the area where the applicant's property is located is dominated
by a series of beach ridges that have been deposited over decades and centuries and that
granting a variance will not destabilize the dune system.
Members of the community,also provided testimony in opposition to proposal
including:
1. Requests that the Town Board take into account the rising sea level and
that the coastal erosion hazard line may be moved further inland in the
' future.
2. The existence of homes in the area,does not provide a sound basis for
granting an approval.
3. A primary dune is a dynamic system and is a natural protective feature
under the Town Code.
4. The approval of this proposal with set a precedent for the undeveloped
lots in the area.
5. Further construction within the maritime freshwater inter-dunal swale
that exists between Goldsmith Inlet and Hortons Point weakens the
structure of the land and,as happened in East Hampton,could cause
houses to go into the water.
On April 3,2009 the Applicant submitted additional material into the record,
though the record was closed,and requested that a decision be issued. As the record was
re-opened by the Town Board as discussed below,the content of this letter and its
attachment were permitted to enter the record. Attached to this letter was a report of Dru
Associates,Inc.,Ecological Consultants,which purportedly addressed the public
comments. Most notably,Dru Associates March 17,2009 report acknowledged the
presence of natural protective features on site and generally stated,without any support or
indication of where the features were located that the function of the natural protective
features would not be altered.
Upon review of the record and prior to issuing a determination,the Town Board
on April 21,2009,noted certain deficiencies in the record with respect to the application
and determined to re-open the public hearing,to permit the additional materials submitted
by the applicant on April 3,2009 and to enlist the services of En-Consultants,Inc.,
Robert E.Herrmann,Coastal Management Specialist("Herrmann")to evaluate potential
.impacts of construction on erosion trends and on the naturalprotective features on the
property. More specifically,the Town Board requested additional information with
respect to whether the proposed construction was located within a natural protective
feature,whether any construction could be located outside the natural protective feature;
what impacts the proposed and/or any construction might have on erosion trends and the
site's natural protective feature and its functions and protective values;and whether and
how(i.e.via location,scope design,etc.)those impacts could be avoided or minimized.
-6-
On June 2,2009,the Town Board re-opened the public hearing and the record to
address the above issues that were not adequately addressed at the January 20,20095,
February 3,2009 public hearings. A letter from the applicant's representative dated May
29;2010 was accepted into the record and noted that the applicant objected to the Town
Boars reopening of the hearing.
Additionally,a recommendation from Herrmann dated,April 20,2009 was
entered.into the record which noted a critical deficiency in the record,most notably that
the applicant's site plan did not depict the most landward natural protective feature on the
site and therefore,that the Town Board could not ascertain the impacts of the proposed
construction on the primary dune. Once the landward geomorphic toe and landward
regulatory limit of the sand ridge/primary dune was identified,Herrmann could address
the questions identified by the Board. At the June 2,2009 meeting the Board directed
that deficiencies in the applicant's plan noted by Herrmann be addressed by the applicant.
Thereafter,the applicants' representatives and/or technical consultants met at the
property on several occasions with the Town's representative and/or technical consultant
to discuss the location landward toe of the natural protective feature. Based upon the
agreement between the applicant's consultant and Herrmann of the location of the
landward toe of the natural protective feature,the applicant made significant revisions to
its plans and,as requested by the Town Board,submitted a an amended application to the
Board on July 15,,2010,indicated on the Plan as"Alternate 6! This alternative was for
an approximately 1700 sq.$.(footprint)single-family dwelling on pilings with pool,
deck,garage and septic system,with a certain portion of the proposed construction
occurring over the landward toe of the natural protective feature indicated on the plan.
The revised plan was forwarded to Herrmann an&a public hearing was duly
noticed and scheduled for September 7,2010. On August 30,2010,the Town Board
received a report from its consultant with the following recommendations on the
Alternate 6 plan submitted by the applicant on July 16':
1. At a minimum any development should be limited in scope and
situated so as to avoid all physical encroachment on and
disturbance to the geomorphic limits of the primary dune,both
during construction and afterward to avoid displacement and/or
degradation of the primary dune and that all construction should be
conducted 8-10 feet from the landward toe of the primary dune.
2. The applicant could relocate and/or downsize the proposed
structures and incorporate additional mitigation measures to avoid
degradation of the primary dune and therefore the proposal failed
to meet the standards for a variance set forth in§111-20.
3. Impacts to natural resources could be mitigated with the
installation of leaders,gutters and drywelIs.
4. Limit removal of natural vegetation_and wildlife habitat and the
potential introduction of fertilizers by requiring that all undisturbed
-7-
portions of the site be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance
buffer;requiring that all cleared areas no built upon be restored
with native,nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a
landscape buffer and prohibiting the use of the such chemicals on
the site
5. Additional revisions to the site plan presented by the applicant
including the identification of the CEHA boundary;the depiction
of the regulatory landward limit of the most landward natural
protective feature;verification/update of the FEMA boundaries;
depiction of a project limiting fence and staked hay bales along the
proposed limits of clearing,grading and ground disturbance.
On September 7,2010,the public hearing on this matter was continued and all
interested parties were given the opportunity to speak. Mr.Danowski appeared on behalf
of the applicants with certain consultants to address the items raised in the Herrmann
report,most notably:
1. That contrary to what was suggested by Herrmann,the County Health
Department has the same septic system size requirements for two,three
or four bedroom homes and their for downsizing the home would not
decrease the size of the septic system and would not allow the applicant
to move the home closer to the road.
2. The applicant has proposed a house on piles and a cantilevered deck to
avoid heavy equipment on the primary dune and so that there would be
no intrusive building of structures within the primary dune area.
3. Mr.Herrmann's report confirmed that there has been no long term
erosion on the property-.
Members of the public again appeared in opposition to the application and
reiterated arguments that were made at the prior hearings. The Town Board closed the
hearing subject to comment by the applicant on Mr.H_erzmann's report and reserving the
Town's right to respond.
The applicant submitted a response to the Herrmann report by letter dated
September 21,2010 which set forth the following:
1. There was no reasonable alternative site for the applicant to
construct a single family dwelling and urging.the Board not require
that the location of the house be moved so that a variance would be
required by the Zoning Board of Appeals,since the Zoning Board
had denied a prior variance application to an adjacent homeowner.
Additionally,the area.between the proposed structure and the road
is necessary to accommodate the installation of a septic system and
to provide parking for cars. The applicant also corrected an error
in the record,the septic system proposed is for a 3.bedroom house.
-8-
2. The applicant offered:to plant supplemental native vegetation to
further protect the beach area. The,applicant also agreed to erect
and maintain a silt fence/hay bale construction barrier to protect
the area seaward of the,piag foundation. The applicant would
also consent to Wcondition that no mechanical equipment would be
allowed seaward of the piling.foundation area during the
construction activity. The applicant would also be willing to plant
vegetation under the cantilevered deck.
3. The applicant is willing to limit the introduction of fertilizer and
other contaminates and will supplement existing seaward
vegetation. No clearing will be performed seaward of the
construction area.
4. There is no need for approximately 8-10 feet of width on the
seaward side of the structures to protect the dune.
5. The applicant also agreed to install leaders gutters and dry wells;to
a condition that would require that the undisturbed portion of the
site.be permanently maintained as a nondisturbance buffer;a
requirement that all cleared areas not built upon be restored with
native,non-fertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a
landscape buffer;and prohibiting the use of such chemicals on the
site.
6. The applicant also submitted a revised survey,dated September 21,
2010 with the changes requested in the Herrmann report.
On October 4,2010,the Board received a letter from Herrmann that confirmed
that all changes requested in the August 30;2010 report had been made by the applicant;
that the applicant's consultant had confirmed that grading restrictions mandated by the
County Health Department would prevent the sanitary system from being moved closer
to the road and thatif the proposed development was going to be moved farther from the
primary dune without zoning relief,that the applicant would have to decrease or redesign
the structural footprint. Herrmann also notes that the applicant failed to provide any
engineering plan and/or construction narrative prepared by a licensed professional to
demonstrate and certify how-the proposed structures could be installed without breaching
the clearing limitation and damaging the dune.
No other comments were received and the record was closed on October 5,2010.
Thereafter and on November 12,2010,. the Applicant requested that the record be
re-opened for the submission of a letter to the Board dated October 13,.2010 regarding
certain County Health Department Regulations and a letter from Elderco,Inc.,a
contractor from Port Jefferson indicating the sequence of construction and how said
construction_sequence would protect the dune.
On November 30,2010,the Town Board,by Resolution No.2010-942,re-opened
the record for thirty days for the limited purpose of permitting the additional information
requested by the Applicant to be entered into the record and considered by this Board and
-9-
allowing sufficient time for comments responding to the additional information supplied
by the Applicant.
On December 7,2010,the Town Board forwarded the additional materials
submitted by the Applicant to the Town Engineer and Chief Building Inspector,for
review and comment. By letter dated December 8,2010,the Town Engineer submitted a
response for the record reiterating the recommendation of Herrmann that a minimum
setback between eight(8')and ten(10')feet from the landward toe of the dune, despite
the proposed construction sequence in the November 8,2010 letter from Elderco,Inc.
The Town Engineer also suggested that the setback include the proposed pool and patio
areas and/or any other site improvement that will be constructed with and/or supported by
the ground.
Finally,the Town Engineer also noted that the proposed cantilevered framing will
create the need to access the end of deck framing,the construction of which will
ultimately reach out and adversely affect the.dune and recommends that all cantilevered
construction be limited so that it does not extend over or beyond the designated toe of the
dune.
On December 28,2010,the Town Board received a letter from the
Kenney's/McCabe's Beach Civic Association stating that the Elderco,Inc.letter.
submitted by the Applicant that questioned whether said letter would qualify as the
requested engineering plan and construction narrative recommended in the October 4,
2010 Herrmann letter,and noting certain alleged errors in the letter. This letter also
points out that the content of the Elderco,Inc.letter is so general that it could apply to
any building site and that there is no documentation provided by the Applicant to confirm
that Elderco,Inc.will perform the proposed work on site.
On December___,2010,the record of the proceeding was closed.
APPEAL OF THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATION
The Town Board confums the determination of the Trustee's decision denying the
application for a coastal erosion hazard permit with certain modifications for the reasons
set forth below.
The CEHA program sets forth a series of regulated activities that require a coastal
erosion hazard permits if such activities are conducted within the CERA. Regulated
'activities are defined in§111-6 as:
The construction, modification, restoration or placement of a structure; or major
addition to a structure, or any action or use of land which materially alters the condition
of land, including grading, excavating, dumping, mining, dredging,filling or other
disturbance of soil.
-10-
The construction of a new dwelling,without question,qualifies as a regulated
activity. Furthermore,there is no dispute that all proposed activity involved in this
application occurs within a designated CERA and is,seaward of the coastal erosion
hazard line. As such,contrary to the applicant's argument that he should not have been
required to file an application for a coastal erosion management permit because the
project activity is all located beyond 100 feet from the Town defined"beach"area,the
:applicant was clearly required by the Town Code to obtain a Coastal Erosion Hazard
Permit prior to commencing construction-on the site.
Article II of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Chapter of the Town Code sets forth the
regulations that apply within coastal erosion areas and-requires a permit for regulated
activities in§111-8. Section 111-8 is followed by specific criteria for the issuance of a
permit in§111-9. Article II also sets forth additional regulations that apply in specific
areas of sensitivity(structural hazard area(§111-10),near shore area(§111-11),beach
area(§111-12),dune area(§111-13),and bluff area(§111-14)). If a proposal is located
within a specific area of sensitivity,these additional regulations and prohibitions apply.
In this instance,the Board of Trustees properly identified the portion of the
property impacted by the construction of proposed single family dwelling as entirely
within a primary dune area 3 This finding was supported by a letter submitted by the
Department of Environmental Conservation to the Trustees stating the following:
. . . the landward limit line of the natural protective feature area(a.ka. CEHA
line)was mapped based on the determination that the primary dune was the most
landward natural protective feature.
As such,the State had drawn the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line based upon the
presence of a primary dune. There was no evidence in the record before the Trustees
indicating anything to the.contrary. The applicant's expert reports also note that the area
of the property closest to North Sea Drive contains sand ridges(which qualify as dunes
under§111-6).
Section 111-13(A)of the Town Code sets forth permitted and prohibited actions
in primary dune areas:
1. Excavating, grading, or mining ofprimary dunes is prohibited.
2. Clean sand ofa compatible type and size is the only material which
may be deposited. Any deposition requires a coastal erosion
management permit.
3-It is noted that the applicant argues in its letter of Noverriber 12;2008,that since this area is not located
within a beach area,that the Trustees did not have jurisdiction. While the applicant may be correct with
respect to the location of the proposed construction in relation to the location of the beach area,the
applicant failed to address the Trustee's finding that the proposed construction was within a primary dune
area and therefore prohibited under§111-13(C).
-11-
3. All depositions must be vegetatively stabilized using species tolerant of
the conditions at the site and must be placed so as to increase the size
of, or restore, a dune or dune are.
4. Active bird nesting and breeding areas must not be disturbed, unless
such disturbance is pursuant to a specific wildlife management activity
approved, in writing, by the Department.
S. Nonmajor additions to existing structures are allowed on primary
dunes pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit and subject to
permit conditions concerning the location design and potential
impacts of the structure on the primary dune.
6. Stone revetments or other erosion protection structures compatible
with primay dunes will only be allowed at the waterward toe of
primary dunes and must not interfere with the exchange of sand
between primary dunes and their fronting beaches.
Section 111-13(C)further states that"[a]ll other activities and developments in
dune areas are prohibited unless specifically provided for by this chapter." The
construction of a new single family residence does not fall within the activities that are
permitted in a primary dune area under§111-13(A). Therefore,as determined by the
Board of Trustees,the proposal qualifies as"other activities and developments"and is
prohibited under§111-13(C). Based on the foregoing,the Town Board affirms the
determination by the Trustees.
While the applicant argues that the Trustees have granted applications for Coastal
Erosion Hazard Area permits to similar applications,the Trustees correctly distinguished
these prior approvals in that each application involved land that was already developed
and not vacant land,as is the case in this application:
1. Pearlstein was granted a CEM permit for a 432 s.f.addition to an
existing single family residence,an.addition to be constructed on
pilings above base flood elevation . No primary dune was
identified on the property.
2. Von Zuben was granted a CEM permit for a renovation of an
existin single family dwelling,placement of the house on pilings,
construction of a new deck,replacement of a sanitary system,
removal of concrete walls on property lines,and the construction
of a new gravel driveway. Construction was not proposed on an
identified primary dune.
3. Rosicki was granted a"CEM permit for the construction of a
proposed addition and alteration to an existing family residence
including a deck and sanitary system.
4. Betsch—was denied a CEM permit initially and was granted a
CEM permit only after obtaining a variance from the Town Board.
The CEM permit was for the construction of a new single fancily
dwelling and garage, in place of an existing dwelling,to be built on
pilings with conditions.
-12-
5. Paskoff was granted a CEM permit to replace a burned out existin
structure with a new single family residence with pool. No
primary dune was identified where construction was proposed.
6. Litner was required to obtain only a building permit as the
additions to the existing home did not constitute a major addition
under Chapter 111
7: Sonnenbom received building permits for their home-in 1989,prior
to the enactment of Chapter 111.
Furthermore,the applicant argued and presented information to the Trustees that
the property and surrounding area had not experienced.erosion and that the area had
experienced accretion. This information was irrelevant to the Trustees consideration
under Chapter 111. In this instance,once the primary dune area was identified,the
Trustees had no authority to consider rates of erosion. The applicant could have used
such information before this board to argue its entitlement to a variance and/or to the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,the entity having authority
to move the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line.
The applicant also notes that four alternate plans were submitted and considered
by the Trustees,however,each of these plans proposed construction that was-prohibited
in a primary dune area under§111-13(Q. As such,the fact that the applicant submitted
alternate plans that downsized the building is irrelevant and could not have been
considered by the Trustees.
