Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTeperman, Lewis & Helaine Hon. Elizabeth Neville Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 William D. Moore RECEIVED Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 AUG 1 6 2006 Tel: (631) 765-4663 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Southold Town Cieri August 14,2006 Re: Coastal Erosion appeal ofTeperman Dear Ms. Neville: Please be advised that the above-referenced appeal is hereby withdrawn. Very truly yours, , ~ llliam D. Moore WDM/mr c: Lewis Teperman, MD T/3 -rAp ~($ -rr.S/a-; ::z.2.4- Au~ 02 06 12:5Sp Moore Law O~~ice 631 765 4643 p.2 .' /15/7fJ WILLIAM D. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold. New York 11971 Tel: (631 )765-4663 Fax; (631 }765-4643 RECEIVED AUG 2 2006 Southold Town Cler. August 2, 2006 BY FACSIMILE WITH HARD COPY TO FOLLOW 15l,~ C I: PI Ii: ~ Ilffi AUG 2 2006 lW Hon. Scott Russell Supervisor Southold Town and Members of the Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE lOWN OF SOlITHOLO RE: Dr. Lewis Teperman and Helaine Teperman Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Board: I respectfully request that clients' appeal for two weeks. \.Jithdrawal of their appeal. and their family next weekend. you hold any action regarding my My clients are considering the would like to discuss this with Please advise if there .is any problem with the tabling of this matter for two weeks. Thank you. ve"~~~~ wUtuJ j)Moore WDM/mr cc: Kiernan Corcoran, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Dr. & Mrs~ Lew'is Tepe.rman D'" 06 12:5Sp 631 765 4643 p.1 Moore Law Office WILLIAM D. MOORE Attorney .n Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (63]) 765-4663 Fax: (631 ) 765-4643 FACSIMILE COVER SHEET The pages comprising this facsimile transmission contain confidenU.al information from William D. Hoore. This information is intended solely for use by the individual entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange to retrieve this transmission at no cost to you. TO: JLen.~~ . HE: FlI.X No.2Gs..:-__L~~_~_ (.;) ~. ' ".:7::- ,/LJ7' ~o/'.H-O (,Y"?,<?~~ 1>"-Ak-e~ DZz~~~ ?~d---00 DATE: ", TOTAL NUMBEH OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET ~ IF TRANSMISSION IS FAULTY OR INCOMPLETE, PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON [,S POSS IBLE . CLIENT NAME: .~~~ ~~~ OPERATOR: . . . RECEIVED JUL 2 5 3lO6 C2~- ~ ~t:)(p /~tf,o ~ M, , Southold ToWll Cler. F ~ H.~ Aj. y. /ff39 ~t:t/~~" . ~~ t.~f'~~ "I~7d tIu.- . ~ t~~f'--~~ ~ ~ ~ /.dt-'A~I1~;~~ a-Z ~ ~ C\.d~/ ~ t:k ,~~ k I' . ..u..~~ elf ~ - ~ ::c::; . 0 v ~-.-r.- -r- .~~i' ~ ~t.~ <'\,... t<~t!-4v ~.,~,,~ ~ ~ ~?---. ~, 'I::f) ~ ~ 7(. ~ 'fI-W t -'7J ~ ~ c.rreCLt k:~ 4 17k ~ '1 ?;."4h-<...tt.-" ~ a~-l.- ~ )1.(.-< jh~i2- ..4-/,./1.;'; ~-- --- ~/~~~ 1'I~.:u-oJ, ~~I tI~N.~ [0), ~ II: ~ ~ WI ~ U tnl APR 1 4 2005 lid) ~.( .~~ ~1~e{ Cf), 0 . 13. , (7'1 Sh..2It.-,<'^-I~' a- /J71/-vf-S"'} :!U-~ ~~ [~-~..) "7 ,L~v~~.~ ';"'I>-O~. ::?;j.-tR ~. .s.ra N.Y, D.y }oolb-(PSl:>&, ~~; I~j~~- v I .1 ~a.J ~ AI: y. 6511-0& -I'') \,j. ~ l~~""'~7:6~~~,~ ~"'3 ~r<:!lS ~~~~2L. 4.!:>-'ah1.c(~ft " ." ~~elc ~~~---.c.- ~-~1t!. "'-l. c( ~...:.... ~''-fl~~.Q~~- ~~t; . r:Ir..L.. - t....b ~ ~ . _ ~ Iff"'; . .~. - ~ t.-<..~ y~ u......... I .o,~..J'&/~ CV~He~~~~It..'3t.F'~7'.~ ~~ -~J'"1r d\",.( ~~ W<- / ~~~' ~ ~ ar.It::Iu.. ~ ~ ~ IY~. L171 a-4.. ~~~~~~~~~ I(~h k>f)a-nvf~/~~~.1 ~ ~~ ~4... ~ ~ '--' 7Ju... ~ 2s-j)'o tM.- 7Iu- .fH'" L ~ ~ -t....,t{kvr~(t1u...~.~,.ht ~?f.:.dJ '-l)~~/~~.~~~~ ~~~ _L_.1l n....... '....,f0.~.-.- ...-Of..~~~~~J.4.- ~~~~_ ~~tIu....s~I,,<I.J~~ ~d. ra-U- ~~ ~A ~ "'4~...t ~f'il::. a..,~ ~ 7.hR... ~ ~ a::L 9~ ~ ~ lht.-~.4t~a.-~-~'Y(~ ~ ~~, ~__~H.~..1 J;;;~~(~~ k.A .e".._<;1:;:;~1-~r ~ ~ ~ / t..e...:t:/l-Y'J(,,~!~cf.1<. r-G:: ~~ ~ Southold Town Board 01 Trustees /~70~~. f.'O.~. I~)S ~~I'1'~I}.y. {r '13'1- D I&. c;;- / . ,... /1~ .;}l:>O~ ( . -;).- ~d~/<J~7;~~~.. . v.::r ~ "'.AA'~ a- ~ "7:4 ~ <=L .f~.4il ~:i.~~~cf.~ ...t.- la...~'Du-A:f -4.. ~~ ~~/t<I.<'.I..1.~) ) I~ ~~ ..:a~~ OJ1!LL"7:? ~~c( L~....-~..!aa..M.. ~ ...... f" 7J.. €( :.1 ~ 7L t:Iu- ~:fl:.~ tv-e J~. ~~.~-.T . ~.J.:I ~ ~~)~-z;~ ' r.~~" ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~o..n... . \,Q ZH> ZIt.....iZ:. ZA.c;1f<k. ~t..a>--cQ.Q ~ ~ ~ ~ I~,,~ te...?f. ao/..-o' LA ~);~ ~~~~~.e/~~~~~t 1 -k-..~ ~~~ ~rP~ t.u<:~ ~ . . ~ .4J~~'~~~~~ ~ --O(~ ~( T~~ ~~~ o-1.t. kJL?~ "~<A-f ~~,/VM~~ <<~b.-~r~ ~'rXWA.-~~(l~~~ I~~~ ~CZ4~~ ~~~..."4::", V2Jfvrc4~1;;~~~.J1J6"'k -~ ~~ ~ r...z e"oJ./07 ~ fk,..~. ~ t.h.M.. t~ . ~:;::::_r~~ ~ ~t:tuu ~~ ~ .. .. ....~ ~7: ~.~.~ ~~L4-. ~~. . I~ '11U0 f'v 7~ ~ 't; 1:tu.-~ IY,~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NY STATEMENT FORM I, Lili Ann Motta, being duly sworn, depose and say: I. I reside at 1870 Stars Road, East Marion, New York. I have lived there since July 1980. 2. I am familiar with the property at 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, New York. I was acquainted with the former owners, the Salamones and the Greenes. I was a guest at the premises on many occasions. 3. During my visits as a guest I had occasion to observe and enter the structure known as the "beach cottage" 4. The structure was a one room wood building. At that time the floor was almost flush with the surface of the beach. The structure was used for storage of beach equipment, rafts, life preservers, oars, fishing poles, chairs etc. 5. I still have access to the beach and have had the opportunity to observe the new structure at that location. It appears to be an entirely new, different building from what I know to have been there. The most noticeable difference is the necking surrounding the building, the windows and doors, the siding, outdoor shower at it's being set back into the face of the bluff. k. A---- ~ Sworn to before me this~ Day ofJune, 2005. Print Name L I l, A-iJ..J MDlTfr Date I S- .J U rJ.e G---d-D.s....... MELANIE OOROSKI NOTARY PUBLIC, State at New York NO.01D04634870 Ou,lifled in Suffolk CountX'vtY\ I CommiSSion Expires September 30~ '" TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NY STATEMENT FORM Date: May 26, 2005 Time: 12:15 p.m. I, Jane Gohorel, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1. I reside at 1870 Stars Road, East Marion, New York. I have lived there since March 1977. 2. I am familiar with the property at 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, New York. I was employed by the owner of the property, Mr. Salamone, in 1981. I was employed as his housekeeper at that address. 3. During the time of my employment I had occasion to observe the "beach cottage" located on the property. 4. The cottage consisted of a one room, wood frame structure. The structure was used primarily as a storage building for chairs, umbrellas and beach toys for the children. 5. I have always had and still enjoy access to that area of the beach. I walk the beach often. I have recently observed a new cottage at that location. This structure appears entirely different from the structure I knew to exist there. This new structure has windows and doors in locations where the "old" one did not. The siding is of a different type. It is surrounded by new decking, the roof appears different and it has new exterior electric light fixtures and an outdoor shower and an air conditioner through the wall. 6. This cottage is accessed by stairs down the face of the bluff. There has been a new deck built at the top of~ stairway off the edge ofthe bluff. ~R /f~rIw~ tI ~ Print Name V1Nc M, GoHo Y<.EL Date: cVb ;5/7 ~j ~ Notary Public MELANIE DDROSKI NOTARY PUBLIC, Slale 01 New York No, 01004634B70 Qualified in Suffolk County ., ,,\1:, Commission Expires Seplembel30. JC;;:;.I. RECEIVED JUL 2 5 2006 William D. Moore Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town e'er' Tel: (631) 765-4663 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 25, 2006 Supervisor Scott Russell and Southold Town Board Members Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Teperman Appeal SCTM 100-21-2-16 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Board: This letter is written to summarize the issue raised in the appeal filed on behalf of Dr. and Mrs. Lewis Teperman. As you will recall, the Trustees granted the coastal erosion permit for the structure. The appeal arises from the conditions set forth in the decision which acted to convert the pre-existing beach cabana into a storage shed. None of the conditions imposed by the Trustees bears any relation to the structure and possible mitigation ofthe impact of the structure on the bluff. Instead, the conditions relate to the nature ofthe use of the structure. The Coastal Erosion law addresses the possible impacts of structures in the designated Coastal areas. The conditions set forth in the trustees' decision do not address any such impacts. During the appeal seeking the modification of these conditions, the Town Board expressed question as to whether the structure is located on the beach or the bluff. The Trustees determined that the structure is on the bluff area and this question is not the subject of this appeal. The proceeding before the Town Board is not a de novo proceeding. It is a hearing on the question raised on the appeal. The question presented on the appeal was the appropriateness ofthe conditions imposed on the permit granted. No other issue has been presented by an appeal to this board. The question of the location of the structure was answered by the Town Trustees. At the several hearings before the Trustees, evidence was presented which included, aerial photographs and surveys from licensed land surveyors which established that the cabana structure was "cut into the bluff' and that it is located landward of the toe of the bluff. [The toe line ofthe bluff is depicted on the surveys that were before the Town Trustees and which have been made a part of the record before the Town Board] The photographs show bluff vegetation surrounding the cabana structure on three sides. No evidence was presented either at the Trustee hearings nor during the appeal to contradict the Trustees' determination. A second concern was raised at the appeal before the Southold Town Board related to the extent or degree to which the pre-existing beach cabana had been reconstructed. However, restoration of structures is permitted by our Coastal Erosion law which also permits new construction on bluff areas subject to certain restrictions. Section 3 7-l7(B)( 4) expressly allows "non-major additions to existing structures on bluffs" 1 Non-major additions are defined as those which are less than a 25 percent increase in the size ofthe original structure. Rrestoration of existing structures is permitted as well. The point to be made is that existing structures can be repaired through normal maintenance and can be restored as well. A structure undergoing restoration, which is defined as reconstruction, can even be modified as long as the reconstruction with modifications does not exceed the pre-existing size limits. [Southold Town Code section 37-6 definitions of normal maintenance and restoration] In summary, the appeal before the Town Board seeks the modification of the decision rendered by the Southold Town Trustees In an appeal to the Town Board sitting as the "Board of Review" an appeal can seek to reverse or affirm wholly or partially or may modify the decision ofthe Town Trustees [Section 37-35] In the appeal before the Town Board it is respectfully requested that the determination of the Trustees be modified by striking the conditions that were imposed with the permit that was granted. Very truly yours, ( WDM/mr 1 Non-major additions are defined as those which are less than a 25 percent increase in the size of the original structure. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING June 20, 2006 9:00 A.M. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets JUNE 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing on the question of appealing the determination of the Southold Town Trustees dated December 21,2005, which decision denied the application of Dr & Mrs. Teperman for beach house repairs as built and proposed. The property in question is identified by SCTM# 1000-21- 2-16. The application was denied under Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code. A more detailed description of the above mentioned application is on file in the Southold Town Clerk's Office, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business hours. I have notification that this has appeared as a legal in the newspaper and it has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board outside. I might just mention that this hearing was originally scheduled for May 23'd, at that time it was adjourned at the request of the applicant and put on the agenda or requested for a later date and today's date, this morning at 9:00 is that date. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am going to open up the floor for public comment. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I would suggest for convenience that the Board consider adopting the record below and incorporating into the record of the appeal including the minutes and all exhibits that were introduced at that hearing. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I might add that I have all of those records and commentary are in the file here but it is really too voluminous to read at this date. WILLIAM MOORE: William Moore, attorney for the Teperman's. Good morning. Let me just begin by sharing with you some information that you can follow along with. I appreci'!te your suggestion on the record. That was going to be my request as well, so I join in yours. I have one set of photographs in color, so you can see the property area that we~are talking about. And then a folder for each of you with some of the information that will be helpful as well. Let me begin by saying is that what we are appealing here is actually the granting of a permit. The decision the Trustee's granted the permit under coastal erosion and then imposed a series of conditions. So for clarification, we will stick with affirming the grant of the permit but we will adjust our comments and our concerns with the conditions imposed. If you look at the property and we are talking about Aquaview off of Stars Road and Rocky Point Road up in East Marion; high bluff area and historically, down on that beach along those properties have been since the 30's and 40's and throughout, a series of beach cabana's. The photographs that are in that record and are here show that. In fact, there is seven of these beach cabanas down in that area, of which the Teperman's are now the owners of one and the upland house. This says these cabana's were built back in the 50's and sometimes earlier. The subject property of the Teperman's, the cabana actually at one point served as the first dwelling on the property back in the 40's and the 50's that cabana was used and it wasn't until 1975 that the house was built at the top of the bluff. A little bit of trivia, it was the house that was owned by the star of Bonanza, Lome Green, so you are familiar with the property. The Ponderosa. As I said, what we are talking about here is the Trustees granting the Coastal Erosion permit for the structure and a lot of testimony was gone back and forth in that record but the bottom line is, in their decision the Trustee's acknowledged the historic existence of the structure and in the basic footprint that was there. That is not up for discussion or question by us. The Trustee's focus was more on the use of the structure and historic use. And I make more of a lawyer's argument at the moment that is not really the subject of the Coastal Erosion law. The Trustee's reflected the concern of what was inside the structure and how it was going to be used rather than the fact the structure was there and yet in their decision, they acknowledge the structure. So I can tell you this, in reading the comments from the hearings below, there was great concern that this had been used as dwelling and could continue to be used as a dwelling and I offer to the Board now that in lieu of the conditions, if you look in the folder I presented you, the first document in there is the decision. Page 2 of that decision sets forth a series of conditions and what the Trustees did was deny the application for the as-built beach house, turn around and granted the Coastal Erosion permit; classified the structure as a storage shed and then imposed a series of conditions saying remove all of these various things. The plumbing. In the premises there is a state of the art composting toilet replacing what used to be there back in the 30's and 40's, it was actually a toilet and there was a rudimentary sanitary system. There was even a well down there on the beach. The well has been capped off and closed. Water is brought down from the house above, as it is in all the cabanas up and down the beach there. And there is electric there, as has been since the 40's or so. But these conditions, A through F, if you look at them reflect more on the use and not the structure because I said the Trustees authorized and granted the structure to remain there with these modifications. So my first, my offer or suggestion to the Board if the concern is that it might be used as a dwelling now or in the future; we would be happy to impose a condition on the permit that was granted denying its use as a dwelling and to go so far as to impose a covenant on the property so that anybody buying the property would know it cannot be used as a dwelling. No sleeping quarters. It is simply down there, what had been has been replaced and removed. There was an old kitchen in there with a stove. The stove was removed, it was unsafe. There was a sink in there with running water; there is an outdoor shower. As I mentioned before, the toilet was removed and put in the biolet, the Swedish biolet compo sting toilet is in there and we would be happy with a permit that restricts and prohibits it as a dwelling space. That is not the intention, it is not its use and that would be perfectly satisfactory with us. As I said, there has been and continues to be electric service down there and water and that is it. It is not used for anything else but a summer respite from the sun. They did throw in, for her 85 year old mother, a through the wall air-conditioning unit. Makes it comfortable for mom out of the sun when you are down there. It is quite a set of steps to go from the bluff down to the beach. That may seem a little excessive but it is there for her comfort and convenience. Again, we are talking about the use of the structure. No sleeping quarters, no cooking facilities. Weare not talking about stoves and any attempt to try and make this a second home on the property. I have Tom Cramer here. Tom has been a consultant for the Town in the past and Tom presented information, testimony to the Board then and he has some comments and observations about the conditions imposed as they relate to the Coastal Erosion law. I will just take you through before I have Tom speak. The other documents in your file for information is a survey of the property showing existing conditions, there are historical surveys in there and like I said, the Trustees didn't question the structure. We had aerial photographs presented, we had in here is a survey dating back to 1973, so the structure has been there. There is no disputes there. We have affidavits from neighbors and former owners as to the existence of the structures. At this point, I would ask Tom to come up and make some observations. His cv is in the file there for you and his professional report with regard to L WRP and the Coastal Erosion law are there for you. Thank you. THOMAS CRAMER: Good morning. For the record, my name is Thomas Cramer, principal firm of Cramer Consulting Group. The office is at 54 North Country Road in Miller Place. I have for the Board copies of some letter reports that I had done. The first one was dated back in.... JUSTICE EVANS: I think Bill went through that. MR. CRAMER: November 24th. Okay. And then subsequent to that, Ms. Moore asked me to take a look at the decision by the Board and I also prepared a letter report. I have copies here which I will hand out. Just for the, a little bit more on my background, I was as Bill stated, I have been a planning and environmental consultant to the Town of Southold in the past. I also was the director of Environmental Protection, as well as the Commissioner of Planning and Environment for the Town of Brookhaven. As such, in those capacities I developed and was Chief Executive officer for the implementation of the Town of Brookhaven's Coastal Erosion hazard area program, as well as the L WRP. I have worked with the Department of State as guest speaker in several of their workshops with regard to both of those programs. So I am thoroughly familiar with the ordinance. The state's part 505, the Coastal Erosion now with the local waterfront revitalization and coastal erosion is the basis of the Town of Southold's ordinance, so again, I am very familiar with all of the programs. I took a look at the resolution that was adopted by the Trustees and there was nine whereas', where they discussed why they granted this permit and why they put the conditions on it. The first four basically went into that the Trustees reviewed the project and did field inspections and took testimony. Numbers five and nine both dealt with the Town of Southold's LWRP and stated that it was inconsistent with the L WRP. In my professional opinion, it is not. And most of the, there was no analysis provided, it was just a listing of these policies. The November 24th letter goes into details as far as each one of those and I won't repeat them at this point but most of them were found to be really irrelevant because this was a existing structure on the site, it was not new construction, there was not a proposed increase in size than what was there originally. The sixth one stated that it was in, it was a historic structure and recognized the uses on the particular property. Number eight went on to say that the structure underwent extensive rebuilding and it was not considered ordinary cosmetic repair. This statement itself is unclear as far as what that meant because no where in the Town's weHands ordinance nor the Coastal Erosion hazard ordinance does it talk anything about that. However the Town's Coastal Erosion hazard does define normal maintenance, which this would fall under. There was testimony put on the record with regard to the status of the uses; there was the previous owners provided testimony to the uses that were on the property, however there was a number of residents that, well, walked along the beach and said that there was a change in it. Certainly there was a change, there was windows replaced and things like that and different siding put on. However, this could be considered under the periodic repair and maintenance of the same kind of structural elements and protection that is included under the definition of normal maintenance. In addition, under Chapter 36, they talk about activities that are specifically allowed within a bluff area, which this structure is located on and it talks specifically about non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on the bluffs pursuant to obtaining a coastal management permit. Although non-major is not defined in the code, major is. And they consider major additions of structures being greater than 25 percent of the existing ground area coverage of an existing structure. So they don't even go into uses, it just talks about the square footage of the ground area coverage and as stated in the record and is recognized by the Trustees, this structure existed into the 50's, we have aerial photos which I don't know whether Bill provided but I have copies, one copy for the Board here from 1976, again in 1993 and 2000 that show the structure essentially in its current configuration on the beach and I will hand in a copy of that for the record. The seventh whereas states that no residences are allowed within the coastal erosion areas. This is not the case. Nowhere through the ordinance does it states that residences are not allowed within the coastal erosion hazard area. In fact, nowhere in the ordinance is there mention of residence, homes, houses or any types of structures like that. They specifically talk about structures, so as far as saying there are no residences allowed in it, this is incorrect. In fact, the ordinance does allow for the continuation of existing structures in the areas. Depending on which natural erosion protection feature it is in does it relate to how it can be maintained. But for bluff areas, as I said before, existing structures that relate to non- major additions are allowed within the bluff area. UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) MR. CRAMER: This is, the structure is on the bluff. The definition ofthe beach goes up to the toe of the bluff, so the structure, if you look at the survey, shows the bluff line or the beach line running right across in front of the structure. So it is considered the bluff area. The beach would be in front ofthe toe ofthe bluff. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is it one ofthese pictures? MR. CRAMER: No. In the survey. The survey shows the toe of the bluff and essentially cuts in front of the structure. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is it the bOllom one? MR. CRAMER: Yes. The toe of the bluff... ..if you look at the survey, the survey clearly shows the toe of the bluff and the structure is set back into the bluff on the bluff and it runs right in front of the structure. But again, this is the, as Bill stated, the Trustees did grant the permit for it and it does fall within the bluff area as defined. There is probably the boardwalks extend out onto the beach area but not the deck or the structure itself. Again, as previously noted, they talk about the removal of the plumbing, the plumbing vent, including the portable toilet, all utilities; appliances, electric, air-conditioner, glass, windows and doors on the north side of the structure. Yet they also exclude the shower in part of their approval, so the approval is even contradicting. In one place they say you can keep the shower and the others say you have to remove all the plumbing. Again, these types of uses do not effect the erosion of the, they are already existing, they do not affect potential erosion on the site because they are existing and they are allowed within the ordinance of the town. That pretty much covers it. Again, looking at the structure, it is, it has existed. The ordinance does allow for it, the ordinance specifically talks about existing structures and the increase of them being the footprint of them, not the use under the erosion hazard area. If the Board has any questions, I would be glad to try to answer them. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Was this an as-built application? MR. CRAMER: Yes. COUNCILMAN ROSS: And prior to the application, was the structure removed? MR. CRAMER: No. The structure remained in place. COUNCILMAN ROSS: I note in the Trustees whereas, they note that a new foundation was built. MR. CRAMER: I don't know whether new pilings were put in or something. Maybe Bill can speak to that. MR. MOORE: This was an existing locust post foundation. Additional posts were put in to sister or marry up with the existing ones that were there. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Was the structure replaced? MR. MOORE: No, this is an as-built, replaced in place and in kind, with elements, it was resided, not shingled but re-roofed. The footprint remained the same, the posts are there, you know, it was rebuilt where it is. Let me just answer a question for Tom (inaudible) if you can have it, what we are looking at is the Coastal Erosion law and its underlying purposes. And I have provided you a copy of that statute, which is our own Town Code, the purposes of the law. What I had asked Tom to comment upon in his opinion (inaudible) structures and the impacts of structures on erosion, not the uses of the structures, do the conditions imposed by the Trustees decision in any reasonable way advance the purposes ofthe law and Tom, I ask you to comment or answer that question. COUNCILMAN ROSS: My question really goes to whether before the permit was issued, if the structure was taken down to the posts; in which case, there would be no structure there and your 25% addition would come into play. MR. CRAMER: Okay. As I understand it, the structure was not removed, it was just strictly repaired in place. COUNCILMAN ROSS: So the Trustees 'whereas, they found a new foundation for the structure is incorrect? MR. CRAMER: As Bill said, there was existing locusts posts there and they provided additional posts underneath to sister the existing posts. As I understand it, they were not removed, the structure was not removed. It was essentially repaired in place, which is provided in the ordinance for existing structures. And again, the only thing that would not be allowed is major construction, which is expansion of the footprint area, the ground coverage area greater than 25%. We could have gone up to 25% and still been a permitted activity within that area, however, that didn't occur. It is essentially the same footprint has just been repaired in place. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I have a question about the bluff (inaudible) an important legal question. All development is prohibited on beaches.... MR. CRAMER: That is correct. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: On bluffs there is a slightly different standard. I am reading the definition of bluffs here and in the law it says a bluff is any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped base adjoining a beach or body of water. Can you show me, you know, aside from the survey that says it is on the bluff, can you show me a picture that shows that it is on the bluff? Under that definition. MR. CRAMER: If you look on either side of the structure, the toe of the bluff stops just at the seaward edge of the structure. If you continue across... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Where is the precipitous, steeply sloped base? MR. MOORE: This structure is cut into the bluff behind the structure and unfortunately I didn't provide a photograph of that. I would be happy to add it if you like, from behind the structure. There is a retaining wall behind the structure showing that this thing is set back into the bluff area and the Trustees didn't make any observations or findings as far as it being on the beach and prohibiting it... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Well, yeah, but this Board is going to have to make that determination. MR. MOORE: I understand that. I will be happy to provide that photograph if you like. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: I am seeing it sitting on a flat area, that looks like it is the beach. MR. MOORE: I can show you where it is. MR. CRAMER: Does the code speak about the top of the bluff, the bottom ofthe bluff? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: It says the water ward limit ofa bluff is the landward limit of its water ward natural protective features. (Inaudible) MR. MOORE: I have a similar picture but this shows the retaining wall and the bluff coming down... ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: But the steeply sloped part IS landward of the structure. MR. MOORE: It is cut back in, the slope continues down on either side of it. COUNCILMAN ROSS: This is flat. MR. MOORE: No, this is cut into.... I would encourage you to go out and take a look at the site. That is probably the best.... PATRICIA MOORE: I am the artist and I was part of the application initially. If you look at, if you do a diagram where you are doing a diagonal, there is a retaining wall behind the and existing, this was all existing from the beginning. There is a retaining wall behind the building. There is about a foot, I would say between the retaining wall and the beginning of the back wall of the cabana. If you were to take and I think what Tom is trying to describe is that you are taking from the surveyor's, the toe of the slope is defined by the survey. It is actually bisecting, if you were to take a straight line across the building, you would actually have the toe of the slope being bisected by the building. It, you have to think of it as a diagonal cut into the toe of the slope. That is the way it was built in the 30's, 40's. That is the way it stays today. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: So the structure itself was entirely seaward of the retaining wall? MS. MOORE: Yes. Yes. Thank you. Sorry, I had to put those words together so I could answer the question properly. MR. CRAMER: And as the photo shows, the retaining wall is relatively low and it is set back; the retaining wall is maybe about 2 foot high, drops down and then the structure comes out level and sits maybe about 4 feet up above the toe of the bluff and on either side of it the bluff comes down on the sides of it and the toe of the bluff extends out, so there is a grade underneath the structure itself. The slope coming down from the top of the retaining wall down because if it was to be made flat, the retaining wall would have had to have been like 6 feet tall or so but what it does is just the small retaining wall comes down, the structure comes out flat and on either side of it the slope comes down to where it meets the beach. And the, as shown on the survey, drawing that line straight across between the toe of the two slopes on either side is really the toe of the bluff and the beach sits out in front of that. But getting back to the question that Bill asked me with regard to whether these uses that occur whether they are impacting on the ordinance or not. They are not, they don't relate at all to the coastal erosion, they are not going to be impacting the potential erosion of the site, whether you have electricity in there or not. The toilet in fact, from what I understand the original toilet was essentially an outhouse. The new toilet is a self-contained, composting toilet that does not discharge anything into the system. It is essentially a compo sting toilet and you know, you create dirt at the end of it. The ordinance does talk about the purpose of it and it gives some five points, A through E under section 37-4, talks about the establishment and procedures for minimizing and preventing the damage to structures from coastal erosion hazard and protecting natural features and other natural resources. Again, the structure has been existing, there are provisions in the code that allows for the continuation of existing structures provided that it is not considered a major structure, which in this case is what is being proposed. Again, talk about regulate, coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use development activities so as to minimize and prevent damage or destruction of man-made property, natural protective features or other resources to protect human life. Again, this is not a residence on the beach, this is a beach house that is consistent with the uses in the area and it is a historic use, again, allowed under the code. Regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them at a safe distance, again, this is not a new structure, this is an existing structure. There was talks about restricting public investment and services and to encourage new permanent development that is likely to encourage new permanent development in the erosion hazard area. This is not a public investment or a service for services or facilities. And the final one is to regulate construction or erosion; protection structures in the coastal zone subject to serious erosion to assure when the structure of coastal protection structures, this is not a coastal protection structure this is the existing structure. Coastal protection structure talks about bulk headings and things like that, which is not the case. Again, and it also is supported in the findings presented as part of 37-5 and I won't go in to each one of those. MR. MOORE: Tom, is it fair to say then, what you just compared, to find it for the purposes of the law with the conditions imposed, do the conditions imposed advance or achieve the objectives of the law? MR. CRAMER: No, the conditions that were imposed do nothing to affect the potential erosion of the site. The structure is allowed, it was recognized as a use. To remove the electric and appliances and things like that do nothing to further protect erosion on that particular site. MR. MOORE: Thank you. JUSTICE EVANS: Can you address the stairs on the west side? MR. MOORE: Pardon? JUSTICE EVANS: The stairs on the west side (inaudible). MR. MOORE: The stairs replaced, there is an earlier survey, I am not sure if it was in the packet that I gave you or not but in the record there is a survey. The deck at one point stuck out as a spur and the outdoor shower was on the end of that deck. These steps replaced that small portion of a finger deck. If the Board was of a mind, we could remove that set of stairs and that was one of the conditions asked of by the Trustees. We could do that as well. There is two sets of steps that goes down from the decking down to the beach. Certainly we could remove that westerly one. JUSTICE EVANS: (Inaudible) MR. MOORE: If six is the westerly steps then I agree with you, Louisa. Again, the point made here was that the permit was granted. It acknowledges its location on the bluff, not on the beach. At issue was the attempt to put regulations, which really address the use of it, it's a historic use-that was acknowledged. No one has said it didn't exist. Surveys and aerials show that the footprint was not expanded upon and all that we are asking is that the permit be affirmed and that these conditions, which relate more to its use or specifically to its use and not to the structure, be eliminated. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Is it fair to say that the construction was done without a permit? MR. MOORE: That is true. One of the things that was presented to the Trustees and not a lot of attention was given to this is whether or not this fit within unregulated activity. You could argue maintenance repair, in kind, in place and not, instead the applicant came in and said I will come before you and seek a permit. And the permit was granted. You know, the conditions were imposed but the permit was granted. But you are right, that could have been argued. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: When was your firm called into this? At what stage? MR. MOORE: We have a whole cadre of wonderful contractors out there who can come and do all kinds of neat things for you and don't mention that you do or don't need permits and certainly coastal erosion permits don't even fall within the thinking processes of a lot of the guys doing work. So Pat was retained, this was after the fact. I will tell you that there was a concern, neighboring property owners had hired someone to do some yard maintenance and clearing and this fellow came into this property and began cutting down trees. And the Trustees were rightly upset, a whole number of cherry trees on the bluff were chopped down, you know, significantly and Dr. Teperman and his family were scrambling, they hadn't hired the guy, he (inaudible) doing stuff. I can happily report, I was there yesterday and there has been a rebirth and a re growth, Jay Cichanowicz did an entire planting plan on the property but the bluff has active growth, up and down. I do encourage you if you are interested to see the site, go take a look. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can you tell us about neighboring cabanas along the stretch? MR. MOORE: There are, I don't profess to have been inside of them or to tell you. There are 7 of them, been there since the 30's, 40's and 50's. They have been rebuilt over time. I know that at least one of them has sleeping quarters for as many as 8 people but I can't say which one that was, it is not ours and like I said, we have no request or desire to make this a dwelling. It is not to be overflow housing for the upper house. It really is just a cabana for respite from the sun. So the use, I appreciate the concern that the Trustees reflected on the use but they did acknowledge the historic existence of this structure. It is not a case where a structure came in. I will make one observation. There were some comments at the last, at the hearings before that a shed was on the property and it has been tom down. In fact, there was if you look at the '73 survey in here, the beach house and a shed. The shed is gone. So if there is any confusion about what might have been there before, there was an old shed there and that is gone. But the beach house remains and the footprint remains. It jives with the... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: When was the retaining wall put up behind the cabana? MR. MOORE: That was original. This was not a new thing that we put in. That was there. In fact, it was all covered. It was overgrown completely and a small decking area from the retaining wall to back of the cabana was there, totally covered in brush and rubbish. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Was this also fixed up at the same time? MR. MOORE: The retaining wall was fixed up... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Excuse me? Was this also fixed up at the time that the cabana has recently been upgraded? MR. MOORE: Yeah, that was all done at the same time. INAUDIBLE MR. MOORE: It is all part of this application, so UNIDENTIFIED: The retaining wall from the photograph clearly (inaudible) on the structure, seaward. MR. MOORE: Right. It wraps around it. Yes. And that had been there before, it was going to be a replacement. Whether that fits the replacement in kind, as being okay without a permit but they came in and asked for a permit anyway and that has not been denied of them. The real question here was the conditions imposed on the use. I question, those conditions don't have any reasonable relationship to the objectives of the code. That is the issue. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to address the Town Board on this issue? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: On a really high tide, how high is the tide relative to the foundations or the footings for the floor area of this cabana? INAUDIBLE MR. MOORE: I suppose, I mean, it is not a dwelling. We recognize that, it has been there since the 30's and 40's so whatever (inaudible) have come their way, they have weathered them and it is not going to be a dwelling space. NANCY SAW ASTYNOWICZ: Nancy Sawastynowicz, East Marion. Good evening or good morning. First of all, I would like to know why this is in the morning. I am here to say, so is there a reason for it at 9:00 in the morning? COUNCILMAN ROSS: We traditionally have these hearings from appeals from the Trustees (inaudible). MS. SAW ASTYNOWICZ: Thank you. Okay, thank you. First of all, I have a copy of the survey that was submitted by the Teperman's to the Southold Trustees and it is from 1975 and on here it says no toilet. So this is (inaudible) and they keep saying it was there. That was a survey. The surveyor had nothing to do with favoring them or the Town. This is an unbiased opinion and it is from a surveyor. So I started walking this beach 12 years ago and back in the fall of 2004, that little cabana was totally taken down and it was taken down by, I am not sure of the men, they said that the construction people moved to Florida, that is why I am shocked when they said they could bring them in and they could talk because when we asked who built it, they said oh, we don't know, they left for Florida. Well, it is amazing. They came back and they started working on the stairs. I have a picture of the little trailer that took away all the debris, their license plate number and this is for the record because they keep saying these people are in Florida. Well, they were working on the stairs and I am not sure who they are but I am sure Southold Town Police can run a test on this license plate and get the name of the people that built this house. They tore this house down and they took it in this little trailer... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Excuse me, I just don't follow this. What you are saying is, the place was removed .... MS. SAW ASTYNOWICZ: Yes. Totally removed with this little trailer, piece by piece. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: When? MS. SAW ASTYNOWICZ: In the fall of 2004. This is a picture of the trailer that did it. The trailer was the guys that did the house. They are saying that they don't know who the construction company was, they moved to Florida, because the Trustees asked to talk to those people. . . COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: In other words, the application that is before us and work that has been done, although it is in the name of the Teperman family, actually that family doesn't know how that work was commissioned and paid for and all of that? Is that what you are saying? MS. SAWASYTNOWICZ: When we were at the Trustee meeting, yes, they said they don't know who the construction people were, they went to Florida. Because they asked who built it. Whoever owns this trailer is who built the house because they are the ones that moved it away, every time they would take a part ofthe building they would put it in this little trailer and then it would be gone. And then, I would walk this beach and I see this huge, there is nothing there, they built into the bluff a big cement thing, I don't know what it was called. Then it was like, the next thing I walked down there, there is this huge, big house and it is not a cabana, it is bigger than my rental. It has, let's see, it is 15 from the rack line, that is where the high tide deposits the drift wood. It is on the beach. It is into the bluff, when they are saying it is not on the beach, he hasn't been down there. They are calling it normal maintenance, it was tom down. I saw it. People have affidavits in the Trustee hearing that they saw this also. I mean, I have nothing against these people. I just think everybody should get permits and follow the law. It is our Town's way to protect our environment. I also saw, there is this man DeLuca, he gave a report, he walks the beach also. He has high credentials, he has nothing against anybody. I would like everybody to have a copy of this because he is a specialist in the beach and he saw this and the day that the Trustees went to examine this they are saying the Mohr's were down there without permits, they had chainsaws and cutting the trees on the bluff. That is in the Trustees file. Why would Mr. Mohr's crew go on Teperman's property and cut down trees? Mohr the landscaper. He does the whole block, he does all those big, fancy houses there. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: M 0 H R. MS. SAW ASTYNOWICZ: Yes, thank you. I know it gets confusing. But to say some guy is going to show up at your property and cut trees, I wish they would come to my yard, I need help. So anyway, it is 15 feet from the Sound. It is right on the beach. They took the whole house away. There were three little cedar posts that were left in the ground, they are still there, if you go there you can see them. They are not even attached to what is there now. They left three little cedar posts and the old shower nozzle is still there. So by February of 2005 this new house was up. And I just feel like it is going to set a really bad precedent, I mean, the other people there have their little houses there; this was all done before town code was put in place to protect us. We have to start doing what is right for our Town. I mean, we are being invaded now and I just feel like if everything was done with a permit, he would have never gotten permission. Let's get real on this. So anyway, I would like just to say, I saw it happen, it was tom down and I think that the Town should have them take it away and my friend would like to buy it. Thank you. MR. MOORE: A piece of a survey has been photocopied and passed around on which a notation 'no sanitary or no toilet' that relates to the Health Department's approval for the sanitation system on the main dwelling. There is no toilet down below. There was a composting toilet before, there is a composting toilet now. It is a self-contained unit. It has no impact. The Health Department doesn't care about secondary accessory uses like cabanas or such structures if you are going to have a compo sting toilet. No one is suggesting this, in fact, the Trustees in prior times have sought the Health Department's approval of these (inaudible) mulching systems as main dwelling systems. The Health Department is not willing to go that far yet because the system can't handle that but the issue of there being a toilet there, we are talking about a composting toilet and that has been the case for some time. A very rudimentary one has been replaced by a state of the art one. I go back to the comment, Dave Cichanowicz has done the stairs. The Trustees gave the permit to replace the stairs. I haven't seen the photograph, that may be his truck. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Can I have clarification about timing and sequence of this all. When was this reconstruction done? MR. MOORE: This was done in '04 at the request of the Teperman's. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You know, I am sorry, but a lot of this seems to be semantics to me about, it says here, we fixed the building. It is a brand new building. Let's be frank about a few things. It is a brand new building and the only thing left of the old structure is the concept of a footprint. Alright? It is a brand new structure. Now the issue is whether that structure and the Trustees decision has an effect or is consistent with Coastal Erosion law. So let's all be honest. It is a brand new building. Now the issue is, whether the Trustees did the right thing and applied the Coastal Erosion law fairly or evenly or consistently. Am I right, Kieran? ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: Well, it is for consideration. JUSTICE EVANS: I think what it comes down to is (inaudible) and what they are asking is (inaudible). ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY CORCORAN: There are a couple of different ways it breaks down. You have to start with whether it is in a beach or a bluff and this Board needs to make a decision on that because it is a different standard, that if it is in a beach you can't do anything and in a bluff, you can do non-major additions. And then you need to determine whether this is a non-major addition or not. And then you need to determine whether the Trustees applied the standard correctly and whether, you know, even a non- major addition requires a permit and requires the Trustees to find that it is appropriate and it is not going to affect the shoreline in an erosion hazard area. So there is a series of consideration we need to go through. MR. MOORE: Well, that of course is a choice if you choose to start as though we were starting with you as a Board as opposed to an appeal. I take the position, we have appealed a permit granted and the issue is, as you said Louisa, the conditions imposed on that permit. I encourage you to go out, if there is more information you would like with regard to survey lines or information relative to where the toe of the bluff is, if that is a question you want to work through, I am happy to sit there and take the time and get you the additional information. You know, adjourn the hearing or leave it open for decision if that is an important question for you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Can I hear from the Trustees? JIM KING: My name is Jim King, Board of Trustees. I think what initiated this whole thing was a complaint that came in that a new beach house was built. This goes back to February of 2005 I think it was, when it first came into the office. We received an application for an existing beach house. Permit for an existing beach house. That is my understanding of what started this whole thing. Normally we have our field inspections on Wednesday's. Almost since I have been on the Board, it is Wednesday's we do our field inspections. The schedule was changed and we went out on Thursday. When we arrived, the sound of chainsaws running and the (inaudible) bluff came clear. So it kind of set the tone. A whole new stairway, set of stairs were built, there was a whole new deck up above, we went down and it just looks like a brand-new house. French doors, air-conditioning. The retaining wall behind it was brand new. Perhaps it was an old retaining wall that had been rebuilt, I don't know. Everything there was totally rebuilt. I kind of peaked underneath, I am not a contractor or anything but I have had some building experience and I don't even know how you could put those cement columns in without either punching big wholes in the floor or removing everything to get the structure in place. In my estimation, it is a brand-new building. The old one was just completely demolished and a new one put in its place. Maybe the same size, I don't know. It is hard to tell from these old aerials. It just shows a, you know. So it has been a difficult thing all along. My feeling is, a cabana on the beach is where you store your beach chairs, maybe you have a shower, you go change your clothes and take a shower. That is the use of it. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: That brings up a good issue for me because one of the terms of your approval was no water. So how do we reconcile that with your permission to have an outdoor shower? MR. KING: I personally would not have a big problem with a shower down there, so they could rinse themselves off. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I am sorry? I am trying to... MR. KING: Yeah. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: You gave them the shower but then we said they can't have water. How do we reconcile that? MR. KING: If there is electric, you know, I don't know what the Building Department requires, if there is electric there, they should somehow be certified and everything was done without permits. That I could see. There was electric, there was plumbing there; that all needs some sort of, is there a CO? There is a lot of stuff! don't know, personally. COUNCILMAN ROSS: You did say you that you wanted the plumbing removed. Not necessarily no water. MR. KING: Well, we couldn't go inside, so I don't know ifthere is a sink, stove. I know there was, there was a roof vent... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: (Inaudible) an issue of what you want them to have. MR. KING: Yeah. I would like to see it used as a cabana, what a cabana is supposed to be. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I have a question. From the point of view of the Trustees, (inaudible) and perhaps all of the Trustees' opinion, that this was a new structure... MR. KING: It certainly looked like a brand new structure, yes. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: And one were there was a retaining wall (inaudible) you weren't sure whether they replaced an old structure (inaudible) I understand that, I just want you to explain.... MR. KING: Just trying to be nice guys. That is the bottom line. Yeah. Anything else? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Would anybody else like to comment? BENJA SCHWARTZ: Nobody else. They have to put up with listening to me, Benja Schwartz. I don't, you know, a couple of thing that we have heard already this morning didn't make sense. There was a shed that was tom down, well, this, in the earlier hearings for the Trustees it was established or the applicants showed that the previous building had been built over the property lines of both neighbors on both sides of this property and they were saying, well, now we have reduced the size of it to bring it into compliance. It is right on the property lines now. If there was a shed there, it would have had to be in the water. I don't know. The story about Chris Mohr changed, too. Originally they had hired him but just to take away some garbage and he did more than they wanted. Now, they say they have got nothing to do with him. Anyways, to spare you the pain of me improvising here, I have written a short statement which I would like to read for you. During the hearing before the Town Trustees, the applicants lawyer Patricia Moore argued this application should be processed like any application to restore a house. According to Patricia Moore, even though no permit was applied for until after the new house was built, the application fee surcharge for an as-built application had been paid and therefore this application should be treated the same as an application to build. Patricia Moore's interpretation of zoning law is a distortion. It is impossible to handle as-built applications like applications to build. The subject of as-built applications are already built. Patricia Moore was not really asking for equal treatment but rather for special treatment. If she gets it, everyone is going to want it. Furthermore, in this case, the application is based on the false premise that the new building is a restoration of a pre-existing building. I saw them replacing or putting in that retaining wall and there was nothing in front of it. They were pouring concrete right into the base of the bluff. At the hearing, I asked Patricia Moore what part of the building is pre-existing? At first, she didn't want to answer me because she said she was talking only to the Trustees, but some of the Trustees asked her to answer and she replied that there were three old cedar pilings underneath the building. I don't think it is necessary to consider that these three pilings would be enough to characterize this building as a restoration because although they are underneath the building, I saw them there, they are not connected to the new building. They are just left in the sand. The new building is not a restoration. It is a completely new and a completely illegal building. It is obvious that without any pre-existing building, an application for the subject beach house cannot be approved. There is no other comparable building in Southold Town. A house on the beach, this changes the entire face of the Sound shore of Southold Town and if this Board allows this building to remain there, we have lost the ability to walk along the Sound shore without feeling like we are imposing on somebody without being in their front yard, in front of their house. Take away the spotlights, take away the windows, you have still got an ugly house on the beach. It is not an ugly house, I take that back. It is a beautiful house, I would like to have the house and I have room for it on my property. But on this property, there is not room for that house. There is no place for it. A house on the beach is inconsistent with the comprehensive town plan of Southold Town. I don't know, this guy is from Miller Place, I don't think he understands. Coastal erosion doesn't just mean coastal erosion, it is about coastal. Weare a coastal town. I think we have as much coast line as the south shore is bigger or something but I love our coast line and rather than saving what is left, the negative environmental building are abusing what is left. It is ironic that the applicant, I am glad to see that he is here with us today, is a transplant surgeon. He knows that in medicine, the transplant must be planned before they remove the old organ. Similarly, as a lawyer, I know that by law a restoration and not just as a lawyer but also as a property owner out here, I have taken down a building and replaced it and the new building, I had to remove it. That is what the Building Department told me to do and I did it. By law, a restoration must be applied for before an old building is removed. This attempt at a building transplant is a failure. The new building must be removed. Thank you. Anybody have any questions? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Anybody else like to address the Board on this issue? MR. MOORE: Did you all want information on the toe ofthe bluff? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Certainly clarification, I think would help us all. MR. MOORE: Then I ask to leave the hearing open so I can present that for you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Is that fine with the Board? Okay, we will leave the hearing open. And then we will adjourn until two weeks from today. COUNCILMAN ROSS: Just so the crowd understands, are we leaving it open for the limited purpose of receiving information? We are not going to have further testimony from the public. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: We are going to close the public portion and we are just leaving.. . MR. MOORE: Well, given some of the remarks, I would like, I would save for that point an opportunity to respond to some of the things that were said here today. I willlimit....I understand, I will limit only to those remarks that were made today. I won't expand beyond that. JUSTICE EVANS: (Inaudible) MR. MOORE: I can do that. Sure. JUSTICE EVANS: (Inaudible) SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I think what we would like to do is close the public portion of the hearing. We will leave the hearing open for the receiving of any written comments or supporting documents from either side of the case to two weeks from today. MS. MOORE: I am sorry. Weare leaving for Argentina, so he is not realizing... MR. MOORE: I didn't hear what the date was. MS. MOORE: ...ifit can be pushed of to an August date, only so we have time when we come back... SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. The regular meeting of August 8th? MR. MOORE: Thanks. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: What about four weeks from today? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Four weeks from today, that puts at... COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The middle of July. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: July 25th. MR. MOORE: That is okay by us. MS. MOORE: Bill, we are away. MR. MOORE: No, we are not. We are back. My poor wife is so eager to go to her home country and see her home city that she thinks....we will be back on August 9th. Uh, September...July 9th. We are back July 9th. July 25th is fine. Thank you. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: I wonder, Bill, if you could address this question that has been raised by a couple of the people who have spoken about, including Jim King, about where was the structure and the columns, the posts and so forth? MR. MOORE: Okay. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: If you have anything to say (inaudible) MR. MOORE: I will get information on that. What do I have to show, no, I can't, I will go out and get you pictures and whatever information we can get to try and answer that. COUNCILMAN EDWARDS: The argument has been made that the structure is not in the same, my indication is that it is not in the same place that it was. MR. MOORE: No, I think the Trustees resolved that and did come to the conclusion, the deck as it got put out was put too big and was cut back. It did cross the line by a little bit but I can address that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Motion to close the hearing. * * * * * '- ROBERT S. DELuCA 175 THE CROSS WAY EAST MARION, NEW YORK 11939 631-477-6077 BDELUCA@HAMPTPONS.COM RECEIVED ~ /?#- JUN.1$ m ~oufhoh' Town C~11 March 20, 2005 r5)1 ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ rm lnl MAR 23 2005 lW Albert Krupski, President Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman Violation 122 Aquaview Drive, East Marion Dear Mr. Krupski: I write to you as a year-round resident of East Marion who regularly walks the Long Island Sound shoreline to express my deepest concern over the above- referenced violation. 1 hope that you will use the full force of your office to secure the complete removal of this exceedingly inappropriate structure from the fragile shoreline where it was (to the best of my understanding) constructed without the benefit of any required permits. I believe the subject construction violates every tenant of responsible coastal development policy that has been advanced for the past 25 years, and I am very concerned that if it is allowed to stand this project will set a new precedent for other property owners and their attorneys to exploit our coastal resources in the future. Should this property owner seek to justify this project as a legitimate reconstruction of a pre-existing nonconforming use, I would strongly disagree. By my observation and recollection (having regularly walked along this beach for several years) the subject construction appears to be a significant expansion of the preexisting cabana or beach shack that once stood on the subject site. In fact, even a cursory examination of the current structure with its air conditioning, French doors, plumbing, outdoor shower, electrical supply and bluff-side retaining wall, suggests that the recent renovations have made this structure far less conforming to the current code than it ever was previously. I am also concerned about the extensive cutting of stabilizing bluff-stabilizing vegetation that apparently coincided with this project. . Comment Letter: Robert S. DeLuca Teperman Violation -122 Aquaview Drive, East Marion - 3/21/05 Ironically, the property owners may have placed their own extensive new construction at even greater risk by eliminating the bluff vegetation that currently aids in stabilizing tons of soil located directly and steeply above the subject structure. For the sake of the maintaining the bluff feature and minimizing the potential risks associated with it clearing, 1 hope that any resolutioA to this violation will also address the issue of bluff restoration as part of the overall disposition of this case. In closing I would like to express my appreciation to you and the Board for the opportunity to express my views on this project. I am extremely hopeful that the Trustees will take the necessary action to protect and preserve our public beaches for those who make passive use of them today and for the generations yet to come. If I can provide you with any additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ;;:.ilL Robert S. DeLuca P.S. For the record, please note that I hold both a B.S. and M.S. in Environmental Science and have served an adjunct professor of Environmental Studies at Long Island University's Southampton College for the last ]5 years. My entire professional career has been spent in the area of environmental impact assessment. I have worked as a Bio]ogist and Sr. Environmental Analyst with the Suffolk County Office of Ecology and currently serve as President of a nonprofit conservation and planning organization based in Southampton Town. 2 The copy of the 1975 survey submitted by Teperman to Southold Trustees on 2/15/05 expressly states that there was a "SINK & DRY WELL ONLY, NO TOILET FACILITIES" l' . "'W~ ~Vv..w . :.D~"""'. fJO~ '" ~U"...- ...~ Y, RECEIVED ~~#, JUN 20m ~ . SouthaM Town Cler. " '. . '. In the copy ofthe AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT sworn to by Donna Palumbo also submitted by Teperman to Southold Trustees on 2/15/05 it is claimed that the toilet was there since the 1950's Thus Both Palumbo and Teperman are lying. ~ . '" '" - ~:iI!'" it . ~ " (~~r1Hc~ (OrNJJ~l TUM1C\ll C\ll~O~f Complete Land Use Services n Including Planning? Design and Environmental P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (631)476.0984.. Fax (631) 476.6933 Thomas W. Cramer, Principal June 16,2006 .~~~v q ~.