For the reasons set forth above,the Town Board affirms the determination of the
Trustees denying the applicant's request for a CEM permit.
RELIEF FROM-CHAPTER 111
A. Standard for Variance Relief.
In the alternative to seeking a reversal of the Trustee's denial of a coastal erosion
hazard permit,the applicant has requested variance relief from the standards of Chapter
111 pursuant to §111-20. In permitting,the Board to grant such relief,the Town has
recognized that the"strict application of the standards.and restrictions of this chapter may
cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship." This section goes on to list those
criteria that an applicant has the burden of establishing that this Board must consider
when contemplating the grant of a variance from the strict application Chapter 111:
A. No reasonable,prudent, alternative site is available.
B. All responsible.means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on
natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated
into the activity's design ant the property owner's expense.
C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion
damage.
-13-
D. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the
practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested
variance.
E. Where public funds are-utilized, the public benefits must clearly
outweigh the long-term adverse effects.
B.Location of the Primary Dune and Finding of Unnecessary-H azdit
Prior to proceeding with a determination as to whether or how regulated activities
could be conducted on the applicant's property pursuant.to §111-20,this Board
determined that it would be necessary to identify and locate on the site plan.the
property's most landward natural protective feature-and its landward limit. As noted
above,the consultant reports submitted by the applicant refer to the presence of"beach
ridges"or"sand ridges"on the property which were readily observed by Herrmann.
Section 111-6 defines a dune as-a"ridge or hill of loose,windblown or artificially placed
earth,the principal component of which is sand" Additionally, §111-6 defines a
"primary dune"as the most waterward major.dune where there are two or more parallel
dunes"or any dune"where there is only one dune present"
According to Herrmann's August 25,2010 report,which is hereby adopted by the
Town Board,the beach ridge identified by the applicant's experts qualifies as a primary
dune under§111-6 and, as such,constitutes a natural protective feature. The landward
regulatory limit of the primary dune occurs 25 feet landward of the landward toe of the
dune identified on the property,as set forth in the definition of a"primary dune"in§1 i 1-
6. As discussed in greater detail in the-above section,entitled"Appeal of the Trustees'
Determination,"new construction is prohibited within a primary dune area(and,by
definition,25 ft.from the landward toe of the primary dune itself)and since the proposed
construction in alternatives 1-6 as presented by the applicant would have situated new
structures within the primary dune area,the applicant could not meet the standards set
forth in §111-9.
Since the 44 to 54-foot wide area between the road and the regulatory limit of the
primary dune is arguably insufficient area to place-even a minimally sized dwelling a
reasonable distance from North Sea Drive,this Board concludes that the strict application
of the standards and restrictions of Chapter 111 has created a practical difficulty and/or
unnecessary hardship for the applicant.
C.Analysis'of Variance Criteria
Pursuant to §111-20 the.applicant had the burden of establishing that he has
satisfied each of the criteria listed therein. As set forth'in f u thei detail below,the
applicant can satisfy each of the criteria,if certain conditions are met:
1. No reasonable,prudent, alternative site is available.
-14-
The application generally states that there is no reasonable,prudent alternative site
because the applicant does not own other property within the Town. However,this
standard also requires the applicant to consider alternative locations for the proposed
structure on property at issue in this appeal. According to the Herrmann report,should
the Town permit the site to be developed the reasonable and prudent location for the
proposed structures would be entirely landward of and as far behind the identified
geologic primary dune as possible because the dune,which was described-by the
applicant's consultant(Mr.Terchunian)as"typically very stable"and"dominated by
mature vegetation',provides whatever natural protection a dwelling can have on this site.
Alternate 6 does propose to locate the proposed structures-predominately behind the
"landward toe of the most landward beach ridge"as depicted on the applicant's site plan,
however,the structures would be located physically adjacent to the beach ridge and the
cantilevered deck would extend directly over it. As concluded by Herrmann and the
Town Engineer,if the integrity of the beach ridge were compromised or undermined
whether during or after construction,a reasonable,prudent,alternative site that situates
the proposed structures further from the landward toe of the most landward beach
ridge/primary dune is available on the site.
The Board finds that there is an alternative location on this pro erty to construct a _1Whome that will adequately protect the natural protective feature.
as -zi..:nL.:,.-:..%r•x. `e;rt/:u�tcr'�t'�.' a.'«c=i'.+ 'a`'ri�".a�4�2•-r:�•�t4�'t7=.Y`.;.riY-.0.. ''c':ssl
2. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural
systems and their,f snctions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design
at the property owners' expense.
The applicant argues that Alternate 6,which proposes a house on pilings and a
cantilevered deck,adequately mitigates potential adverse impacts within the primary
dune area. As noted in the Herrmann report,placing the house on pilings is a
requirement of FEMA,the federal regulatory program that protects the proposed structure
from potential flood and erosion damage and has nothing to do with the protection of or
mitigating impacts to the primary dune area identified on the plan. The July 15,2010
application(Alternative 6)did not include a discussion of environmental impacts,
including potential for causing increased erosion at the site and at adjacent locations;
potential impacts on natural protective fe_al and their function and value;and potential
impacts on natural resources.
In this instance,the most significant need for mitigation is that required to
physically protect and preserve the primary dune by preventing-its physical displacement
.or degradation both during and after construction(Herrmann report p. 3). While the
applicant agreed to place.a project limiting fence at the landward toe of the primary dune,
a-fence could not be maintained at that location during construction of the current
proposal because the swimming pool,deck and southwest portion of the dwelling are
proposed-physically adjacent to and/or over the dune and,the excavation for and the
installation of those structures and their foundations would necessitate workers,
equipment and machinery accessing the seaward side during construction(Herrmann
-15-
report page 4). This would ultimately breach the proposed clearing limitation line and
would disturb the primary dune. Additionally,after construction there may be loss of
vegetation that could result from direct shading by the cantilevered deck that would
extend directly over the primary dune(Id.). The Applicant has submitted a letter written
by Michael Burner,President of Elderco,Inc.,concluding that the proposed construction
could be accomplished without damaging the dune and stating that no machinery will be
required in the dune area south of the proposed fencing on the landward toe of the dune.
OEM_
the�T��, �-�E, n es 'ta- eieeu �Yzd 'tii;
E dgxo, .letter,has reilerat�cr recOeW,a
a i�r «3a•y.r.:,�•::ia+;3o-V•;Y'W . vc� n. `x � •
acid anfF"l e er4le l n pi
.,... .'toY.=mei'•" -
�`x}55'= ',g•a'a�S:1..-Y•!w:.et iLv�+�t.rf .ra fieto ader :.. , .`�'-e•t:s
fy-
,` r•- T•' '"� S "X"
� �.... K-i. c-sr• r-..,,•moo-;i ti�.$+i'`�- ���.y'-t f �� ��>3�?
Qund need const iz of r1� :4� a�S 05M e ni;
K•-y+I;;.!rK�kL-•F.cw� L �'''; �aT.l.•y�'..Z .\•+'S•=XG` A<S:r:^c t. �`i Y. -W^. .+•
arei,c'ros � mto-die=d �adaa urther,the Town Engineer has opined that
tie cantilevered style of flaming will create the need to access the end of deck framing.
This Board also notes that the Applicant has not submitted any engineering plans to
document and illustrate that the general statements made in the Elderco,Inc.letter are
possible on this particular site. As such,the Board agrees with both Herrmann and the
Town Enginee��?ats[ - xri� ` [ ii ;[eeYlnL�e ? f �; eatli
�€�� •e� `��'r�;a�,=". a ��tttie�ro� �fdc�ss�:�u �me _,• �.:a,:,.;�>. ��
' - ?1�.••-`...1-•.-`.••i"3�4Y:''4...- �,v��r•:L'.N.2•rt.Alf�,--:� ••3.'Rr f�ii�.ti:T,•�
1
tix s r
The Herrmann report also identifies potential impacts on natural resources that
include,but are not limited to the permanent removal of certain areas of natural
vegetation;increase in runoff due to displacement of pervious sand soils with structures
and impervious surfaces and the potential for introduction of fertilizers and other
contaminants. To deal with these potential impacts the Town will require,and the
applicant has agreed to take the following measures:
i.Erect a project-limiting fence and staked hay bales along the proposed limit of
clearing,grading,and ground disturbance prior to the commencement of construction and
maintained until the completion.
ii.The undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as nondisturbance
buffer.
iii.All cleared areas that are not built upon must be restored with native,
nonfertilizer-dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer
-iv.No pesticides,fertilizers or similar chemicals shall be permitted on site.
'ft,,-:Board�'t =tl t i}Ie:=.af 9uc solid do s d� l�eX a-conditionyjtlta allre:j
�+ , c'•� .r+:S.F Y: .. _ - -s.u.:i-•.c. .+ a:i•4r=w �.l�L;..� s•�;
._�
:St g es apd coristnigtr_i-ow place a i o '£e gin tl�i _ice iii? Zl:to_esQ fly
;dune will ad ~ ten ate epac) dVeeij?pa� s;o �namrl s �€ '
tl� ci-ions and v9up iii-adcordaffce titzt e� comrzie�i t o lie n f dF lie
~rT, i Engineer.
3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage.
-16-
The appeal presented by the applicant relies primarily upon technical reports that
document the relative stability of the adjacent shoreline for the past 40 years. However, a
period of stability along a given shoreline does not necessarily indicate that the shoreline
will remain stable,and regardless of its historical trends,any shoreline fronting Long
Island Sound is potentially susceptible to flood and erosion-damage during significant
individual storm events. To make this proposal as reasonably safe from flood and
erosion damage.as is possible on aproperty adjacent to the-Sound it should be
constructed on pilings,which the applicant has committed to,and by placing it as far
from the sound and a minimum of 8 feet away from the most landward toe of the primary
dune is practicable and will adequately protect the integrity of the primary dune to further
protect the structure from flood and erosion damage. Alternative 6 proposes to construct
a single family dwelling,deck,and pool physically adjacent to and over the primary
dune,which creates the potential for the degradation of the feature and undermines the
feature's ability to provide protection for the development and adjacent areas against
flooding and erosion.
4. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical
difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance.
The applicant also argues that the single family dwelling proposed in Alternatives
1-5 were relocated and reduced in size in the single family dwelling proposed in
Alternative 6,but does not specifically address whether or how the minimum variance
relief necessary to overcome the applicant's hardship. Alternative 6 proposes structures
physically adjacent to the primary dune,in part to a stated desire to maintain the 404t.
front yard setback required by the Zoning Code. The development could be shifted
farther landward of the primary dune and without requiring a variance by downsizing
and/or reconfiguration of the proposed structures.
The approximately 1,700 sq.ft.footprint of the proposed two story dwelling is
nearly twice the 850 sq.ft.minimum required by Chapter 28.0,and the swimming pool
and deck are proposed on the seaward side of the dwelling. Given the need to balance
zoning and environmental restrictions,placing the dwelling closer to the road and/or
reducing the scope of the structures,the development proposed by Alternate 6 is more
than the minimum relief necessary to overcome the hardship that is the basis of this
appeal and the applicant has not provided any evidence or proof to the contrary.
However, if the applicant moved all structures beyond a minimum of 8 feet of the
landward toe of the primary dune,this Board believes that the applicant can construct a
single-family dwelling and that this is the minimum variance necessary to overcome the
practical difficulty or hardship of the applicant.
4 The applicant has emphasized that this area has not had significant erosion and has actually accreted
through this proceeding to support the argument that it is entitled to coastal erosion permit. This Board
notes that it is not the authority that draws the coastal erosion hazard line and has no jurisdiction to do so.
Chapter 111 refers to the Coastal Erosion Haimd Area Map of the Town of Southold prepared by the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While this Board may sympathize with the
applicant regarding the stability of this coastline and the lack of erosion over the past 40 years,it cannot
remove this parcel from the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area and must apply Chapter 111,as written.
-17-
5. Where public funds are utilized,this criteria does not apply in this instance as
there are no public funds being utilized.
CONCLUSION
Therefore,in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein,this Board
grants the applicant relief from Chapter 111 of the Town Code upon the following
conditions:
1. All structures and construction occur a minimum of 8 feet from the
landward toe of the primary dune.depicted on,the site plan prepared by
Young&Young dated September'21,2010.
2. The erection of a project limiting fence and staked hay bales along the
limits of clearing,grading and ground disturbance prior to the
commencement of construction and maintained until completion of
construction.
3. The undisturbed portion of the site shall be maintained as a
nondisturbance buffer.
4. All cleared areas not built upon must be restored with native,nonfertilizer-
dependent vegetation and maintained as a landscape buffer.
5. No pesticides,fertilizers,or similar chemicals shall be permitted on site.
6. The installation of leaders,gutters,and drywells to control runoff from the
proposed structures.
The granting of this relief is subject to the conditions of such other permits as the
applicant has already acquired or may otherwise have to acquire for final approval of the
proposed project
Furthermore,this Board finds that the proposal is classified as an Unlisted Action
pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations,6 NYCRR,Section 617,and that the Board,
as Lead Agency,issues.a Negative Declaration for the proposal,with the above
conditions. Finally,this Board finds that this project is consistent with the LWRP
pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code,Waterfront Consistency Review,so,long as
the above conditions are adhered to.
Dated: January 4,2011
-18-
RESOLUTION 2011-68
ADOPTED DOC ID: 6510
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO.2011-68 WAS
ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON
JANUARY 4,2011:
WHEREAS,the Board of Irrustees on October 15,2008,denied the application of Robert
Bombara(the"Applicant")for a permit to construct a single-family residence on the premises
known as 1725 North Sea Drive, Southold,New York,under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas
Law(the"Law")of the Town of Southold;and
WHEREAS,on November 12,2008,Mr.Bombara submitted an application to the Town Board
of the Town of Southold,as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to
Appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative,seeking a variance from
the requirements of the Law;and
WHEREAS,the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation;and
WHEREAS,on January 20,2009,February 3,2009,June 2,2009,and September 7,2010,the
Town Board conducted duly noticed public hearings on the instant appeal with opportunity for
all interested parties to be heard;and
WHEREAS,that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the conditional
approval of this application is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations,6 NYCRR, Section 617;and
WHEREAS,the Town of Southold is the only involved agency pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations; and ;
WHEREAS,the Town Board of the Town of Southold accepted the Short Environmental
Assessment Formm for this action;and
WHEREAS,the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268(Waterfront
Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
("LWRP"));now,therefore,be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings
and Determination dated January 4,2011,and conditionally approves the Variance
Application of Robert Bombara in accordance with the conditions set.forth therein;and be
it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds no significant impact
on the environment and declares a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA Rules and
Regulations for this action;and be it further
Resolution 2011268 Board Meeting of January 4,2011
RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that,with conditions,this action is consistent
with the LWRP;and be it finther
RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly
asserted jurisdiction,separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas Law considered herein.
Elizabeth A.Neville
Southold Town Clerk
RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Christopher Talbot,Councilman
SECONDER:Louisa P.Evans,Justice
AYES: Ruland,Orlando,Talbot,Krupski Jr.,Evans,Russell
Updated: 1/3/2011 10:32 AM by Lynne Krauza Page 2
Zbwn B dL GlM Xi do AAmd
TORN Q� - P.A.Bay[1178
8 o"d.New York 11971
Faz(sem 7U.M45
aaooll� o � Touphma(��7easseo
aacoFna�om�► o�cout ��°
off=olrTM ToW cam.
TOWN OF SOUTH=
TBS B;To CSC?HAT TSS FOLLOWING B=M=ON M azo OF BM
WAS AWP'1' "7=PWAM"ZVB EMIG OF`MSOUTH=TOWN WABH
ON 161 zmal
WHEBEAS,the Board of m Aupd 28,2^da dad to spp oflohn Betach
(Ihe®APBlicem*for apatmttymft the Coast AmlonHsmd Attar Law(rho"Law")offhe
Tom Of Soudw d:=6
WBMWA.%onSWtmdw7A.20%ft.B wed as qpgmdmtvffieTom Rmdof
tba Town of 8audWW,ao*e gwvawM Co Board of RcWew,ewkM to
qVcdfire oftha of ox jnave S
flea ragW t+ommo ofdw Law,
WffiIEAS;the Town Hoau4 did tIwpo l k a copy ofthe ivaomt appeal m the Naze YOA
Depa tmuM ofEwhommemul COM and
WingtZI&S,oa Not► nft4,2QQ4,the TownBowdocadmW a dulynobn d pgbEcon
the iastat qqWwj*GWmwoftyfor an awed patfim to bo heard;and
'W MMM,onNovwjn w S,20K*oTuwABond mdvod a copyof a ham'famtite C""
Faoaion 1�aaaBonamd tart of the of hQ�oafal Couparwia g it is hemby
BBSOLVM that the To=Do"ofthe Tovm of SouudmM does hesebY ENWAR MORN
I
fa to be vw�
f 1 m s a dm n and ofsptchagW adW J371 of ft CONN
.' Bm M=dAw=Law,rose abm=ocfsLvwftwft=d&flovA Ii WhOW
Z. Mw witmia for a TwisaW as set fWM in§37--30 ofgo Coastal&.vdm Band Aces
Law bave bam m daflo4 as foUaw.
(s) SUW
spphcgdmof to WWMI *and rasnda m of&q CMM avdn H=d
Aman Yew w7tstd�e•ct tate Actio �tY
blip.WOM&asffiemdmWofffiaApps proPeftYis dMmiiu 60
dwWmW sd nMmt pwWctl a&M=ales. M mwk 0sa r Y modest
baa effe AppU=Ws seas mA ham to a yea4omdaad m w int
�p�m oa aoota�C+�1i�►nomad�mmaac��
WocjWMWmX
bsp mbfb M bpGwLm►. MomwM&eAppl 9W fG=*b to
maave etepdopoaadz9aoo ��gs�aof8ta�q►
dow of*t Law.
(b) A &ent mm no UUM aftais lbws onwM&W 0=&twt a loyoaet-Mmd�.
�,dtheusedp4 mWwtbsanedon=yo0 wpw ionofftpmpmy
r�,azt the twad ibt avar�oe.
(a) Appflaaat bas bmmpoSWd*U=VombU
vab�W b�
adveweiwpaet:ostsYa�
��b the s das3dtt at�e psnpe:tp o�es'a ampaaae. Tice
App 'a ptopeaal mleaeffiva Z ffiovmwctive area,by
o mucaft a bme on piTaaa,in mWR&=wilt all FBB"tophUOM and
macoacpoaadft an vs*M spa OOML
sofa&vm t]ood
� (d) �m�o d� �baaa submiteed ihat�s Pmpmc[3+
baa b accamia� iaeti+eomt yo�s- Given the used
tta�i�fin a iiontai�a�per,� will bo asset fcvm
pots flaod and etoal>an d tbm� ebact�
°) ° erg7horo wallbecomoed
° wd Hvkw sly Vi
aprpma�cnDelp 1,800 aq�foot ofd�� -
• ��5Oo met� , Tlds psopoeal a�mraace o�
11 33'A sbawe m aee®t soaaaoat aae a�atelia,SCh®avafs a
5OO Of
-ingot 1,80oxPac rat
ftanYod o�a�v dbbya m t bowILpxdking lot®din dw ism
boabood ofdatger rem hamM is m baqoml6 widi the dUrSOM afte
mdbww i4ata bmbwe apmm gWOvai ofthe praf act
(i) N*pobHa f m&=to be uffu ed in"]Project .
I
Upon ohm of tw hagh*it ii hereby iidw RESOLVED din ft
Toga Bond oftt Town of sauftu humby Sub idm Bewh= Dom
' mquda�emaQs of*o Town otSeaiold Cog"Jv w S�AnO I•�,to
tt o eatmt bb cwft=to itis 000dda�ed and
BE 1T FUB; MRRZ OLVM uwtMs de 4onby&o TovmBowd off39 TOVM of
So uWd ie mad u a TYP II mdm avec wM E review good
SB]TMEMMRMLVM&a V&deteWuom"mat aaac or doptfte MY of ff
yof its�vpaei�l aei�ed ��ttvm���8m
tt D E PT.
PEW*M6-kt4 0 1
A.Nam
snrro Ta=Ck*
EXHIBIT 3
B ET S CH AUTHORIZATION
Board Of Southold -Town Trustees
' SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK
n 8 DATE: Feb�._Lba...2005
PERMIT NO. .. 41 1........ _...
ISSUED TO . JOHNBETSCH _ ... . _ ._..._. .__._...._...... _.. ...__ .........
t vola
Putsuah# to ,the provwgn"s.:cf-Chap#A.. '615'of 1fie I aws, of
#ii®;Sfa a:af New,�YA. 1.693;and.�Chaptet_444'::of'tlie.l�nrvs of die
S#site of.New, Yor1c, 1952;:ana::the.SdiAhAd,Tows_Qedin6ncp.en
titled "RE6U,L:A�ING�AND�;iN�-;PIACING:�O��lOBUC�bQNS
;IN.AND N- TOWN WATERS ,AND PUBUCry LANDS ;a J'jk
-- RStvSOYAI .OF SAND. `GRAVEL-OR.�.OTHER;:MkTER1�tS.F.�4M -
LANDS.UNDER TgWN`WATERS': a_n`d in nccotdeoce wifh'tke
Reschdion of The Board adopted at a meeting held on
2005-..-T, and in consideration of the sum of s.lso,oq..._ paid by
_.._.._.... John Betsch............_....
Southofid' N.. 'Y: end subject #o the
1ein�ts. and'�Cgndifions� dsted'w on mfhe. 'reverse side hereof;
of S ;tkeld.Uw__*_Tn,tfy s,aautlia�a®i aed bo�inif _#tui:#olbwina'"
w and:pecm,t to constntct a,�ew single lly dwe I g and.garage,in pace oF0 sting;ao be buf{t un
pilings,ivitti,lfie-conditions itiatlhere.be.no turf onsite and;fhat:the duno'seaward_of the tion§e be,restored.
to tris.„eigtit.af tha_eicist 0 dune.to;lfie;westand plarited_with Beach.grass:(Ammop of ti�eviligulata):on
12”centers-at the coiripleUon of construction,wuh no disturbance of tris 0Akung beach vegetation seawapC
ti and east antl west ofttie existing tiouse and_irll:as'depicied iri the plan sunrveyed by:Jotin,C.Ehlers tasE,
revised 3=17_05, The;Pnrnaryilune:area.seaward of thd.house tylll be'planted p e lirie'lo p erlq
i,ne: at in accordance.vKitft the detaiwd s�ecttica tons 8s senteCt i�i
*0 origi"A ng_,6p I!",PM,
"IN
P -
"IN WITNESS WHEREt% The said Board of Trustees hiere-
by causes ars°:Corporate Sear to'be affixed, and Htese prosertts to
be ttb c�iL od, by'a..'tilalority:-of the said Board .as of thk date.
Peggy,_Dick.c.rson
' Artie Foster..:
r
TERMS and GONDMONS .
-. - -- - John_.Betsch_ _ _-
ss Southold.._ _ - - - - PL Y.,
th .d
e waddaadod fir the eraoae of the Ali ik doa tgdersgad anti prgatbe to the ld=
L That the aid ,hoard of Thatees add the Town of SmWwM are relemed from any dad
,ill dum%m ot:dabs fvr:'�ucsgesi of sdis ` oe a s- of o
7 J
:�effotimed.p it at x alt,;rig : ie. d` _k oec wr11 �iE: k 4W frac okra.ezpeam"'.
.&fwd..aay'sznd'ill*otic,suib`latdited;6f ditrd; atac dad itse ss d dao a oa-fu111abtt;tl:
. d - - _ =
wltb;stispac.thetrto pg- ?PZ 0a of-iiia Baard-of:Tinsteti of :of S6ut}atd
Z That,tits .,11 i"(1 J&.j.Oedod of !24 -ams:why fi dCaNad to be the
esoiioa ed.tlmc':requited
to`ao&tpteie•the,wo& lnvd 4 bot"shbnld drda nodes wseraaS, tegoest=
foe an eaa+stoa may be made to the Turd at a ,btet*ft -
S. Thio this Pelt dwWd be twined indeftaWy. or as long as the add Permkm whams'
oo'mdmuin the snuaare cc ptgjea lmdv4 to pmd&ertdwa to aarooe eomawd clot
aetpdon was odsbm ly oWeed.
4. That the wa&latoived will be wNea to the k0ectioa sod apiowd of the Dowd or
ks ajedts. add con-mmplisaoe with the ptoridods of the odglin sppliatioa,maybe awe foe
comdon of this Pcnmtt by setolttion of the avid Hoard.
S. na there wW be no dnrraoe ubfe interfaeoao with asdpdon as a resuk of the work
basin aibudzed.
6, lost dime"be co intedeivm whh the d& of she pwdk to pad dad tepw ai"
the bed&bet m high WA low water AWIC.
7. That if future opersdoas of the Town of Soodhwid re¢dm dw aemowi aWar Wkemdom
la fie loadoa at-the wo&fierda-a Embed, or 14 in the opidon af4w.Board of Tmssoet,dte-
wa&shill cense aw asoadde obsttua wa to free aaiadod, the add Paemleme,wtil bo nq dredi
uponclue dotter to remare or doer dds wo&or ptojea herda anted.witboitt espetnes to the Tom
- aE Eouthotd. .
a Mw the odd Board wl4 be notified by the Pemdttte at the eompleefoa..of the wodc Odik- -
g 'That tha.'Pemittee-:wW AWii on other peml s w d eorom dot aq be ngked trap-
plemeanl to this. ail be-tnbject to avolm tq m fiUm to data ame.
EXHIBIT 4
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING
REPORT
COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
March 13,2023
Transmitted via email
Anthony Vournou
1925 North Sea Drive
Southold,NY 11971
Subject: 1925 North Sea Drive Geomorphology and Resiliency
Dear Mr.Vournou:
Coastal Planning Engineering of New York,P.C.(CPE)respectfully submits this letter report documenting the
geomorphology study and resiliency quantification requested for the proposed structure at your property in
Southold.
We understand that you are concerned about the placement of your proposed structure.The design intent is to
build a structure that does not increase the probability of ocean encroachment when compared to adjacent
properties. This letter report represents a geomorphology review at 1925 North Sea Drive on Long Island
Sound in the Town of Southold. The geomorphology review utilized the Profile Feature Extraction Tool
(PFET)from the joint Airborne Lidar Technical Center of Expertise QALBTCX�Toolbox at 25-foot intervals
along the coastline (Robertson et al., 2018). PFET was applied to the 2016 (most recent) United States
Geological Survey(USGS) lidar data to compare locations of dune positions with the extracted PFET metrics.
The purpose of this work was to map the geomorphology at 1925 North Sea Drive along with adjacent
properties to determine if the proposed structure is similarly located to historic and recent construction.PFET
metrics were then applied to the Coastal Engineering Resiliency Index (CERI). CERI was calculated at each
profile to determine the relative protection of each property along North Sea Drive.
Study Area
The study area is on the Long Island Sound at the Town of Southold.Study area limits are between McCabe's
Town Park to Kennys Road Beach along North Sea Drive.The property in question is 1925 North Sea Drive.
Infrastructure Baseline
1925 North Sea Drive
StudyArea
ecCabe'
enny's Road ' ;•, _ own
BeachSea t5rive ark
'.1 16
Figure 1.Study area with aerial photograph and digitized infrsstructure line.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 2
Data
Digital Elevation Model(DEM)
The digital elevation model(DEM)was from USGS CONED data and were downloaded from NOAA's Digital
Coast on March 6th, 2023. The CONED data integrated over 321 data sources including topographic and
bathymetric lidar point clouds,hydrographic surveys,side-scan sonar surveys,and multi-beam surveys obtained
from USGS, NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), and other state and local agencies. The lidar and bathymetry surveys were sorted and
prioritized based on survey date,accuracy,spatial distribution,and point density to develop a model based on
the best available elevation data. The topographic lidar data were from the 2014 USGS lidar data set that
measured the Town of Southold.
Aerial Photographs
Orthoimagery were produced by New York State from Spring 2020 aerial photography(Figure 1).The service
provided a Natural Color view at approximately 12-inch resolution. The source orthoimagery was 4-band at
resolutions of 12 or 6 inches.For more information see http://gis.ny.Wv/gateway/mg/index.htmL
Infrastructure Line
An infrastructure line was digitized from the aerial photographs (Figure 1).The infrastructure line represents
the seaward location of infrastructure that includes buildings and parking lots. Decks and pools were not
considered infrastructure.Gaps between infrastructure were connected by a straight line from edges of adjacent
infrastructure.
Wave Data
The National Data Buoy Center(NDBC) Station 44039—Central Long Island Sound was used for wave data.
The buoy was owned and maintained by the University of Connecticut Department of Marine Sciences.The
buoy was located at 41.138 N 72.655 W in a water depth of 27 meters (Figure 2).Measurements included wind
speed, wind direction, wind gust, significant wave height, dominant wave period, air temperature, and sea
surface temperature.The time series ranged from January 2004 to present.NDBC 44039 had approximately 17
years of data available for analysis.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 3
044039 Golden Hill NDBC
Paugussett
(state) NOAA Tide Gauge
Reservation
0 StudyArea
48 Study Area Norwich
Plainfield
Hampton Bays
New London
102
2
Westerly
0 5 10 20 ®Montauk Esn,NASA,NGA,USGS,Esn,HERE,Garmin,SafeGraph,FAO,
MIIeS METI/NASA USGS, EPA,NPS
Figure 2 rave buoy and tidegauge locations relative to the study area.
NDBC 44039 measured significant wave height and dominant wave period.Waves in Long Island Sound were
primarily wind generated and wave direction was highly correlated with the wind direction. Therefore,wind
direction was used to describe wave direction. Maximum average wind speeds were 40 knots primarily from
the west(Figure 3).A significant portion of winds came from north and northwest that generated waves that
affected the study area.
NDBC 44039(2004-2022)
Wind rose [knots)
N
I
i
7'
E
,1
I f
/ 1 ■35-40
M30-35
1096�
■25-30
■20-25
15% �' E15-20
M10-15
■0-10
Figure 3. Mind rose ofNDBC 44039 wind da ta.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 4
Wave Return Period Analysis
Seventeen (17) years of wave data were analyzed to extract the large wave events (Table 1).Linear regression
analysis based on the top wave events yielded significant wave heights for 1-year,2-year, 5-year, 10-year,and
25-year return periods using the equation: Hs = 0.92*Ln(year) + 7.62 (Figure 4, Table 2). Wave heights are
referenced to Mean Sea Level.To get significant wave heights in NAVD88,subtract 0.3 feet.
Table I Lasge Wave Events atNDBC 44039
Rank Start Date End Date Peak Date Significant Wave Return Period
Wave Height Period (s) (yr)
(ft)
12/22/2012 12/28/2012 12/27/2012 10.2 8.00 18.0
1/6/2018 1/12/2018 1/6/2018 9.5 NaN 9.0
8/27/2011 9/2/2011 8/29/2011 9.2 7.00 6.0
1/7/2012 1/13/2012 1/13/2012 9.2 7.00 4.5
- 12/17/2022 12/23/2022 12/23/2022 9.2 8.00 3.6
3/8/2008 3/14/2008 3/9/2008 8.9 6.00 3.0
- 12/15/2007 12/21/2007 12/17/2007 8.5 6.00 2.6
- 12/26/2009 1/1/2010 12/29/2009 8.2 6.00 2.3
1/26/2013 2/1/2013 2/1/2013 8.2 6.00 2.0
3/11/2017 3/17/2017 3/14/2017 8.2 6.00 1.8
2/10/2007 2/16/2007 2/16/2007 7.9 6.00 1.6
- 10/25/2008 10/31/2008 10/29/2008 7.9 6.00 1.5
12/5/2009 12/11/2009 12/11/2009 7.9 6.00 1.4
10/9/2010 10/15/2010 10/15/2010 7.9 6.00 1.3
- 11/19/2016 11/25/2016 11/20/2016 7.9 7.00 1.2
- 12/10/2016 12/16/2016 12/16/2016 7.9 7.00 1.1
2/9/2008 2/15/2008 2/11/2008 7.5 6.00 1.1
12/7/2013 12/13/2013 12/13/2013 7.5 6.00 1.0
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 5
Return Period Analysis
Hs = 0.92*Ln(year) + 7.62
10.5
•
10.0
CUM)
LL
9.5 •
L
CU • • •
= 9.0 --
v •
> i
M •
2 8.5 Measurement
i- ----- —
'00
♦ ♦ ♦ Linear Fit
8.0 )
•••♦••
V^ 7.5 M
7.0
1.0 2.7 7.3 19.7
Return Period(Year)
Figure 4.Linear regression ofwave height vs.return period.
Table 2 Tuve Return Periods
RAM Period Hs (ft)
(year)
I1 7.62 6
I2 8.26 6
I5 9.10 7
10 9.74 7
25 10.59 8
Tide Data
The closest NOAA tide gauge that had a similar location to the study area (Long Island Sound,north edge of
Long Island)was the Montauk,NY Station 8510560.The extreme water elevation analysis was provided by the
NOAA Tide and Currents website (Figure 5).Water elevations for 1-year,2-year, 10-year,and 100-year return
periods were downloaded.The 5-year and 25-year return periods were interpolated (Table 3).
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 6
Montauk, NY
2.4-
2.1 --------------- 206-
--------------------------
Q 21------------
E
r1.8 ----------------------•-------------------•---•---------------
R
0
d �.1.0
J 1 -- A1_14 Annual Exceedance
r ° 07 Probability Levels and
v� -------------------------------------------------
o._ - [30-93----------
t Tidal Datums
D 0.76 1
0.6 ---------------------------------------------& ---------------- 10%
46
0.39 x A50%
x ----+0=�----------• 1199%
O 0.3 +Q31
d
x FAHHVV
+FAFW
C 0.0 A W1UN
*MLLW
> -0.3 ...........438*4L33--------------------------- 26........... N NA`JD88
J2
R
ate+ D-0.85
Go -0.4 ---------------&-0.92----------------------------- -----------
---------------- ----- --------------------------------------------------
<j-1.33
<>-1-28
1983-2001 2018
Figure S.NOAA waterlem1 datums with annual esceedance pmbabllltylevels.
Table 3. Water Level Retum Periods
Return Periocl1 Water Level Water Level
(year) (meters NAVD) (feet NAVD)
sp 1 0.81 2.66
2 1..12 3.67
1p 5 1.34 4.38
10 1.5 4.92
25 1.74 5.72
100 2.11 6.92
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY,SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 7
Methods
Profile Feature Extraction Tool
The Joint Airborne Lidar Bathymetry Technical Center of Expertise QALBTCX) has developed a tool to
process lidar and field measurement data in terms of transects and shorelines (Robertson et al., 2018). The
Python-based ArcGIS Profile Feature Extraction Tool(PFET) examines each beach profile and identifies the
location of the shoreline,dune toe,and dune crest(Figure 6).The shoreline is defined as the intersection of the
mean high water(MHW) contour line and the beach profile.Identification of the dune crest and dune toe are
relatively more complex.Conventional beach profiles using methods like RTK and profiles extracted from lidar
data are not the smooth representative profiles that are shown in reports and textbooks.The original data are
often noisy,thus using slope change contributes to multiple false positives and a considerable amount of manual
editing.The CERI tool applies a Savitzky—Golay(SG)filter to the profile data,which is a moving window low-
degree polynomial&linear least squares fit(Savitzky and Golay, 1964).The CERI tool searches the smoothed
profile to find the peaks in the profile,then locates the closest and highest point to represent a dune crest.The
tool then searches between the shoreline and the first dune crest to find the dune toe,which is often located at
the peak of the second derivative of the smoothed profile.
20
— 7tansect ID:30
MHw
is • Shorelne
Dune 7be
s. Frontal Dune
10 • Landward UmR
— Mean Slope
5-
0-
0 00
� -10
w
w
_15-
-20-
-25-
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range(FEET)
Figure 6.Profile 30 tha t intersects with the proposed house at 1925North Sea Drive.Landward limit is the
location ofthe house.
Coastal Engineering Resiliency Index
The Coastal Engineering Resiliency Index (CERT) relies on morphology metrics and local hydrodynamics to
quantify the protective qualities of the coastal system.The morphologic features of a beach and dune system
from PFET within the JALBTCX Toolbox provide the metrics for the CERI calculation such as dune crest
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 8
(DE),dune toe,shoreline,and beach slope.For disturbance factors,CERI considers maximum storm-induced
shoreline recession(MR),maximum storm surge(MS),and wave run-up(WR)using the Stockdon et al. (2014)
formula. The combination of the morphologic and disturbance factors yields five non-dimensional factors:
protective elevation(PE),volume density(VD),protective width(PW),crest freeboard(CF),and wave run-up
(WR).
CERI is the summation of five non-dimensional factors.The characteristic scales of the factors such as PEo,
PWo,CFo,and WRo are used to non-dimensionalize the factors and control the contribution of each factor to
CERI.CERT is calculated by applying the following-
PE PE _ PE*PW*(1-s) PW-MR (DE-(MS+MHW) WRO
a PEO' b PEO*PWO 'C _ PWO 'd _ CFO 2 _ WR
CERI = a + b + c + d + e
Where PEo, PWo, CFo, and WRo are characteristic scales of protective elevation, protective width, crest
freeboard.and wave run-up,respectively.The percentage of fine sediment is s.
CERI is designed to quantify the protective qualities of a coastal profile with the understanding that higher and
wider beaches provide more protection than lower and narrow beaches.Protective elevation(PE)is calculated
above Mean High Water and represents the height of the beach system for factor "a." PE is the average
elevation within the portion of protective width.Protective width(PW)is the distance from the landward limit
to the shoreline.The landward limit can be the baseline of the transects or the base of the landward slope of
the first dune.For factor"b,",PW is multiplied by PE to represent the volume of the beach system and includes
"s" which is the percentage of fine sediment. This is designed for Gulf of Mexico beaches where the large
presence of fine sediments increases the potential for erosion from relatively smaller wave environments and
not applied in this study.If PW is small,a high PE does not necessarily indicate adequate resilience of the beach
profile.The volume density is the total volume that considers both protective elevation and protective width
and represents the beach's ability to resist storms and recover after storms. Factor "c" quantifies the
susceptibility of the protective width (PW) to the maximum recession(MR)caused by a potential storm event.
Dune crest elevation(DE)is the highest point within the portion of protective width.Factor"d"quantifies the
beach profile susceptibility to overtopping by comparing the crest freeboard (CF) to the dune elevation (DE)
and the maximum storm surge (MS) above mean high water MHW. Factor "e" is wave runup (WR). WR
estimates the potential impact of waves based on the wave runup model developed by Stockdon et al. (2014).
Results
PFET and CERI were applied to the USGS DEM.One Hundred twenty-one(121)transects were generated at
25-foot intervals long North Sea Drive (Figure 7).The proposed structure at 1925 North Sea Drive intersects
with transects 26-30.Dune elevations for all transects ranged from 7.7 to 11.1 NAVD 88 US Survey feet(Table
4).Dune toe elevations ranged from 5.0 to 6.9 feet.Landward limit,or the infrastructure line digitized from the
aerial photographs, ranged in elevation from 5.2 to 10.8 feet. CERI values for the entire study area when
analyzing the 10-year return interval ranged from 4.1 to 5.7 with and average CERT value of 4.7.The proposed
structure at 1925 North Sea Drive ranged from 4.7 to 5.3 with an average CERI value of 5.0.
Landward limit of dune and dune crest were georeferenced and digitized from the Young and Young (2022)
building permit survey. These lines compared well with the 2014 USGS lidar data and the frontal dune and
infrastructure baseline interpreted in this study(Figure 7).The landward limit of dune was approximately 12 to
15 feet seaward of the infrastructure baseline and generally followed the transition from the dune to lower lying
areas landward of the dune.The dune crest followed the highest point of the dune system.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 9
a1dp
00
00
i M
,{ - i v PFET
Id
S Shoreline
Dune Toe
Frontal Dune
Infrastructure Baseline
li Transects
11► . .,' „ ,,,,� •"r n" , r --- Landward Limit Of Dune
s DEEP C. 6
01 50 1 200lig,e• *fmol, Dune Crest
1925 North Sea Drive
Figure 7. Color shaded to iefimage where reds are high and blues are low.
Table 4. PFET and CERI Sta tis tics
PFET Min (ft) Max (ft) Mean (ft)
Dune I 1 1.O0 1!.! ti
Dune Toe t i 6.92 5.77
Landward Limit )3 10.77 ,.12
10 YR CERI 1 ;.7 t,7
10 YR CERI (1925 North Sea Drive) 4.- ?.3 7.0
25 YR CERI 4,() 't.l
25 YR CERI (1925 North Sea Drive) -1.1 4.6 4.4
CERI was calculated for the 10-year and 25-year return periods to determine how CERI varies spatially along
the study area and if the 25-year return period would significantly reduce the CERI value. Return period
represent the likelihood of a storm event occurring that could compromise the infrastructure baseline. A 25-
year return period means that the storm event may occur once every 25 years.The higher the number,the larger
the storm but the less the probability.The proposed property at 1925 North Sea Drive performs better than
half of the surrounding properties for the 10-year and 25-year return periods (Figure 8,Figure 9).
The CERI values calculated in Table 4 were based on the landward limit of the calculation using the
infrastructure baseline in Figure 7.The landward limit of dune location documented on the Young and Young
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 10
(2022) map is seaward of the infrastructure baseline by about 12 to 15 feet. CERI using the landward limit of
dune as the baseline for the 10-year and 25-year return periods produced an average of 5.0 and 4.3,respectively.
CERI for 10 Year Return Period
6
•
5.5 ••
• • •
••f •
•
5 ,�`• •0 y
• qP •
69 0 00
w0
• •
•
• • •• • •%• •AII Transects
• • • • 4b
.Study Area
0' 0
•I•
4
3.5
3
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Transect ID(from north to south)
Figure& CERT values for the 10-pesrretum interval£or each transect with the 1925North Sea Ddve mnsects as
red tdsngles.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 11
CERI for 25 Year Return Period
6
5.5
5
•
•
•
4.5 '.�f • •~ •All Transects
• • • .Study Area
A� • • • •~A
•
3.5
•w
3
G 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Transect ID(from north to south)
Figure 9. CERI values for the 25-yearreturnintervallor each transect with the 1925North Sea Drive transects as
red triangles.
Discussion
The coastal system that surrounds the property at 1925 North Sea Drive has established berms and dunes.The
dune system is relatively large in height and width.The proposed structure at 1925 North Sea Drive is located
in a low area landward of the dune system.
CERI values for the 10-year return interval for this study were relatively high and ranged from 4.1to 5.7. A
previous study calculated CERI values from more than 7,500 transects covering five states and more than
757,000 km of coastline at the 10-year return interval(Robertson et al.,in review). CERI values averaged 3.1,
with a minimum of 0.4 located on the western end of Dauphin Island in Alabama, and a maximum of 10.7
located at the large bluffs of Montauk,NY.All CERI values were classified using a quantile distribution where
CERI values were grouped by frequency of values into low,medium,and high.The southern coastline of New
York had 2,025 profiles analyzed with CERI values that ranged from 0.5 to 10.7.Low CERI values (less than
2.5)were found on Staten Island due to low or an absence of dunes,Ocean Bay Park and Point O'Woods on
Fire Island due to low dunes and large gaps in the dunes,areas around and immediately west of the new inlet
on Fire Island, an area in Quogue at Village Beach where there was a low dune,narrow and low dunes were
found south of Shinnecock Inlet,and a narrow berm,narrow dune or no dune was found at Ditch Plains and
False Point.Low CERI values were also located adjacent to coastal ponds and lakes including Agawam Lake,
Mecox Bay,Sagaponack Pond,Wainscott Pond,and Georgica Pond.Downtown Montauk is a critically eroded
area where multiple structures are at risk due to coastal erosion and following a stabilization project where 945
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 12
meters of reinforced dune the CERI value remained moderate in the 2.7 to 3.0 range.Locations of higher CERI
values (greater than 3.1)were areas that had robust dune and berm systems that are able to resist large storm
events and quickly return to normal protection levels making the areas relatively more resilient.
The difference between calculating CERI using the infrastructure baseline or the landward limit of dune as the
baseline was insignificant.The 10-year matched the infrastructure baseline value and the 25-year CERI value
only reduced by 0.1.These values are well above the 3.1 threshold for representing a resilient coastline.This
indicates that the landward limit of dune has similar resiliency to the infrastructure baseline and provides the
same level of protection to the 1925 North Sea Drive proposed property.
This study produced CERI values that exceeded many of the areas on the southern Long Island shoreline.The
property at 1925 North Sea Drive exceeds most areas of southern Long Island with an average CERI value of
5.0.Anything at or above 3.1 is considered an established and protected profile.The relatively high CERI value
at 1925 North Sea Drive is due to the established dune system at the study area combined with relatively lower
waves and tides that would cause localized erosion during storm events. By comparing the North Sea Drive
property CERI values with those of southern Long Island, the Town of Southold is in good standing as the
existing dune and berm system is large enough to resist localized storms that would cause erosion.In addition,
the 25-year return interval CERI value for the property at 1925 North Sea Drive was 4.4,indicating the property
is well protected by the berm and dune features seaward of the proposed structure.
Conclusion
The proposed property at 1925 North Sea Drive is well protected by the berm and dune features seaward of
the proposed structure.This was confirmed by extracting PFET metrics from lidar data and calculating CERI
values at 10-year and 25-year return periods.The entire study area shows a well-protected coastal system with
average CERI values in excess of 4.7, well above the 3.1 threshold determined to represent resilient coastal
systems in coastal areas around the county. The CERI values for the proposed property at 1925 North Sea
Drive is higher than half of the neighboring properties.
We appreciate the opportunity to work with you in ensuring your proposed project is properly located when
considering the local natural protective qualities of the beach and dune systems. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me directly at the number or email address provided below.
Sincerely,
COASTAL PLANNING&ENGINEERING of NY,PC
Quin Robertson,Ph.D.,PG,CC-P,GISP
Senior Scientist
Mobile:732-423-0039
grobertson@coastalprotectioneng.com
cc: Tom Pierro,PE,CPE
Zhifei Dong,Ph.D.,Tellus Consulting
Kelly Risotto,Land Use Ecological Associates
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Coastal Planning&Engineering of New York,P.C.
Page 13
References
Dong,Z.,N.Elko,W.Robertson,J.D.Rosati,2019a.Application of the coastal resilience index to beach and
dune systems in Florida and Texas.Proceedings of the 9th International Conference Coastal Sediments 2019,
296-305.
Dong,Z.,N.Elko,W.Robertson,J.D.Rosati,2019b.Quantifying beach and dune resilience using the
Coastal Resilience Index.ICCE 2018,Proceedings of 36th Conference on Coastal Engineering(30),8 pp.
Robertson,Q.,Z.Dong,and J.Wozencraft,in review.Incorporating wave and storm data to apply the
coastal engineering resilience index at regional scales,Coastal Engineering.
Robertson,Q.,L.Dunkin,Z.Dong,J.Wozencraft,and K.Zhang,2018.Florida and US east coast beach
change metrics derived from LiDAR data utilizing ArcGIS Python based tools.In:O.Cervantes,C.Botero,
C.Finkl(eds)Beach Management Tools:Concepts,Methodologies and Case Studies.Coastal Research
Library,Vol 24,Springer,239-258.
Savitzky,A.and Golay,M J.E., 1964.Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares
Procedures.Analytical Chemistry,36(8),1627-1639.
Stockdon,H.F.,Thompson,D.M.,Plant,N.G.,Long,J.W.2014.Evaluation of wave runup predictions
from numerical and parametric models,Coastal Engineering,92, 1-11.
USACE,2021.Fact Sheet—Fire Island to Montauk Point,NY.Available at
htWs•//www nanusace army mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/2407147/fact-sheet-
fire-island-to-montauk-point-ny/.Accessed September 24,2021.
Young and Young,2022.Building Permit Survey(Revision Nov. 30,2022),Riverhead,NY.2 pp.
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING& ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
Appendix 1: PFET Beach Profiles
5301 N. FEDERAL HWY, SUITE 335, BOCA RATON, FL 33487
732.423.0039 0 COASTAL PLANNING & ENGINEERING OF NY, P.C.
20
Transect ID: 1
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+.•
-10
v
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 2
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�k Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
u- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 3
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
z -5 --
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 4
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
LL 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30 -
0
20-25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 5
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
LL 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
Z5
-10
a�
LU
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 6
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I—
w
U- 0
Q
z -5
c
0
+-j
-10
a�
LU
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 7
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0 -
o
Q
z -5
0
f -10
a�
w
-15 -
-20
15-20
E
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 8
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 _ .
H
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
4-J
10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25 — -
i
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 9
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
C:
0
+-0
M 10
v
w
-15
-20
-25 -
-30
25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 10
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+J
( -10
a�
w
-15 -
-20
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 11
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
uj
LU 0
0
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 12
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 - -
list
LU
U- 0 -
z
z -5 0
+;
-10
v
LU
-15
-20 -
-25
20-25 _
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 13
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 - -
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20
10-15-20 _ -----
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 14
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 15
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU
U- 0
D
Q
Z -5
c
0
f -10
a)
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 16
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
LU 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
> -10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 17
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 18
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
C:
0
> -10 -
-15 -
-20
10-15-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 19
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+-j
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 20
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
M -10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 21
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z 5
c �
0
r -10 --
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 22
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
Q
z -5 _..._
c
0
-10 -
(U
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 23
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
(U
w
-15 -
-20
15-20
F
-25 -
-30
25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 24
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
uj
U- 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
-10
a�
LU
15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
5-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 25
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
:4.-J
-10
v
w
-15
-20 -
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 26
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
LL 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 27
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
u- 0
0
Q
z -5 - -
c
0
+J
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 28
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
4-J
-10
v
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 29
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15
-20
-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 30
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
F-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
> -10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 31
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
LU
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 32
MHW
15 • Shoreline
_ - Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
LU0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 33
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I—
w
LU0
Q
z -5 _.---
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 ------
-20 -
-25 -
-30
--__-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 34
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�k Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
0
0
-10 -
(U
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30 -
0
15-20-25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 35
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I--
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
0
+-
fa -10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 36
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
-10 -
(U
w
-15
-20
-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 37
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 38
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 -
c c
0
-10 -
(U
10(U
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25 -- -- --------- --- -----
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 39
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
ik Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
111,0111
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0 -
o i
a
z -5 ______ __w...___---------_-_- ------- _.._--_-.---_-
c
0
-10 -
-15
10-15
-20 -
-25
20-25 —- _-- -- -- _----- - _ -------_ _ _----- --- --.__..---
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 40
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
LU 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
Z
m -10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 41
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
F-
LU F-
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
m
-10 -
-15
10-15
-20
-25 -
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 42
MHW
15 _ • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w i
U- 0
0
a
z -5
C:
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20
10-15-20
i
-25 -
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 43
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
ik Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 - -
c
0
Z;
(0 -10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 44
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�r Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20
10-15-20
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 45
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 46
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5 -
C:
0
4-J
-10
v
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 .
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 47
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I-
w
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
"Z;
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30 -
0
20-25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 48
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
� 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 49
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 50
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 51
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
LU
-15
-20 -
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 52
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
4-1
10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
0-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 53
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 54
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 55
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 56
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 57
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
+-j
-10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 58
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 59
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
F-
LU
� 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
fa -10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 60
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
LU 0
0
a
z -5
C:
0
M -10
v
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 61
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
(a -10
a�
LU
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
5-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 62
MHW
15 __ a • - _ • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20
10-15-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 63
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Il
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 64
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
+_
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 65
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 66
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20
-25 -
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 67
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
LU 0
0
Q
Z -5
C:
0
+�
-10
a�
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30 -
0
20-25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 68
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
uj
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
LU
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 69
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
Z
-10 -
cu
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 70
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
F-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 -
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 71
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�k Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U 0
0
Q
z -5
C:
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 72
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 73
MHW
15 — __., _- • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
x Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
v
w
-15
-20
-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 74
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
a
Z -5
c
0
fo -10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 75
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
ik Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
> -10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 76
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LUw
0
0
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 77
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
:-,
m -10
a�
LU
-15
-20
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 78
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
:aJ
-10
aU
w
—15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 79
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
LU 0
0
Q
Z -5
0
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 80
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 _.
P
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
(0 -10 -
a)
LU
-15
-20 -
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 81
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+-
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 82
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 83
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 --
c
0
+Z
(0 -10
>
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
5-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 84
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�Ar Frontal Dune
10
• Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
C:
0
4-J
M -10
>
aU
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30 .
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 85
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
( -10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 86
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30 -
0
10-15-20-25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 87
MHW
15 • Shoreline
�4 Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+J
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 88
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�k Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 89
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 _ • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 –---- --- _—
I-
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
(U
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 90
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25
10-15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 91
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -- -- ..
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5 -
0
,Z;
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 92
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 _ • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w
U- 0 -
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+�
M 10
aU
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 93
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 _
w
U- 0
0
a
z -5 -- --
c
0
+j
M -10
LU
-15
-20
-25 - ---------
-30 ____.-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 94
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I—
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
(U
w
-15 -
-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 95
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
Q
z -5
c
0
10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
0-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 96
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
�k Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
z 5
c
0
-10 -
(U
10 v
w
-15 -
-20
15-20 - ---
-25 -
-30
25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 97
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
a)
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 98
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 99
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
? -5
0
4-J
M -10 —
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 100
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+�
f -10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 101
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
u- 0
0
z -5
C:
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 102
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
F-
LU F-
w
U- 0
0
a
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 103
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10
• Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+-j
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 104
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w _
� 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 105
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
v
LU
-15
-20
-25 -
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 106
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0 -
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 107
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
,4--
-10 -
(U
aJ -10aU
LU
-15
-20
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 108
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10
a�
w
-15
-20
-25
-30 -
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 109
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
(0 -10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-301
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 110
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
-61
-10 - --
a�
LU
-15
-20
-25 -
-30
25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 111
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w
U- 0
0
z -5 ---- --
c
0
+-j
ro 10
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 112
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
+�
fa -10
a�
w
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-30
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 113
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5 -
LU w
U- 0 -
0
z -5 _ _-- - ------
c
0
.z
fa -10 -
-15 -
10-15 --- -------------
-20
---------20
-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 114
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
w
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
fo
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 115
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
+j
-10
v
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 116
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
H
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
fo -10
v
LU
-15
-20 -
-25 -
-301
20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 117
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
# Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
C:
0
4-J
M -10
aU
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25
15-20-25
-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 118
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
C:
0
-10
v
El
-15 -
-20
-25 -
-30 -
0
25-300 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 119
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
I—
w
U- 0
0
Q
Z -5
c
0
4-J
-10
a�
w
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 120
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5
LU
� 0
0
Q
z -5
c
0
fa -10
a�
LU
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
20
Transect ID: 121
MHW
15 • Shoreline
Dune Toe
* Frontal Dune
10 • Landward Limit
Mean Slope
5-
LU
U- 0
Q
z -5
c
0
-10 -
-15 -
-20 -
-25 -
-30
10-15-20-25-30
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Range (FEET)
EXHIBIT 5
LAND USE AERIAL EXHIBIT
At
Ak
.040
,��: «► ,,, '• , -�,i'r�i r ..,,w. � ..- .r. '.,,fes'+'`' �/�� .'r -�,-�• •.-, ^` '� ✓�lw
AW+'• 'r - -`' ti� + '�"" _ �■i►'" r•' .••l'rr #,,,t �► -`"► �.'_
AV am,
aw
�►.��L./"��`•r - .ori ���I►~. �• :r• « �Mr� �.� +►
IMP
•
--------------------
• RECEIVED
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law MAR 1 p 2023
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971 -
Southold Town Clerk
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Betsy Perkins Paralegal
Kylee Defrese,Secretary
March 10, 2023
Supervisor Scott A. Russell
and Members of Town Board
Southold Town Hall
54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By Hand to Town Clerk
Re: Coastal Erosion Hazard Law Appeal
1925 North Sea Drive, Southold
SCTM#1000-54-4-20
Dear Supervisor and -
Members of the Town Board:
On behalf of the applicant,we hereby request a two week extension from March 14,2023
until March 28,2023 to submit additional written comments.
We received four letters of support which we would respectfully ask be made a part of
our record. The neighbors know the neighborhood,they know this property, and know the
applicant and their family.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Ve y y urs,
atricia C. Moore
Cc : Tony and Markella Vournou
John Armentano Esq.
Paul DeChance,Es. Town Attorney
MKS Realty LLC
`.Comments received after Public Hearing held on February 28, 2023
OPPOSED IN FAVOR
Bird, Richard Pologeorgis, Mr& Mrs Nick
Burrascano Jr, Joseph & Dona ( n ) Thanopoulos, Billy &Anastasia
Normandia, Lynne Eliodromytis, Rob
Viitti, Irene C Rallis,Nicholas &Irene
Kanz, Isabelle irv�bG .� O�
Kanz, Cassie
1
Ownes, Carol
Stoll, Cora
�j Y,0 ve in
ff-F E-c-
M)A5T(LC � Loo
a
JOSEPH J. BURRASCANO JR.
DONA BURRASCANO
Box 987, Southold NY 11971
Page 1 of 2 --,
February 23,2023
MAR - 1 2023
Town Board of the Town of Southold
�g r _
53095 Main Road � .
Southold New York 11971 `[Crk,
Re: MKS Realty LLC
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal
Hearing date February 28,2023
Dear Board members,
We are in opposition to the site plan of the proposed dwelling at 1925 North Sea drive in Southold on the
basis of several valid points:
1. It is in violation of both the Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)guidelines as well
as the Southold Town Code.
2. The arguments regarding the applicability of a"pier line"to this project are unfounded and
irrelevant.
3. The intent to enforce"precedent" is disingenuous and without merit as it can be argued that
precedent in this specific case would in fact disallow the site plan as proposed.
4. Increasing incidence and intensity of destructive storms.
Specifics:
1.Violation of chapter 148,section 2,Town of Southold Flood Damage Prevention.
Section 148-2 states "...the Zoning Board of Appeals shall consider the danger that materials may be
swept onto other lands to the injury of others. If the proposed development may result in physical damage
to any other property, no permit shall be issued."How can this be applied to the proposed site plan?Note
that a very large portion of the house, most of its decking and the pool are situated in FEMA flood zone
VE. According to FEMA,Flood Zone VE("coastal high-hazard area")has"potential for structural
damage due to wave action, with the possibility of spread of debris along the beach, into the water,and
onto adjoining properties."In other words, construction in this zone has the potential of sweeping
materials onto other lands and damaging other properties-the exact wording of the Town Code. Therefore
it is abundantly clear that no new construction should be permitted in FEMA flood zone VE. The house
and related structures should be either repositioned or reduced in size to remain totally outside of this
coastal hazard zone.
2.Pier Line
The argument that construction up to an ill-defined"pier line" should be allowed is irrelevant in light of
the obvious and clearly stated violations of rules mentioned above. In addition,the construction of many
JOSEPH J. BURRASCANO JR.
DONA BURRASCANO
Box 987, Southold NY 11971
Page 2 of 2
of the structures along this beach predate coastal flood hazard regulations so to use this as an argument to
allow potentially hazardous construction is without merit.
3.Precedent
New construction and recent renovations along this beach all had to be situated landward of the edge of
the demarcation of flood zone VE.An example: the house located at 2025 North Sea Drive is to the
immediate east of the MKS property. Several decades ago the original house was expanded, and even
though the original house, here since the 1960s, did project slightly into zone VE,the addition had to be
pulled back and placed behind this line. This is a significant precedent that argues against allowing the
MKS structures to encroach into this federally designated flood hazard area. The owners of the home at
2025 North Sea Drive followed the rules and built a smaller structure than originally planned. It would be
unfair to exempt the iNIKS project from the rules that were enforced at the immediately adjacent property.
A second precedent relates to the property to the immediate west of the MKS site. The entirety of this
house is located behind the flood zone VE line. Significantly,the small pool on the site is in fact
cantilevered over the property and affixed to the house, meaning that it does not at all encroach onto land
in the VE zone. It is well known that the construction of this home did undergo intense scrutiny that
resulted in design changes to accommodate coastal hazard rules, so this is another precedent that argues
against allowing MKS to violate these rules.
Finally,recalling that current coastal flood hazard rules came about as a result of recent highly destructive
hurricanes,the reference to a precedent reflected by the older homes in this area is dangerous and in
opposition to the intent and purpose of our flood zone rules now in force.
4.Increasing incidence and intensity of destructive storms.
It is clear that we are being subject to an increasing number of intense storms. Hurricane Katrina,
Hurricane Ian and Superstorm Sandy were all said to be"100 year storms". In light of this, it is relevant to
consider the definition of flood zone VE: "Special Flood Hazard Areas along coasts subject to inundation
by the 100-year flood with additional hazards due to velocity(wave action)." Since we recently have had
three"100 year storms" isn't it prudent to enforce flood zone hazard rules, now more than ever?
In light of all of the above, and even without the expected rise in sea level, it is now more clear than ever
that local and federal rules and guidelines must be enforced and construction in coastal flood hazard zone
VE must be prohibited.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincer Oona
Jos haurrascano
Noncarrow, Denis
From: Standish, Lauren on behalf of Russell, Scott
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 3:30 PM
To: Noncarrow, Denis
Subject: FW: MKS property 1925 North Sea Drive
From: LYNNE NORMANDIA<lnormandia@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 7:36 AM
To: Russell, Scott<Scott.Russell @town.southold.ny.us>; Evans, Louisa <louisae@town.southold.ny.us>; Doherty,Jill
<jill.doherty@town.southold.ny.us>; Nappa, Sarah<sarah.nappa@town.southold.ny.us>; Doroski, Greg
<greg.doroski@town.southold.ny.us>; Mealy, Brian <brian.mealy@town.southold.ny.us>
Subject: MKS property 1925 North Sea Drive
Dear Honorable Russell and Board:
We note you will be meeting to hear the appeal of NMS Realty on Feb. 28.
I just commended your Trustees for their defense of our environment. To quote Eric in their minutes from December:
I'm"one of the several thousand Southolders who elected our Board
to protect the natural features that are the common possession
and our birthright as well."
I second everything they said. "Shameless"that the applicants and their experts assure us there will be no environmental
damage. After the brouhaha over big houses,this denial seems undeniable.
Our Trustees spoke professionally,thoughtfully and compassionately. Their comments were informed and
enlightened. They cited and upheld the rules that were so carefully created to save our environment. Their united front to
defend our beach and protect our shores,wetlands, and thus ourselves deserves applause! We hope you will support their
efforts!
In the past the Land Preservation Fund has preserved only big tracks of land. Gov.Hochul's recent bill invites investing
in smaller parcels;there are few large ones left. It's the perfect opportunity to save what IS left. To avoid the lawsuit,
offer to buy!
Yours truly and respectfully,
Lynne Normandia, resident
2100 Leeton Drive.
Southold
ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders
or unexpected emails.
i
IRENE C. VITTI
PO BOX 1337 'R
EGE1
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TELEPHONE (631) 765-6798 ®AR 2023
irenevitti@yahoo.com
Southold TSSwi-V'a Cferk
March 1, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1825 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
Honorable Members:
The appeal of MKS Realty, LLC (MKS), to obtain a variance for a Coastal Erosion Hazard
permit to build a 4,600 square foot home and accessory structures, comes at a time when
the residents of Southold are more aware than ever that your decision in this matter will
have consequences for all who live here now and all who follow us.
New development in this environmentally sensitive area, between Kenney's and McCabe's
beaches, must be held to the highest standards of the Southold Code, the Local
Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP), and the applicable regulations.
As we all know, development on this fragile site will adversely affect wildlife and ground
water. It will increase the hazards of coastal erosion and flooding, endangering
neighboring properties as sea level continues to rise. While the beach and the dune
system may be stable now, the past is not necessarily indicative of the future, as
catastrophic coastal storms are becoming more common.
It is undeniable that the Application for a Coastal Erosions Hazard permit failed to meet the
standards for issuance, and the Petition appealing that decision, fails to meet most if not all
of the criteria for a variance for a number of reasons.
This is a self-created hardship. it was the applicant's choice to purchase this site, when
they knew or should have known that our laws have stringent restrictions on waterfront
development. Ignorance of the law is no excuse!
!, Southold Town Board
March 1, 2023
Page two
The proposed measures are not mitigation. They are the bare minimum required by law for
all new construction in Southold: Development of the beach and dune area are already
forbidden under Chapter 111. An I/A system for wastewater management is required for
all projects wherever located in Southold. Compliance with FEMA construction standards
is mandatory, not voluntary. MKS has offered nothing more than what is required to
develop any site, without consideration for the vulnerability of the instant one.
Moreover, the areas of beach and dune that are proposed to be left undisturbed is
irrelevant because there is no right to disturb them, and the beach and dune will not act as
protective features, if there are structures built on or near them.
Quite notably, the variance requested is not the minimum necessary to overcome these
difficulties. It is to the detriment to the environment and the community because the
proposed structures have not been located as far landward as possible and they are too
close to the dune. The proposed 4,600 sq ft residence with a 2,400 sq ft footprint is three
times the code minimum of 850 sq ft and out of character with the community. MKS'
application does not comply with the variance requirements.
The Petitioner's effort to use the Bombara case or the Betsch home as precedent in this
matter, similarly fails. It is inappropriate to compare this project to the development of the
adjacent Bombara parcel which was proposed over 15 years ago, before Superstorm
Sandy and subsequent amendments to Chapter 111. The Bombara home is entirely in the
less hazardous "AE" zone, while the proposed structures on the MKS site are located
substantially in the WE" flood zone. In addition, MKS's proposed development is more
than twice the size of Bombara's. Finally, the Betsch home is completely incomparable to
the MKS proposal, because it was a rebuild of a preexisting home, more than 20 years
ago, prior to Superstorm Sandy, subsequentamendments to the Code, and even to the
adoption of the LWRP!
For all these reasons, the application for a for a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit should be
denied and the Petition for a variance should not be granted, because to do so will deviate
in every meaningful way from the letter-and spirit of the laws of Southold, which were
designed to protect the environment and serve and preserve our community.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
/4j�,
Irene Vitti
V
Noncarrow, Denis
To: Town Board
Subject: Letter on MKS Realty Hearing
Attachments: Vitti letter_20230303123608.pdf
Please see attached.
Thank you
Denis Noncarrow
Southold Town Clerk.
Town of Southold, New York
www.southoldtownny.gov
denisn @southoldtownny.gov
631-765-1800
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged
information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is
prohibited and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.
. 1
6380 Soundview Ave.
Peconic, NY 11958
March 5, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
3 "
Southold, NY 11971 E E
Re: MKS Realty, LLC MAR _ 7 2023
1825 North Sea Drive
Southold
Dear Board Members,
I'm writing to express my opposition to the appeal of MKS Realty for a variance. Your decision
will effect all residents of Southold. New development in this environmentally sensitive area
must be held to the highest standards of town code, and all applicable regulations.
It is undeniable that such development on this fragile site will have an adverse effect on ground
water, local flora and fauna and our general quality of life. We have an obligation to future
generations to do everything in our power to mitigate further coastal erosion. With the global
climate crisis comes the prospect of more catastrophic coastal storms.
For the good of everyone in Southold town, please do not approve their application for a Coastal
Erosion Hazard Permit and deny them any variance. Our laws are there for a reason. Please
act to protect our environment and preserve our community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Isabelle Kanz
VE
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review MAR - 7 2023
0 L9
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1825 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
Board Members,
would like to state my opposition to the Coastal Erosion Hazard permit to build the
4,600 square foot home and accessory structures. I am a homeowner near Kenny's Beach and
feel that this home would be not only a detriment to the environment, but to the community as
well. Our beach front areas are extremely fragile and host a wide variety of wildlife that could be
impacted. Please consider denying this permit as well as the Petition for a variance.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Cassie Kanz
1000 Mill Lane
Peconic
Noncarrow, Denis
t'
I
From: Carol A. Owens <carolaowens@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 9:53 AM MAR - 7 2023
To: Noncarrow, Denis
Subject: Denial Wetlands permit to MKS Realty 1925 North�Seq Drive
9.1,odld E�wni Geer.
Trustees Southold Town:
As a 25 year resident, I am writing to support the denial of permit as shown above The size and type of the
proposed construction will greatly disturb adjacent wetlands. The Save NYS Wetlands Coalition has praised
Governor Hochul and the NYS legislature for including reforms in the 2023 Wetland budget. Thank you in
advance for standing at this time to defend all that is natural and wild on that site.
Carol Owens
Southold NY
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from
unknown senders or unexpected emails.
i
1 Bt,P K ANAb 11645 Soundview Ave.
/t�,,,,[�n> yV%��In
Ax
Southold,NP 11971
2-3e�� /lj4/ic
� j t'a A`
V , r w MS.
l�lE� to eL PSC .G� 4�Gn
g .tom to M/' e-f Z44 ;/t4&X`r
ocos
641-44
Mr..&Mrs..Nick Poldgec
22655:SoundviieW Ave
Southold,NY.tg7t
March g,2023 ,DECEIVED
To the Southold Town Board: MAR 1 Q 2023. w
Southold Town Clerk
To whom:it may concern:
Re:1925 N.Sea.Drive,Southold NY
As long time Southold residents and homeowners residing,at-22655 Soundview Ave;,who',0wn--
waterfrontproperty,we are,:in support the proposed-construction,o(1925 IAF:,=Sea Drive,
Southold.
Welmow Antonios and Markella Vournou and theiflov y-family very well for wer 20 years..
We also know their families as well;who have.been residents.
of-Southold since. a 97v's. Tlio
1V Oas and Vournou families are good,gusted members of the`Southold
comrnunitywho love
and care greatly for the area. This home will someday be-passed.onto heir elialdren for
generations to come,instilled with the-same strong family values..These_impeccable family
values are what our beautiful.town of Southold is-truly built.®n.
The proposed home design for 1925 X.Sea Drive.`vill be,fitting`to thie neighborb- .
Mr.and D iI-Vournou are following every law and regulation required by-the town of Southold
in their construction and environmental plans-With their proposed;coiistr"uction,80%of the
natural vegetation of the dunes-and beach,will be preserved and replanted:
Thank you and we hope you consider our input.as Southold residents and voters.
rely,
r,
Nick P'ologeorgisPA
'"
Mrs.Alisa Pologeorgis
RECEIVED
MAR 1 0 2023
March 6, 2023 _
Southold gown Ci,,-
To
aTo the Southold Town Board:
As neighbors and Southold residents (1330 North Sea Drive), we
support the construction of a new home at 1925 North Sea Drive
which is currently a vacant lot.
We hope you consider our input.
Thank you,
Billy and Anastasia Thanopoulos
1330 North Sea Drive
Southold, New York
RECEIVE®
Rob Eliodromytis
600 Leeton Drive MAR 1 0 2023
Southold, NY 11971
March 8th 2023 Southold Town Clerk
To whom it may concern:
My wife and I have lived in the neighborhood since 2009. We have seen and
experienced how difficult it can be to obtain approvals for even the slightest
improvements on real property in our area. When time came for us to submit plans fo
our dream home on Leeton Drive, we had nothing but overwhelming support from ou
neighbors. After meeting Mr Vournou and his family, we believe that will be great
neighbors and a great addition to our neighborhood. For these reasons we are in
support of Mr. Vournou and his family having their turn at building their dream home,
as many of us in the area have done. We understand that there are some questions
from the surrounding community as to size and final location of the home but we are
confident that as a community, Mr. Vournou and his immediate neighbors will sit dow
and come to an amicable understanding. Thus creating relationships for many years tc
come. Much like the relationships that were created between my family and my
neighbors.
I believe Mr Vournou will also be an asset to the KBMcBCA. We wish him and his famil
good luck in their venture and continued success to our Association.
Sincerely,
Rob Eliodromytis
917-440-3474
XPRES2000@YAHOO.COM
Dr. Nicholas & Irene Rallis
765 Dogwood Lane
Southold, NY 11971
March 7, 2023
To the Southold Town Board:
As residents of Southold we would like to voice our support of the proposed construction of
1925 N.Sea Drive.The proposed structure is beautifully proportioned to the size of the parcel
and the surrounding natural vegetation maintains the authentic characteristics of the legendary.
Long Island Sound. I have known the property owners personally for over three decades. I can
vouch for their character and their personal reputations.This home will be a family home for
generations to come. A family home for individuals whose values align with our community.
In following the public hearing it is clear that Mr. and Mrs.Vournou worked closely with
the town to comply with all regulations and requirements. Geologists and Environmental
experts have also been utilized to prove that there will be minimal impact on the environment.
The owners have gone through great lengths to appease the environmental and zoning
requirements of this delicate parcel.To believe otherwise would be inconsistent with the
thorough evidence and meticulous research supported by various experts.
Knowing the character of the applicants,we believe the concerns and objections of the
neighbors to be unfounded. All property owners' rights must be upheld to the same standard.
As property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Vournou have absolutely the same rights as everyone else in
our town. It is the obligation of the elected public servants to ensure those rights are upheld.
Thank you for considering our input as residents and voters of Southold.
Dr. Nicholas Rallis Yrene Rallis
r
�r
Edwin and Cheryl Thirlby
11185 Soundview Ave.
Southold, NY 11971
ted@topdrawerconstruction.com March 10, 2023 RECEIVED
Southold Town Board MAR 7 3 2023
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold. NY 11971 Southold Town Clerk
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1925 North Sea Drive
Honorable Members
The appeal of MKS Realty, LLC, to obtain a variance for a Coastal Erosion Hazard
permit to build a 4,600 sq. ft. home and accessory structures comes at a time when the
residents of Southold are more aware than ever that your decision in this matter will
have consequences for all who live here now and all who follow us.
It is undeniable that the application for a Coastal Erosion Permit failed to meet the
standards for issuance, and the Petition appealing that decision, fails to meet most of
not all of the criteria for a number of reasons. These reasons have been noted by the
Trustees in their letter dated December 27, 2022.
The Trustees have been electEd by the voters of Southold Town and work to ensure that
our precious natural resources are protected. It is critical that the Town Board support
the Trustees and their efforts.
This is a self inflicted hardship. MKS Realty chose to purchase this site, when they
knew or should have known that our laws have stringent restrictions on waterfront
development. Ignorance of these restrictions is not an excuse.
This application for a Coastal Erosion Hazard permit should be denied and the permit
for a variance should not be granted, because to do so would be to deviate in every
meaningful way from the letter and spirit of the laws of Southold, which were designed
to protect the environment and preserve our community.
Sincerely,
Edwin and Cheryl Thirlby
Carol D. Brown
825 Smith Drive South
Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED,
Southold Town Board MAR 1 3 2023
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board Review
Main Road
Southold, NY 11972 South id Town Clerk
March 12, 2023
To the Town of Southold Town Board,
The MKS Realty development plan at 1925 North Sea Road is a travesty and a disservice to the people, fauna,
flora, and ecosystems of the Long Island Sound and of the Town of Southold. As stated by Supervisor Russell,
some lots are just not buildable. When a property is entirely in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, is in a FEMA
designated flood zone, and where 80% (as per Patricia Moore) of the 58,000 square feet is in a non-
disturbance and primary dune area as well, and only 17,000 square feet (again, according to Patricia Moore) of
property is potentially buildable, any development should be considered under what is buildable, not including
any environmentally sensitive areas. A 5600 square foot house plus pool , decks, and other hard coverage of
the land is environmentally unsound.
Building on or just off a primary dune—or within what the property owners consider 35' from the crest of the
dune— in a property.completely,within a CEHA area is antithetical to the workings of a robust and often very
high energy sea, which is what the Long Island Sound is. Developing too close to the beach's primary and
secondary protective structures can impact this land form by causing untold property damage to anything in
the path of a substantial storm. And with current weather events being more frequent and intense, to refute
this is environmentally unsound. Just look at what is happening in California with the atmospheric rivers and
the resulting storm damage.
The LWRP found this application to be inconsistent. The inconsistencies are that the entire parcel is located
within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, violating Town Code 111-4, whose purpose is to regulate coastal areas
subject to coastal flooding,and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent
damage or destruction to manmade property, natural protective features and other natural resources, and to
protect human life. Additionally,the entire structure is located in the VE Elevation 13 Flood Zone; subject to
high velocity waters, making it susceptible to grave damage during Category 1 through 4 hurricanes.
The natural ecology of the site, if developed as per the application, will ruin habitats for many fauna, including
small mammals, birds, bees, insects, and more. This is an environmentally sensitive area and any development
of this property would deplete the natural habitat. The site is currently stabilized by the native trees, shrubs,
and grasses that thrive in this ecosystem. Removing them would destabilize not only the subject lot, but
surrounding lots as well. In addition, the design of a wall of glass on the seaward side of the structure is very
dangerous to birds, encouraging bird strikes. Also, in maintaining non-native and new plantings will most likely
include discharge of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers, risking the integrity of the groundwater.
Pier lines, which were mentioned in the first of the MKS Realty public hearings with the Trustees, came as a
shocking surprise to the MKS team, who said they never heard of it nor saw it in Southold Code. I guess they
selectively read the code as it is there as clear as day. It is under 275.2, Definitions; word usage under the letter
'P.' More info is in Chapter 275-11(a)(3), stating that new and remodeled homes cannot be situated or
r-J etiN
modified such that they project closer to the wetland boundary and the mean seaward projection of homes in
the general vicinity and on either side of the subject lot. Then after stating that there is no indication of pier
lines in Town Codes, Ms Moore tried to.'educate'the Town Board on Pier lines. I find this to be questionable
and insulting.
This is followed, under Section 275-3. Findings; purpose;jurisdiction; setbacks
A. Findings. The Town Board of the Town,of Southold finds that rapid growth, the spread of development and
increasing demands upon natural resources are encroaching upon of eliminating many of its wetlands and
patent lands, which, if preserved and maintained in an undisturbed and natural condition, constitute -
important physical, social, aesthetic, recreational and economic assets to existing and future residents of the
Town of Southold.
The new height restrictions, starting at 10' from side yard and going up 45 degrees might allow for a 35'
building, but not one that must be raised (by FEMA standards) 8' — 12, thus making this building 43' —47' high.
Where are they building, in Manhattan???
If the property owners truly want to preserve what they consider 80% of the property,the only way to ensure
preservation is to take it out of an individual's ownership and donate it to the Town. Ms. Moore said
repeatedly that that WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. In fact, she admitted that 80% of the property was
unbuildable, leaving 17,000 square feet of potentially 'buildable' land. That means her 7.9% lot coverage is
actually well over the 20% lot coverage limits. Again, there are properties in the Town of Southold that are
truly unbuildable, or buildable with a small cottage, not the proposed structures.
There is an attempt to use animal paths for the building's paths. Where does that leave the natural inhabitants
of the area?
After listening to the client's lawyer/agent who repeated changed numerical details during her speech, she
went on to question the integrity of the Trustees for trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability. She
repeatedly cited a property in the area that was built in 2006 with a completely different Board of Trustees at a
time where climate change was in early discussions. It is no longer 2006 and it is vital that the Town limit
development in areas the Trustees deem unfit. Using pre-existing determination from 2006 is no longer
relevant in 2023. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the light of climate change. East Hampton,who has
declared'a climate emergency, is a good example of what Southold can do. In conclusion, it is the Town Board
and the Board of Trustees are the ones that determine, review and act on Town laws, not an applicant's paid
consultants.
Based on my credentials and experience with land review (see below), I vote 'no' on this project despite the
threats from the applicant's team. I believe in the integrity of our elected officials.
Regards,
CaroCBrown
Carol D. Brown
MS Environmental Studies and Education, CUNY Queens College
40-year Member Huntington Conservation Board
4+year member of Southold Conservation Advisory Council
Southold/Peconic Civic Association Environmental Advocacy Committee
North Fork Environmental Council
12700 Main Road
PO Box 799
Nart� Fork Mattituck, NY 11952
EnvkonmeffW (found Phone: 631.298.8880
V Fax: 631.298.4649
Web: www.NFECI.org
March 10, 2023
Supervisor Scott Russell
Councilwoman Jill Doherty
Councilman Gregory Doroski
Justice Louisa Evans
Councilman Brian Mealy
Councilwoman Sarah Nappa MAR 1 3 2023
Town of Southold
53095 Route 25
PO Box 1179 fhaycF
Southold, NY 11971
Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board,
The North Fork Environmental Council strongly objects to the granting of a permit to MKS Realty LLC to build
a residence on the parcel at 1925 North Sea Drive in Southold. The entire lot lies within the Coastal Erosion
Hazard area and contains a fragile primary dune. It is also in a globally rare ecosystem known as the Kenny's
Beach/Great Pond wetlands area, which extends 1.5 miles from Goldsmith's Inlet to Horton's Point.
This parcel owner, who also requests permission to build a deck and a pool, knew, or should have known, that
the property is within a flood prone area at great risk for destruction. The hardship from which he requests
relief from the town board is entirely self-created. He does not have the right to build on that property and in
that zone simply because he purchased it.
Please follow the lead of the Town Trustees, who denied this request back on December 14, 2022. At that
hearing, Trustee Eric Sepenoski noted that the building of the deck and pool requested "could become potential
hazards if wiped out in a storm." It is also notable that the Conservation Advisory Council did not support this
application and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWW) coordinator found the project to be
inconsistent.
Allowing this construction will permanently degrade the dune. As the trustees noted in denying the permit, the
proposed location is in"an environmentally sensitive area valuable to the People of the Town of Southold." We
believe the town board should support and protect what's left of Southold's fragile environment rather than
supporting a property owner with a self-created problem.
Sincerely,
Mark Haubner
President
North Fork Environmental Council
The NFEC is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization which works to increase public awareness of key issues,educate the
public and public officials about important environmental and quality of life issues,and works to make sure that the
public's voice is heard as we try to protect and preserve the land,waters,air,
wildlife and way of life on the North
ROBERT GEORGE,BOMBARA
ATTORNEY AND COUNSELLOR AT LAW r,
98-16 163RD AVENUE•HOWARD BEACH,NEW YORK 11414-4044 =
TELEPHONE:(718)845-4283
FAX:(718).845-2516
i E-MAIL:rgbombara@rgbe§9pcGCEIVE,�
r'6 . T
March 11, 2023
v,- MAR 1 3 2023
PrioAty,Mail
- Town;Board of the Town of Southold Southold Town Clerk
53095 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971 ;x s
Attention: 'CoastatErosion Hazard Board'of Review Appeal
Re: MKS REALTY LLC
Property Address: 1925 North Sea Drive
Southold;New York 11971
SCTM: 1000-54-4-20
To Members of theTown'Board:
My wife,Margaret M. Bombara, and myself are the owners of the property at
1725,North Sea Drive;-Southold,New York 11971, immediately adjacent to the west of the
subject property.
This letter is submitted re the subject Appeal following the Public Hearing-held on
}February°28, 2023,which was tabled for written comments to be received within two (2)weeks
followma,the closure of said Hearing.
We do`not object to the Petitioner,MKS Realty LLC,being permitted to build on
the site provided itis mandated-that its Building-Envelope;-including any'.deeks, does not
ei fend beydnd the line'upon'which we were permitted_to'build our"property by'the-Town
"and'its Building',-Envelope,-including any decks, is wholly behind the:boundary line of the
_VE flood-zonelod said site. _ }
n'If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
- -
Robert George Bombara
RGB/bms`
JOSEPH J. BURRASCANO JR.
DONA BURRASCANO
Box 987, Southold NY 11971
Page 1 of 2
March 13,2023 7
Town Board of the Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold New York 11971 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Re: MKS Realty LLC
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal
Dear Board members,
In my previous communication with you in this matter, I emphasized several points,one being the need to
discard references to current dunes when placing a home, mainly because dunes are not permanent and
indeed migrate. As proof of this, I present a photo taken in the 1970s of the house to the immediate East
of the MKS property. One can easily see that at that date,there was no dune at all!
Sand dunes are never permanent structures and rarely provide long-term protection from water and wave
action. In addition to the photo above, another excellent, local example of the transient nature of sand
dunes can be found at the Walking Dunes area of the Hither Hills state park in Montauk. A visit there will
reveal sand dunes that have migrated and consumed a portion of the forest; other areas where there had
been dunes and now have a low elevation are replete with remnants of a forest that had existed years
before.
A review of historic home surveys from the nearby and adjacent properties(attached to the end of this
document), some dating back as far as 1961, have all shown wide variations in distance from North Sea
JOSEPH J. BURRASCANO JR.
` DONA BURRASCANO
Box 987, Southold NY 11971
Page 2 of 2
Drive to the high water mark. Salt water coastlines are always in flux and just because the current lot size
appears large,all it would take is a season of repeated nor'easters to radically cut back the beach.Again,
it is unwise to rely on such measurements to site a permanent structure.
I researched historic hurricane tracks and it is very clear that eastern Long Island has been in the target
zone for many. See the pages at the end of this letter for reference.All across this country building and
zoning codes have been upgraded to account for the increasing number of floods-not just in coastal areas
but also inland,along rivers and lakes.These upgrades have resulted in prohibition of new construction in
areas previously thought to be buildable.Thus Southold is not unique in updating and enforcing rules
meant to minimize damage during the inevitable destructive storms to come.
Therefore,the only legally valid and defensible reference for structure placement is the demarcation
between flood zones VE and AE,with no building of any kind to be allowed in the VE zone.
Finally,another issue is the size of the proposed house.A rough measurement taken from the most
recently submitted site plan shows the length of the house to be approximately 110 feet; if decking is
included,it measures nearly 150 feet long! An elevated,two story rectilinear design measuring that long
gives the appearance of a medium sized factory.This is in no way keeping with the character of the area.
Because the area within the VE zone in non-buildable,then the Town's rule on lot coverage should be
applied to only the area within the buildable AE zone.This represents a logical and defensible way to
limit the house to a more reasonable size.
We deeply respect the time consuming and detailed work by the Board in this matter and appreciate your
willingness to consider input from local concerned citizens.We hope the information presented here will
help you in your review of the MKS project.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
/ -;k
r
Joseph and Dona Burrascano
TIZ
+C-9S s /V
ora'iArearrf' �taS a�ru so f ' Pear /�� O� !®R0P.E'I-Z7 .
QJ/�`B/�'✓,SIJ
"=-PAZ .
Loins LE
o d4T
-Ir OLO,1v
dewwff &5'
XIL
,�, j ". ,.. �..:- . . . , . '- .$• � � C�Y�=eHjr�a��, .:�8 tar �r�c �1
r
MAP OF PRO- PER !
...............
SU12VEYED Folz
LOU f 5 J. MA 5- T
LONG 15LAfQ0 AT
SOUT H01,L)
0 T-'-"NA/N OF* '�C)(J THOi-C)- WAX
N,39 24 E. 100.01
`(;QDJNZY H161-1 WATER M'A"Illc TO
U-1
H
(D
LD .kit
2 "Ji
Lu
Lj-
SCAL E
_4P
Q,
LW A Z. .54d•
T
04PIPE
WWZ C)
L6 ID
Iq
j 15 S IT LEVEL PLIT-LEVEL _j
<
iz;u of Ilin Now Ym
lfrj^vmon
–j
cv.:,;os of Ibis survey map M, a )Q
th�mnd surveyors Mail so 1'.
vmbosaedsoolahalllnmtbar
c,;:u.-antoes1rdMvdha-r0o&ori
y---1975 M. phyto the person for wit h v ')v
Whom
[CEWNEY'S, r2D- .nld.and on h1s,boh
I,,,.'M;any'rj'vernmonfal flnu
3
d,)Cm 7q;
c;*)..land•!pi,
nor
to ad-'vnW—;.'.'W;W or li,
SUI_F.(G_TA)( H/\P i
4
-1 C.LA2 V E.Y 0
KI C) SU L- Wa.OR T,N.Y.
rL4
Lon/G /SGAIVO Sou/VO ♦/b/Vo•90-0289
/00 '
NE
-lJjE2o LRN2. .
m
' y' c9pp�TDX �/-•h Wo°tei G•ng W
Q1 Q
Wood
�0 stcPs �
wood
N WOOO 0--C-Ar
3 FRAME a 36.6'
♦� U�40' I0 ♦�
2.S ro.4 y
/o• M RES, m
♦� O 'I99S sr6`---T
hf� 30.2" � '�g'"`• 34,4 O
11
ALJ I`�^
Q LBric.E I�y � Vl
Pawl:3L�' Kj
o'
-
5.39°2¢�O /00.00'
h- UR p./Y.w/REs GEN.7o'se.
EL62 OF Pq VEMfiN7
NO. SEA 'c>"R VB
20' °gsph. SrJr�.'�
THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN FROM THE STRUCTURES TO THE PROPERLY LINES THE EXISTENCE OF RIGHT OF WAYS AND/OR EASEMENTS
ARE FORA SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE ANO THEREFORE ARE NOT INTENDED TO GUIDE
" THE ERECTION OF FENCES.RETAINING WALLS.POOLS,PATIOS.PLANTNO AREAS, OF RECORD,IF ANY,NOT SHOWN ARE NOT CERTIFIED.
AGG7IONS TO STRUCTURES AND ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION.
C..=UTHOMIEO.*LT£RATIC J OR.SCD:-.ION TO TH:S SL'P.VEY IS A ViOUTION 0•SECTIO
.T209OFTHE NEWYORK STATE EDUCATIONLAW. Yi" ' �STRANDBERG&ASSOCIATES.INC.
COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP HOT SEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS INKED SEAL OR
EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VAUD TRUE COPY. .
CERTIFICATION INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE
SURVEY IS PREPARED,AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TIRE COMPANY.GOVERNMENTAL I.f T',� '+ ;IWD ATLANTIC AVE BALDWIN.N.Y.I.SIO
u AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTION LISTED HEREON.AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE I„ `
L ENDING INSTITUTION.CERTIFICATIONS ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL \?i-,\ KY.21 1
p IN STITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. ;���Lt�, - J� NY.tIx3I?a000
D `:,,f�.. :i.4.•." FAKlI6JT6001i
- 30'
H _ -
z
SCALE 1"
SURVEY OF: C�sc�ibed ��ooe�7`y CERTIFIED T0: ✓er»4i/e AbLs�`rac�
m Bo�rr,/ays i9mc�Icdr� /nom�L ye co�P
FILED MAP: /l71efiae%Pafiicia �'Anr�a ✓erne
° TITLE NO,: VA-311-/7-♦s
LOCATED AT:-7`ou�o�Sou 1/Sa/d G'oun of
Svfl�/Ei Sfdfc of i✓Ew York DATE.
TAX DESIG:ops/a-o,Sec.os¢ 8/to¢ Co tozz . ✓"^i d
z
OF FROPERTY
• FOLK COURT 'W
�
. tYsst:�i
a
'R
i
5 r •
� rJ, �%"� rrr t5�• r
�l f ..2.•�
ti
pmpmw par.
1 li`
;`• , �` " •. irk):
i •` r � � .r f
7x-
FEB
d -
D
Fq:.aS liar+�
E!EVrYCfCih•�.s l'L°.�'«"-a.h?C,?c 2z2va':1
r^-GCt
f E- 2Ciy'i�� Lj:�C Ff tRt•I MAP,
CLt+S, :,
M N'ta;SE.E G.C.0,GUASTrYL L' x'•i.yhf
hfi�h Mhh'Vii`A, . '✓r m'sir•5^G F3S y T- ®_ �
4RfA.^?R 2-SF7v o;ia ri•15L ,)Qri1'S-C:-ZilZS,L11��7 t/ _ S VR Y ii, UR
e YST M,4IN.a'[' = :LYS:L:iwT+U?b`�7.
j 349-8;Si8F:x'36'la-8?87:,"7R.1'.3t4ip rrtti'c�t'R(?Sd1:q�9,�:a -
\ 4 -,
317123,4:58 PM Historical Hurricane Tracks
Hurricane List
All
OA_
anter
�ANT.
OV
NPMEO�g8 . Aln)vas
4Y'�. 'L?r.+.a5u �"_ ,rl•"-" 'Y A �," _ q� �"`_§t �,,,.�."."��;�'i UMNAM£D 1886- '
+�� �Phi adel is^�"' "� •. f "� ; " � =
Y^,' \pP -Y 'ht, •'�+ x �: .:a z•� �, x ase
IT
Search Falter Criteria
Location:New York, New York, USA
Categories:H5, H4,H3,H2,H1,TS,TD, ET
Months:ALL
Years:ALL
El Nino-Southern Oscillation(ENSO):ALL
Minimum Pressure(mb) below:1150
Include Unknown Pressure Rating:TRUE
Buffer Distance:60
Buffer Unit:Nautical Miles
STORMNAME DATERANGE MAXWINDSPEED MINPRESSURE MAXCATEGORY
IDA 2021 Aug 26,2021 to 130 929 H4
Sep 04,2021
HENRI 2021 Aug 15,2021 to 65 986 H1
Aug 24,2021
ELSA 2021 Jun 30,2021 to Jul 75 991 H1
10,2021
ISAIAS 2020 Jut 28, 2020 to Aug 80 986 H1
05,2020
FAY 2020 Jul 05,2020 to Jul 50 998 TS
11,2020
https:/fcoast.noaa.gov/hunicanes/#map=6.69140.754/-73.1618search=eyJzZWFyY2hTdHJpbmciOiJOZXcgW W9yaywgTmV3[FlvcrosslFVTQSlslnNIY... 114
T: 4' .-,
3/7/23,4-58 PM Historical Hurricane Tracks
STORM NAME DATERANGE MAX WIND SPEED MIN PRESSURE MAXCATEGORY
ANDREA 2013 Jun 05,2013 to Jun 55 992 TS
08,2013
SANDY 2012 Oct 21,2012 to Oct 100 940 H3
31,2012
IRENE 2011 Aug 21,2011 to 105 942 H3
Aug 30,2011
HANNA 2008 Aug 28,2008 to 75 977 H1
Sep 08,2008
TWENTY-TWO Oct 08,2005 to Oct 30 1005 TD
2005 14,2005
CHARLEY 2004 Aug 09,2004 to 130 941 H4
Aug 15,2004
GORDON 2000 Sep 14,2000 to 70 981 H1
Sep 21,2000
FLOYD 1999 Sep 07,1999 to 135 921 H4
Sep 19,1999
BERTHA 1996 Jul 05,1996 to Jul 100 960 H3
17,1996
BERYL 1994 Aug 14,1994 to 50 999 TS
Aug 19,1994
CHRIS 1988 Aug 21,1988 to 45 1005 TS
Aug 30,1988
HENRI 1985 Sep 21,1985 to 50 996 TS
Sep 2 5,1985
GLORIA 1985 Sep 16,1985 to 125 920 H4
Oct 02,1985
BELLE 1976 Aug 06,1976 to 105 957 H3
Aug 10,1976
AGNES 1972 Jun 14,1972 to Jun 75 977 H1
23,1972
DORIA 1971 Aug 20,1971 to 55 989 TS
Aug 29,1971
UNNAMED 1968 Sep 10,1968 to 55 997 TS
Sep 17,19 68
CANDY 1968 Jun 22,1968 to Jun 60 995 TS
26,1968
UNNAMED 1961 Sep 12,1961 to 55 995 TS
Sep 15,1961
DONNA 1960 Aug 29,1960 to 125 930 H4
Sep 14,1960
BRENDA 1960 Jul 27,1960 to Aug 60 976 TS
07,1960
DIANE 1955 Aug 07,1955 to 90 969 H2
Aug 23,19 55
ABLE 1952 Aug 18,1952 to 85 983 H2
Sep 03,1952
UNNAMED 1945 Sep 12,1945 to 115 949 H4
Sep 2 0,1945
UNNAMED 1944 Sep 09,1944 to 140 918 H5
Sep 16,1944
UNNAMED 1944 Jul 30,1944 to Aug 70 985 H1
04,1944
UNNAMED 1938 Sep 09,1938 to 140 940 H5
UNNAMED 1934 Sep 05,1934 to 90 _ -1 H2
Sep 10,1934
https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/#map=6.69/40.7541-73.161&search=eyJzZWFyY2hTdHJpbmciOiJOZXcgW W9yaywgTmV31 FlvcrosslFVTQSlslnNIY... 2/4
317123,4:58 PM Historical Hurricane Tracks
SrTORM NAME DATE RANGE MAX WIND SPEED MIN PRESSURE MAX CATEGORY
UNNAMED 1934 Jun 04,1934 to Jun 85 966 H2
21,1934
UNNAMED 1924 Sep 27,1924 to 55 999 TS
Oct 01,1924
UNNAMED 1916 May 13,1916 to 40 990 TS
May 18,1916
UNNAMED 1915 Jul 31,1915 to Aug 65 990 H1
05,1915
UNNAMED 1908 May 24,1908 to 65 989 H1
May 31,1908
UNNAMED 1904 Sep 08,1904 to 70 -1 H1
Sep 15,1904
UNNAMED 1903 Sep 12,1903 to 85 990 H2
Sep 17,1903
UNNAMED 1902 Jun 12,1902 to Jun 50 -1 TS
17,1902
UNNAMED 1900 Oct 10,1900 to Oct 40 -1 TS
15,1900
UNNAMED 1899 Oct 26,1899 to 95 -1 H2
Nov 04,1899
UNNAMED 1897 Sep 20,1897 to 60 -1 TS
Sep 25,1897
UNNAMED 1894 Oct 01,1894 to Oct 105 -1 H3
12, 1894
UNNAMED 1893 Aug 15,1893 to 105 954 H3
Sep 02,1893
UNNAMED 1893 Aug 15,1893 to 100 952 H3
Aug 26,1893
UNNAMED 1888 Sep 06,1888 to 50 999 TS
Sep 13,1888
UNNAMED 1888 Aug 14,1888 to 110 -1 H3
Aug 24,1888
UNNAMED 1886 Jun 17,1886 to Jun 85 -1 H2
24,1886
UNNAMED 1882 Sep 21,1882 to 50 1005 TS
Sep 24,1882
UNNAMED 1879 Aug 13,1879 to 100 971 H3
Aug 20,1879
UNNAMED 1877 Sep 21,1877 to 100 -1 H3
Oct 05,1877
UNNAMED 1874 Sep 25,1874 to 80 980 H1
Oct 01,1874
UNNAMED 1872 Oct 22,1872 to Oct 70 -1 H1
28,1872
UNNAMED 1866 Oct 29,1866 to Oct 60 -1 TS
30,1866
UNNAMED 1863 Sep 16,1863 to 60 -1 TS
Sep 19,1863
UNNAMED 1861 Nov 01,1861 to 70 999 H1
Nov 03,1861
UNNAMED 1861 Sep 27,1861 to 70 -1 H1
Sep 28,1861
UNNAMED 1858 Sep 14,1858 to 90 979 H2
Sep 17,1858
UNNAMED 1856 Aug 19,1856 to 50 -1 TS
Aug 21,1856
https:/Icoast.noaa.govlhumcanesl#map=6.69/40.7541-73.161&search=oyJzZWFyY2hTdHJpbmcioiJOZXcg W W9yaywgTmV31FIvcrossiFVTQSlslnNIY... 3/4
77 -7
1b:
fv
Cb
OU
'b\
00
16
co
Cb zop Al
LO
M
Lo
no
-id
g Tracks of major )11jrr I OEA ilea J.11 Long4-slai arc-, The many sources of
IJ oli IAI-t-1k/.1(j�J
1', J.L 0 j I
Tracks of prominent New England hurricanes. Modern tracks were downloaded from NOAA
Coastal Services Center; 26 August 1635 track is from Jarvinen(2006). The 1815 and 1821
hurricane tracks are not available. January 2016
,E1;1.N,Et- - - ,��":`.;_:',za`,<;..:
�'�9�rJ1a19s '}:2
.:.
^ '"' -r;reat
l,
'.
New
t, -2&
9 - ;r �`Au
- 2�i,.*��y�,'yPr'< :- _ .i:✓'':, :r �__'„'1635;":=•':.
y.
r y�
"t.iY
,y nF
+�.�'�', '`iY'l✓` �� iF-� 't -fir- .'y��"r �•r..•
'� 7• y r'.
c�i�t -}�:� ."•��?+y. .. .��i".ice;':. , _ -
-
P-
44" ,
Kr
5
Y, ..'.
4
r �
y� - •
';r,>.- �� ;.7. - ''. ,a+•.ter,::_: _ ,'''
00
Page 1 of 2
AN
Elizabeth and Lou Mastro
2025 N Sea Drive V
Southold,NY 11971
IJAR 1 2023
March 13, 2023 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Town Board of the Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold New York 11971
Re: MKS Realty LLC
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal
Dear Board members,
We object to the site plan being proposed by MKS Realty for the lot located at 1925 North Sea
Drive in Southold NY. We have several concerns:
First,the seaward limit of their proposed structure is based upon a"pier line", which they are
defining as the seaward limit of adjoining properties. Several decades ago our home, which is
adjacent to the MKS parcel, was expanded. At that time, the seaward extent of the addition was
not allowed to line up with the original structure. It had to be pulled back so it was entirely
within the AE flood zone. This restriction on the size of our addition resulted in fewer and
smaller rooms, affecting the usefulness of this house and its value. If MKS is going to use a pier
line,then we insist that the line be drawn from our addition and not from our original structure.
MKS should not be allowed to build seaward of what we were forced to do; they should not be
allowed to do something we were not.
Second,the proposed house, decking and pool area measures approximately 150 feet in length
along the road, and is expected to be 35 feet high. The site plan positions this enormous structure
just 16 feet from my property line, and that places it just 31 feet away from my small, single
story beach bungalow. Because-of required basal flood elevations, the first floor decking would
be so high, it would be near the top of my windows! You can only imagine what two additional
stories above that would be like. We will be looking out our window to a large imposing
structure. Their"remedy" is to plant a line of 14 foot tall evergreens right on our property line-
this is not a remedy and may be worse, as it will drastically limit light and space and will
completely block the westward view and daytime sunlight from the main room in our home.
We can refer to the example set by New York City (see"air rights",
https://streeteasv.com/blob:/what-are-ilyc-air-ri( hts-all-about/). When tall structures are proposed
to be built adjacent to smaller ones, developers are not allowed to build as close or as high as
they'd like. If they did, quality of life would decline since the area would be more dense, darker
and more congested. Restrictions were enacted to ensure that the new construction would not
Page 2 of 2
severely impact their neighbors. While Southold Town does not, to my knowledge,have such
restrictions, the very same common sense that dictated the NYC rules should apply here.
Finally, in their application, MKS had mentioned repeatedly the"hardship"that restrictions on
their building plan would impose upon them. I maintain that a long row of 14 foot-tall trees
placed 15 feet from my window and a 35 foot tall box just 16 feet further back would surely be a
hardship to us. Their imagined hardship is of their own doing and could be avoided; if their plan
were to be approved, then we would face a hardship that could not be mitigated. Therefore, we
respectfully request that any site plan that the Town approves require the structure to be moved
further away from our property line, and that its height, especially near our home, be restricted to
a more logical and reasonable level.
We support the Town in its quest to preserve the character and traditions of our neighborhoods
and to uphold our laws and regulations. We hope this communication will clarify our concerns
and aid you in assessing the many negative issues with this proposed development. Thank you.
Sincere y,
WPC .
Elizabeth Mastro
Lou Mastro
r
IVE
IRENE C. VITTI
MAR 1 3 2023
PO BOX 1337
' SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TELEPHONE (631) 765-6798 a��Athold Town ������
irenevitti@yahoo.com
March 11, 2023
Southold Town Board
Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: MKS Realty, LLC
1925 North Sea Drive, Southold NY
SCTM # 1000-054.00-04.00-020.000
Honorable Members:
As you know, the Southold Board of Trustees (Trustees) denied the application of MKS
Realty, LLC (the "Applicant") for Tidal Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Permits (Permits), in
the determination dated December 27, 2022. This decision is now appealed to the Town
Board, in their capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, for substantial
variance relief from the requirements of Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, to
construct an outsized principal dwelling and accessory structures substantially located on
a Primary Dune in the FEMA WE 13" Flood Zone (Applicant's Project) .
The Trustees' decision was made upon a reasonable basis, supported by the Town Code
and all the information contained within the record. As such, the Trustees' decision should
be upheld, and the Applicant's request for a variance should be denied.
In making its determination, the Trustees exhaustively reviewed and considered all the
documentation provided by the Applicant, the applicable laws and regulations, the facts,
circumstances, and the entire record in this matter, including:
1. Chapters 111 ("Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas"), 148 ("Flood Prevention") and 275
("Wetlands and Shoreline") of the Southold Town Code;
2. Three site inspections by the Trustees on August 9, September 7, and October 12,
2022, and several Trustees' work sessions;
3. Findings of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Coordinator that
the application was "Inconsistent with the LWRP," specifically Policy 4;
`Southold Town Board
March 10, 2023
Page 2 of 3
4. Recommendations of the Southold Conservation Advisory Council, which voted
unanimously on January 12, and August 10, 2022, to "Not Support the
application",
5. Correspondence and oral comments from the Applicant, its representatives, and
numerous concerned Southold residents, at Public Hearings held by the Trustees
on August 17 and December 14, 2022; and
6. The historical record of the proceedings in regard to the history and development of
the nearby properties, specifically the Bombara, Mastro and Betsch residences.
The Trustees clearly fulfilled their duty to thoroughly review this matter, and their denial of
Permits for the Applicant's Project was made upon a reasonable basis, as follows:
1. The Applicant's Project does not conform to the requirements of the various laws,
regulations, and policies of Southold;
2. The Applicant's Project is not based on sound environmental planning and
undermines the environmental goals of our Town;
3. The Applicant's Project does not reflect the numerous suggestions of the Trustees;
4. The Applicant's Project does not accommodate the concerns expressed by local
residents; and
5. The Applicant's Project is outsized and is inconsistent and incompatible with the
character of the neighborhood.
Although plans for the Applicant's Project were revised at least three times during more
than one and a half years that it was under consideration by the Trustees, the Applicant
did not make sufficient revisions to the location, size, scope, and nature of improvements
to mitigate such substantial disturbance and construction on the Primary Dune.
The Trustees denied Permits for the Applicant's Project, presumably based upon the
Applicant's most recent submissions of December 2 and 6, 2022, because these plans,
like previous versions, continue to deviate from, exceed or evade acceptable standards:
1. The residence and pool remain seaward of the Primary Dune line;
2. Substantial portions of the residence and pool are located in the VE13 FEMA Flood
Zone (whereas the Bombara dwelling is entirely located in the AE12 FEMA Flood
Zone);
rSouthold Town Board
March 10, 2023
Page.3 of 3
3. The residence is out of character with the area, with a footprint of 3,053 sq ft;
4. The residence exceeds the maximum allowable height;
5. The massive windows create a hazard for birds and additional light pollution;
6. The pool is too large and the retaining walls surrounding it are too high;
7. The driveway is excessive, and greater than the minimum,required for access;
8. The amount of fill to accommodate the sanitary system is excessive;
9. The septic system is located inappropriately;
10.There is an excessive use of concrete;
11. An access path to the beach is unspecified and not included in lot coverage; and
12. Lot coverage is not based upon buildable acreage and has therefore been
undercalculated.
In addition to the broad scope iof the Trustees' review and the sound basis for their
decision, the looming impact of climate change on our coastal communities must certainly
have been on the minds of the Trustees. As the Coastal Erosion Board of Review, you
should also consider this when deciding whether to grant a variance from the laws and
standards which were intended to protect us from this peril. New development on
previously undisturbed land must be held to the highest standards of the Town Code. Any
hardship in this case was entirely self-created by the Applicant, who knowingly purchased
an environmentally sensitive and restricted parcel. Granting a variance in this case would
set a reverberating, negative precedent.
The Board of Trustees reasonably and properly denied a Coastal Erosion Permit (and a
Tidal Wetlands Permit). The Trustees' decision should be upheld and the appeal of MKS
Realty, LLC for a variance should not be granted.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Irene Vitti
3/14/23,9:28 AM 3370 Paradise Point Rd Southold Support Letter.jpg
�r•
3/10/2023
Re: 1925 N. Sea Dr.
Town of Southold
Town Board:
I am writing this letter in support of the construction project at 1925 N.
Sea Drive. Having had the opportunity to see the plans and expert
reports,, I feel that this project would be a beautiful addition to our
community. The owners have worked diligently to meet all of the
requirements set forth by this board.
I have known the Mallas/Katos families for many years, as we were
neighbors in Mattituck. They have proven to be outstanding people
always looking to support their community. I have no doubt that they
will continue to do so in their new home. A community is made up of its
residents. As such it isimperative that strive to keep this beautiful family
in ours. I have never known Tony to do anything half way. When this
project is complete, I am sure it will enhance the neighborhood.
Vlassi Baktidy
3370 Paradise Point Road
Southold
https:Bmail.google.com/mail/u/4/#inbox/CgMvgmWZkLkpgGVmWdWkKSghMgCsXCZxHtLiznnGDkRTRwTSTsGWxzDswnRbRjMHKPSnhbXnmRL?pr... 1/1
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Betsy Perkins Paralegal
Kylee Defrese, Secretary
- March 14, 2023
Supervisor Scott A. Russell
and Members of Town Board
Southold Town Hall MAR 9 3 2023
54375 Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Southold,NY 11971
By Hand to Town Clerk
Re: Coastal Erosion Hazard Law Appeal
1925 North Sea Drive, Southold
SCTM#1000-54-4-20
Dear Supervisor and
Members of the Town Board:
Enclosed is an additional letter of support which we would respectfully ask be made a
part of our record.
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
V ery t ours,
P tricia C. Moore
Cc : Tony and Markella Vournou
John Armentano Esq.
Paul DeChance,Esq. Town Attorney