# JUN 20 3lO6 William Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis & Helaine Teperman @ East Marion Coastal Erosion Appeal SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 Soufhol~ Town Clert Dear Bill: As per your request, I have reviewed the documentation that you forwarded to me with regard to the above referenced appeal ofthe Southold Trustee's decision of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit. Below are my comments and my professional opinion with regard to the decision rendered by the Trustees. As you are aware, the Town of South old has accepted me as an expert witness in planning and environmental issues numerous times in the past. In addition, I have been accepted as an expert witness in local, State, and Federal courts as well. I have been a consultant to the Town of Southold in the past, preparing planning studies, environmental impact statements and environmental and planning reviews for various projects and rezonings for the Town of Southold. I have also provided similar services to private individuals throughout Long Island and have provided consulting services to numerous municipalities and State agencies. Furthermore, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and Development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities, I was the chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of Brookhaven's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area's (CEHA) program which, like Southold's CEHA, is based on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Part 505, the Coastal Erosion Management Regulations. Also while at Brookhaven, I was in charge of developing Brookhaven's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the differences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the L WRP program by developing a number of detailed L WRPs to address the various sub- regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island dealing with the various local L WRPs. As such, I am thoroughly familiar with the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) program and have been a speaker at a number of their workshops on the program. The NYSDOS' program is the basis of South old's program and I have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). I am also very familiar with this property and case. I have carried out site inspections and appeared as an expert witness for the applicant before the Trustees. On December 21, 2005, the Southold Town Trustees passed a resolution approving a "previously existing storage shed with no amenities except the outdoor shower and with two wood decks seaward of the Coastal Erosion area" on the Teperman's property. The approval also placed numerous conditions on the "permit" that result in a situation that is not what the Tepermans requested, nor what existed on the property in the past. While an "approval," it in effect denies the application for the Tepermans. The following are my specific comments with regard to the decision. As part of the Trustees' resolution there are nine (9) "whereas" that put forth the facts that the Trustees considered in rendering the decision. The first four (4) "whereas" refer to the fact that the Trustees considered all the testimony, documentation, held public hearings, visited the site and referred the application to the Town of South old Conservation Advisory Council for comments. "Whereas" #5 and #9 both refer to the Town of South old's LWRP and that the application is inconsistent with the L WRP in general and specifically with the policy standards 4.1A, 4.1 B, 4.2A, 4.28. 4.2C, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1 and 8.3 as found within the LWRP. This is not the case; the action is consistent with the L WRP. As part of my original review of this action I prepared a review of the Town of Southold's staff recommendation letter on their L WRP consistency review of the project. A copy of my report letter, addressed to Patricia Moore, Esq., dated November 24, 2005, and presented to the Trustees at their public hearing, is attached herewith. My November letter addresses in detail how the application conforms to the L WRP. For the most part, the staff referenced policies of the L WRP and said the action was inconsistent with these policies. No analysis was provided within the staff's review. In fact, as discussed in my November 24th letter, many of the policies referenced by the staff are not even relevant to the proposed action. While I will not reiterate all the comments in my letter, it is sufficient to say that the staff was apparently "grasping at straws" to try to show that the project was inconsistent with the LWRP, but was not able to document it. While the Trustees apparently accepted the unsupported staff recommendations, it is my opinion that the Town Board must give full consideration to the lack of any supporting evidence that the action is inconsistent with the L WRP. As summarized in my letter, after detailed review it is my professional and expert opinion that the action is consistent with the Town of South old's LWRP. "Whereas" #6 states: "WHEREAS, there has been shown to be a historical use of a structure and the proposed decks in the proposed location." As part of the record, I have reviewed several sworn affidavits from individuals who testified as to the conditions inside the existing ~ach house and the period from which these conditions existed. I have also reviewed historical aerial photographs that show the structure existed prior to 1976. However, "whereas" number 8 states that "the structure has undergone extensive rebuilding without prior approvals, to wit, utilities, plumbing, new foundation for the structure, new siding, new windows, new deck; said reconstruction not deemed to be ordinary cosmetic repair." It is unclear what the teI1l1 "ordinary cosmetic repair" refers to since this term is not found in either the Town's Wetland or CEHA ordinances. The Town's CEHA does define NORMAL MAINTENANCE un<ler g37-6 as "Periodic replacement or repair of same-kind structural elements or protective coatings which do not change the size, design or function of a fUnctioning structure. A 'Jimctioning structure" is one which is fUlly peiforming as originally designed at the time that normal maintenance is scheduled to begin. "Normal maintenance" of a structure does not require a coastal erosion management permit." As such, and based on the testimony and the Trustees' own Whereas #6, the activity that took place could be considered normal maintenance under the CEHA ordinance. It should be noted that the testimony that conflicted with the affidavits submitted was based on people's apparent opinions of what existed within the structure from walking by the structure, not on actual knowledge of what really was inside the structure. The action is located on the bluff, as defined in g37-6. The relevant portions of the Town Code dealing with "activities specifically allowed" on the bluff are as follows: S37-17B(3) New construction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion management permit S37-17B(4) Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on bluffi, pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit (Note: Major additions are defined under ~37-6 as additions that are 25% or more of the ground area coverage of existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion and therefore would be considered a non- major addition) Therefore, since by the Trustee's own admission in Whereas #6, the structure and use existed on the site and since there is NO expansion, the proposed project would be a permissible activity. Whereas #7 states that "no residences are allowed in the Coastal Erosion areas." There is no such restriction in the Town's CEHA ordinance. A search of Chapter 37 does not find any references to "residences", "homes", "houses" or similar terms. The Town Code, just as NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505 (the State law that the Town's is based on), only refers to "structures." The type of the natural protective feature the structure is found in within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area determines how "structures" are regulated under Chapter 37, whether the structure is a residence or not (~ee discussion on g37-17B(4) above),. Therefore, residences CAN be located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and even additions added, if they existed prior. However, the proposed action is NOT for a residence; the action is an existing beach house or cabana. No habitation is proposed, nor has it boen used for such in the past. As noted above, the Trustees approved a permit for the action and placed conditions Oil the action that remove what has been documented in the past to have existed on the site. Among these conditions is the removal of: . All plumbing, including the portable toilet. . Plumbing vent. . All utilities, appliances and electric. . Air conditioner. . Glass windows and doors on the north side of the structure. The CEHA ordinance was adopted by the Town to prevent erosion within Southold. These conditions of the permit will not have any effect on existing or future erosion on the site. These improvements have been documented to have existed on the site prior to both the Town's Wetland and CEHA ordinances. The purposes and findings of the CEHA ordinance are spelled out in 937-4 and 937-5, respectively. Nowhere in these sections, or for that matter anywhere in 937, does the Town have the ability to remove existing structures. In fact, provisions are contained throughout the Code to allow for the continuation of existing structures, provided there are no major additions. Since the action calls for NO ADDITIONS, and only "normal maintenance" (as defined under 937-6) the proposed is consistent with the CEHA ordinance. It also should be noted that the permit is in conflict with itself. The approval states that there shall be "no amenities except an outdoor shower", but as one of the conditions, all plumbing must be removed. How a shower can be allowed with all plumbing required to be removed is unclear. In my opinion, the Trustees recognized that the structure(s) and use were preexisting. However, because of some opposition, they sought to punish the applicants for not initially obtaining permits for permittable work that took place on the site and in the approval they have attempted to remove rights and uses enjoyed on the property. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call to discuss. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC/el Ene. (~~n[~ (O[N]J~l T~[N](Q] (Q]~O~f Comple te Land Use Services -- Including Planning? Design and Environmental P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (631)4 76-0984 ~ Fax (631) 476-6933 November 24, 2005 Thomas W. Cramer, Principal Ms. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, New York 11971 RE: Lewis & Helaine Teperman @ East Marion L WRP Consistency Review SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 Dear Ms. Moore: As per your request, I have reviewed the letter from Mr. Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner, dated August 23, 2005, concerning the above. The proposed action is for the repair/reconstruction of an existing beach house (12.5' x 24.8') with associated decks, walks and stairs. According to affidavits, the structures were built in the 1950's. The beach house has plumbing, electricity and a bathroom. The site is located on a bluff in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent to Long Island Sound. A wetlands permit and a Coastal Erosion permit has been requested from the Town of Southold Trustees for the as-built structures. Photographs and a portion ofthe survey of the site and structures are provided at the end of this document for illustration. Mr. Terry's letter was prepared to provide a review of the actions consistent with the Town Code's Chapter 95 and the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). The Town of Southold LWRP, and the 13 policies and standards within it, are a refinement of the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) 44 Coastal Policies. I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program and the rigorous process the towns go through to assure consistency with the State's plan. I have both instructed and been a guest speaker at a number of workshops and symposiums for the NYSDOS on the L WRP program. In addition, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and DeveloPl11ent in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities I was the chief executive officer in charge ofthe implementation of Brookhaven's LWRP. Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the <tifferences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the LWRP program by developing a number of detailed L WRPs to address the various sub-regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island, many dealing with the various local L WRPs. As stated, I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program, which is the basis of South old's program, and have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). The Town's document was developed to provide an "appropriate balance between ecanomic development and the preservation that will permit beneficial (sic) use of and prevent adverse effects on Southo/d's coastal resources". As stated above, the Town has cul1ed the 44 NYSDOS policies down to 13 that are relevant to Southold. These 13 are categorized into four groups in the L WRP. The categories are useful in determining consistency to the L WRP depending on the type of project and its location and setting within the coastal zone. The categories are as follows: . Developed Coast Policies . Natural Coast Policies . Public Coast Policies . Working Coast Policies Each of the policies within the categories is provided with a narrative as to its relevance to Southold. They are then followed by a set of policy standards to aid and provide guidance in development within the coastal zone. It is these standards and how the project is proposed according to them that would determine consistency to the Town's LWRP. Mr. Terry states in the second paragraph of his letter that he reviewed the L WRP Consistency Assessment Form as well as other information and that it is his recommendation that "the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the ... policies standards and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP. " He then lists four (4) of the thirteen (13) policies in which the proposed action is supposedly inconsistent with the various standards. However, no supporting information is provided to substantiate how the project does not conform to the policies or their corresponding standards. In fact, in reviewing the proposed project and comparing it to the LWRP policies and standards, the project, in my opinion, is consistent with the intent of the LWRP. The following is a review of the various LWRP policies and standards as listed in the August 23, 2005 letter. The policies and standards are shown in bold italics; each is then followed by a discussion on how Lewis & Helaine Teperman's proposed project relates to them. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Poticy Standards 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structuresfromflood;ng and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize tosses of human tife and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested: A. Minimize potential toss and dIlmage by locating development and structures away from flooding q/lp erosion hazards. 1. Avoid development other than water-dependent uses in coastal hazard areas. Locate new dev.pment which is not water-dependent as far away from coastal hazard areas as practicaL a. No development is permitted in naturat protective feature areas, except as specifically atlllwed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazar4 Areas. The repair/reconstruction of the existing beach house, walks and stairs is allowod under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRlt 505.8. The following are the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8 to the project: 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(4) - The normal maintenance of strnctures may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(5) - The restoration of existing strnctures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(6) - Nonmajor additions to existing strnctures may be allowed on bluffi pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit. (Note: Major additions are defined under 6 NYCRR 505.2(u) as additions that are 25% or more of the existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion, and therefore would be considered a nonmajor addition). 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(7) - A coastal erosion management permit is requiredfor new constrnction, modification or restoration of erosion protection strnctures, walkways or stairways. Elevated walkways or stairways constrncted solely for pedestrian use and built by or for an individual property owner for the limited purpose of providing noncommercial access to the beach are exceptedfrom this permit requirement. As shown above, the project is allowable under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. In fact, portions of the project would be exempt and may be undertaken without the need for a coastal erosion management permit. It is important to note that this Town L WRP policy specifically refers to the definitions of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505.8, not the Town's own Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas), which is Southold's implementation of6 NYCRR 505. The relevant portions of the Town Code, dealing with construction on the bluff, are as follows: ~37-17B(3) New constrnction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion management permit ~37-17B(4) Non-major additions to existing strnctures are aI/owed on bluffi, pursuant to a coastal erosion management perltlU (Note: Major additions are defined under ~37-6 as additions that are 25% or more ofthe existing structure(s). Since the project calls fPl' no additions it is less than a 25% expansion and therefore would be considered a nonmajor addition) Even under the Town's more restrictive implementation of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505, the proposed project would be a permissible activity. However, as discussed abov6, the Town's LWRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. The beach house has been in existence since the 1950's. The proposed activities will not relocate or expand any existing structure(s). The entire portion of the site that includes the activity is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as presently defined by the NYSDEC. The structure has been located as far as possible from the shoreline, avoiding potential hazards as much as possible. It is impossible to locate this non-major addition out of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The proposed action meets this standard by avoiding the hazards of erosion as much as possible (Standard 4. 1.A. 1.2) and fully complies with the all other aspects of the standard. 2. Avoid reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part of a water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in coastal hazard areas. This standard addresses reconstruction of structures in coastal hazard areas that are damaged by 50% or more of their value. The existing structures are not damaged; the action is for a non- major addition and repair/reconstruction of existing structures. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the project. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practicaL Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: a. structures which fUnctionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters. b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards. c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure, or major public facilities. d sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical. As stated in the response to Standard 4.1.Al, the proposed project has been located as far as possible from erosion hazards and does not change or expand existing structural conditions. As stated in the above policy standard, "existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted" if certain conditions, as listed, exist. Standard 4.I.A.1.3 condition letters "a", "b", and "c" are not relevant to the project. The proposed project conforms to condition "d". Therefore, the action conforms to this policy standard. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards. 1. Use vegetative non-structurat measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion, based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. 2. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities of natural protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any development project 3. Discourage alteration afexisting natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhancement of those natural drainage features where they exist While the use of vegetative non-structural measures is desirable, it is not practical nor does it have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreliPe characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition in this purticular case. The existing structures are located on the bluff, immediately adjacent to its toe. In front ofthe toe of the bluff is a high, narrow beach consisting of large cobbles. These cobbles provide no medium for plant growth. Any plant material installed on the beach, in front of the structures, would not survive. Therefore, policy standard 4.1.B.I would not be relevant to this project. As discussed previously, the existing structures have been located on the bluff8iJ1.ce the 1950's. The bluff itself is heavily vegetated with indigenous species. In addition, since Ute structures have been located in their present position for a considerable time, the existing vegetation has surrounded the structures and stabilized itself around them. "The proposed action will not disturb the existing vegetation on the bluff. It is the intent to replace/reconstruct the structures in-place. In addition, the existing natural drainage patterns will not be disturbed. Therefore, the project conforms to policy standards 4.I.B.2 & 3. It should be noted that the existing trees on the bluff were apparently trimmed in the past (prior to the 2005 growing season). The trimming apparently topped the larger trees, leaving a substantial portion ofthem in place. Significant new growth on the trimmed trees show that they have survived and continue to provide beneficial protection to the bluff. It is possible that the removal of some of the old canopy allowed more light to penetrate to the soil, allowing additional smaller plant species to colonize the bluff, thereby increasing the beneficial aspects of bluff stabilization and erosion protection. Photographs are provided at the end of this document that illustrate the existing vegetated bluff. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. As stated previously, the proposed activity is a non-major addition to an existing structure(s) as defined under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, and the Town of South old's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Therefore, the proposed activity is not considered new development and is allowed in the natural protective features found on the site. Also, as noted above, 6 NYCRR 505.8 is less restrictive than Chapter 37; the Town's LWRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this policy standard B. Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by: 1. avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enhancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 5. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which has diminished, the protec/tl'e capacities of the natural shoreline 6. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public aWflreness afthe importance of natural protective features As stated throughout the above discussion, the proposed activity will take place within the area of the existing structures; there will be no additional disturbance of the site. There will be no disturbance of the existing natural protective features existing on the site. The bluff is stabilized with existing vegetation and is not presently impaired. Therefore, there is no need to enhance or restore the natural protective features. As discussed above, it is not practical to iflstall vegetation on the beach because of existing conditions. Condition "6" is not relevant to a single-family home. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. C. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by: 1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated materials and for water and It'IPd transport All of the activities will be above the beach and there is no dune in the area. The beach consists of large cobbles that cannot be moved by wind. The activities are set on the bluff face, back from the beach, the area where water transport of the cobbles would take place. Given the elevation of the beach and the existing stability of the bluff, it does not appear that waves capable of moving the large cobbles frequently reach the toe of the bluff. Two existing stairways extend from the structures to the beach area. Upon examination of their construction and considering the existing conditions around them and the nature of the beach (elevation, composition, etc.), it is apparent that the stairways have had no or very little impact on the transport of material on the beach. As such, they provide minimal, if any, interference with the natural coastal processes. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy standard. Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. Policy Standards 5.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards. B. Prevent point source discharges into Southold's coastal waters and manage or avoid land and water uses that would: 2. cause or contribute to contravention of water quality classification and use standards, or 3. adversely aflect receiving water quality, or As part of the activity, the existing sanitary system was upgraded to a self-contained compo sting toilet. Since there is no discharge of waste, direct or indirect, the action will not cause or contribute to the contravention of, or in any way adversely effect, water quality. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy's standards. 5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters. A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odar, color and turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils,floatables, refuse, and suspended solids). C Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation, fill, dredging, and disposal of dredged materiaL See response to Policy Standard 5.2.1 above. There was no excavation, fill, dredging or disposal of dredged material into the coastal waters during construction. There was also no threat of erosion on the site as none of the existing vegetation was removed or disturbed when the structures were replaced in-kind. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the policy standard. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of South old ecosystlm. Policy Standards 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of South old. A. A void adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would rerl'lt from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either ds a direct loss origill/lling within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually tKcurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, c/Jallll"s in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance of fish or wildlife, often resulthlg from a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruPllfe uses that do not . necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. Timing of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to occur. Functional . loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. In the narrative following this policy in the LWRP, the importance of the ecological natural resources is discussed. It is stated that: "Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. In addition to specifically identified discrete natural resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly distributed natural resources, such as the extent of forest cover, the population of over- wintering songbirds, or benthic communities. These more common natural resources collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. "The role of the Southold Town Board of Trustees in the protection and management of the Town's ecosystem, particularly as it relates to surface waters, is recognized by the Town. The policy standards noted below recognize that federal and state legislation governing the protection, management and restoration ofthe environment are not always sufficiently restrictive to protect local resources. Where the Town and its Board of Trustees have implemented protective measures that exceed that of federal and state regulations, local regulations and standards should be complied with." The applicant will comply with the various federal and state regulations, as well as those of the Town of South old. Furthermore, degradation of the ecological components ofthe Town of South old will not occur as a result of the proposed action. In fact, there will be no loss of existing vegetation or ecological components on site as a result of the project. . With regard to the functional loss of ecological components, this too is not an issue as the project is a replacement in-place. The proposed activity is consistant with the existing ecological character established in the area, that of single-family homes with beach house. (see photos at end of report). Wildlife that currently utilizes the site is no doubt species that II"' tolerant of, and even prefer, the activities of man. Secretive and human intolerant species, suclllls forest interior birds, would not utilize the site because of its small size and surrounding land qse(s). The proposed project is considered consistent with these policy standards. Policy 8 Minimize environmental degradation in Town of South old from solid waste Rnd hazardous substances and wastes. Policy Standards 8.3 Protect the environmentfrom tfegradatian due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to th, ,nvironment and public health. A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources. In the LWRP, there is a narrative following this policy standard that is provided to clarify its intent. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry did not include it in his letter of August 23, 2005. The following is the clarification and the intent of the policy standard: "The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protective measures to prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife resources, will be determined during the environmental review. Further, the dredging of toxic material from underwater lands and the deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short or long term." The proposed project is for repair/reconstruction of a beach house; therefore, a site plan application is not required. No dredging of any type is proposed. A home does not use either toxic pollutants or hazardous substances other than household chemicals, which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the . proposed project. B. Prevent environmental degradntion due to persistent toxic pollutants by: 1. limiting discharge of bio-accumulative substances, 2. avoiding re-suspension of toxic pollutants and hazardnus substances and wastes, and avoiding reentry ofbio- accumulative substances into the food chain from existing sources. Again, a beach house does not use toxic pollutants and hazardous substances. The project will use ordinary household chemicals (if any - since it is not a residence), which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Neither suspension, no less re-suspension, of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances nor the discharge ofbio-accumulative substances will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. In summary, it is my professional and expert opinion that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of South old's LWRP. The above review is based, in part, on the survey prepared for Lewis & Helaine Teperman by Stanley J. Isaksan, Jr., L.S., revision dated May 16, 2005, and my familiarity with the site, the proposed project and the surrounding area. If I can provide any additional information or clarification of the above, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, .- Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC/ Enclosures L01VG ISLAND SOUND S 87'57'J5"E 40.01' APPROX. IiW; 7f/IS Dll.T[ WOOD STAfF?$ EL .!_. _ _WLF?dlllN~ _ _ 'C 8_ .. _ ! ~D_DECK<N~ SHQW(R ARfA Ofl;ll.lJH ,.pp~~r:('\~ -.,of:i. 8 DECK 0.1' nWM PROP. LlNf '.m-fl.IO __._n ;~ -:.ii:ft '8 -0; "J':- - -. .CO. ~= .s= - - -"!j- - -rn- -A,e{ K j I (NO STOCKADE ('(NCE ;-~;~~l{~ i(>f'-r;"BI.lJff wooo STEPS z ';; , o f' ';l ;; 9' __'" "',;;"ZARO ~I!!. -.- No.... Scale n 4~ _ _ _ COAsr~ ~IJ2..SI~iil:. . j.O' z "- ~ ~ l' i o c ~ ~ ~ WOOU fENCE 12 '" o () ^ -< N -l>- (J1 CO U1 Ii) " ~l ~ c~c ~OH TIE:; 1.200'+/ 80'35 10 W 6 AQUA VIEW A VENUE"" Portioll of survey pre..."'" by: STANLEY J.ISAKSEN.JR. _loa dale: May 16, 200!1 SCTM 111_21-2-16 DRNEWM EARTH/STONE N U1 --..l ~ CO. cow: ~ON Upper Left: View of existing beach house from west. Upper Right: View of existing beach house from east. Middle Left: View of top of existing stairway. Middle Right: View of stairway lookjpg down. Bottom Left: View of bottom ofstalrway, looking up from beach. Upper Left: View of vegetated b1llff east of stairway. Upper Right: View of vegetated bluff west of stairway, neighboring stairways. Bottom Left: View of neighboring Ileach houses to west. Bottom Right: View ofneighboringlleach houses to east. CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas W. Cramer 54 North Country Road P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Office (631) 476-0984 Fax (631) 476-6933 Licensing and Certification: . Landscape Architecture; State of New York Experience: . Principal of, Cramer Consulting Group, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (6/97 to Present) . Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/95-6/97) . Principal of, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (8/88-4/95) . Deputy Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (4/86-8/88) . Acting Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (7/87-11/87) . Director, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (8/82-3/86) . Environmental Planner/Planner, Department of Environmental Protection & Planning Board; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/75-8/82) . Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (9/74-3/87) Significant Professional Achievements: . Numerous Draft & Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), list furnished by requesl. . County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. . DGEIS and FGEIS for the County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. . Expert Witness in Federal, state and local courts. . Extensive work with NYS Attorney General and other state and local agencies. . 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . DEIS and FEIS for the 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . Draft Port Jefferson Harbor Complex Management Plan, 1996 . Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1995 . Draft New Ordinances for the Town of Brookhaven. 1995-1997. Including but not limited 10: Central Pine Barrens District, Bed & Breakfast Ordinance, Marine Commercial District, Recreational Commercial District. . Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Bays and Harbor Bottoms Ordinance Planned Development Districts (POD), Planned Retirement Community (PRC), Change of Use /Expansion, Sign Ordinance, Historic District, Wellands Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, J-Business Districts, L-Industrial Districts, as well as others. . Computerization of Department of Planning, Environment & Development Permit issuing and tracking system in Building Division, 1997. Computerization and Networking of entire Department, 1997. Computerization oflog-in and tracking applications, 1997. Computerization of Town's Real Property Inventory, 1996. Computerization of Building Divisions records, 1997. Upgrade and expand GIS capabilities, 1995. . Numerous projects for private and municipal clients as a partner in the firm of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 1988-1995. Specific list provided upon request. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Feasibility and Development Potential Studies. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Audits. Visual Impact Assessments. Site Planning and Landscape Design. Archaeological and Historic Studies. Testimony before Boards and in Court. . Town of Brookhaven's application for the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, 1996. . GElS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS A-I Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS Commercial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988. . Environmental Quality Bond Act, Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987. . Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987. . Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985. . Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984. . Open Space Study - Town of Brookhaven, 1984. . Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone, Tllwn of Brookhaven, 1983. . Coastal Erosion Along the North Shore of Brookhaven, 1979. . Sound Beach - A Neighborhood Study, 1978. . Puerto Escondido, Hoy y Manana, 1976. . Mount Sinai Harbor, A Conceptual Plan, 1975. . Cedar Beach - A Balanced Future, 1973. . Guest lecturer at several colleges and universities on land use and environmental issues. . Conducted seminars and workshops for the State of New York Department of State on lam! use and coastal management. Professional & Other Organizations: past and present . Bo'sun Supplies, President. Mail order & Internet marine supply business. . Chairman of the American Cancer Society Regatta . American Planners Association . American Society of Landscape Architects . American Water Resources Association . National Eagle Scout Association . New York State Pine Barrens Council . New York State Pine Barrens Task Force . New York Planning Federation . New York State Association of Environmental Professionals . Suffolk County 208 Technical Advisory Council . Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality . Suffolk County Pine Barrens Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Peconic River Advisory Board . Long Island Association Advisory Committee . Boy Scouts of America, District Advancement Chairman . Miller Place Historical Society, Trustee . Moriches Inlet Breach and Stabilization Committee . Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee . Mount Sinai Sailing Association, Commodore Education: . SUNY, College of Environmental Science & Forestry; Undergraduate and . Syracuse University; Undergraduate BLA - Landscape Architecture BS - Environmental Sciences & Forestry . SUNY at Stony Brook; Graduate courses in Planning and Political Science . Suffolk County Community College; Associate Business and Humanities . LID, Southampton College, Undergraduate studies . SUNY, Agricultural & Technical College at Farmingdale, Specialized technical CllPfse work . Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning lllld environmental fields References: Furnished upon request. -~- ------- - -==~-~ ;; ( .. < . . z c ~ " $ ... ~ . ,d .. I , ... ,.."".., ~ t\% ..t- -~ l'f~ \ \1\\~ t\ \ ,~ J.. i ~ ~ ,0 0;1 ~- \~ ~ :\ ,- I r \ I \ "--::~. ,j> ~' . . ' .~~ ~\i "'- (j) ~ " . 0 ; .' .om 'I. . m J 1 saC''lsnJl jO PJeo8 ",\01 PloqnoS ~ . 0<;. .p ;<=8'i -<gli! !l\d 3J ~ ~:..<P0i ".... ... (':! r, e !: 'f . 3J ~uuz ~ [ 81:1 ,;; ~.2j- . -- ",,,,,, ~ [_;rr - ." ~- ;F $ .... ~ , 1;>~11~-~,~' 'I'i ~I~ ~', ~'f I /''''''''', r ,,\:, . , II I '~, ;., ,..; , ! I ~G': 'Lf~ I OJ ! I I j' ~: ~ h r-; if ~ ' ~ r n " f;ll, ~, "'" '~~ .. ';.k-' fp., . . ' '~~ i~::-;~,;;''::':t. t.~ ( , ~~ ~& e ~~ , < , l' .,"r M1.>Itf'l.!."'-.: '.- --'1~j! ,---,-"--~.s:_'''=.'''L'L-.. ~~ : II , I / I . l /" I / M)~l,..s.e. ~ ,t- ~ . . . , :t: 5C4'-f:; I =ZO'O 'j.! :~ <>~ 1j~ .=:.~ ,,~ 1f > . c ~ !{ . ~ ~ f ~ c ~ r .r .;.. ."" o <= ;;:. o ;;: C' :e :0 ,..., .. ;;. - -=.~. . t.')f>.'f:. " I, c- .!:' 0' . 0 c . < 0 >l'- 0 c \" . q , CO- ~ ~;o m ~ '"t 0- o ~~ , rn o ~ @ II i' 1 . ROBERT S. DELuCA f 75 THE CROSS WAY EAST MARION, NEW YORK f f 939 63 f -477-6077 BDELUCA@HAMPTPONS.COM RECEIVED ql"'#-' JUN 2 0 2006 Southohl Town Cler. March 20, 2005 [O)~ (C ~ ~ WI ~ rm If\l MAR 2 3 2005 lW Albert Krupski, President Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town Board 01 Trustees Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman Violation 122 Aquaview Drive, East Marion Dear Mr. Krupski: I write to you as a year-round resident of East Marion who regularly walks the Long Island Sound shoreline to express my deepest concern over the above- referenced violation. I hope that you will use the full force of your office to secure the complete removal of this exceedingly inappropriate structure from the fragile shoreline where it was (to the best of my understanding) constructed without the benefit of any required permits. I believe the subject construction violates every tenant of responsible coastal development policy that has been advanced for the past 25 years, and I am very concerned that if it is allowed to stand this project will set a new precedent for other property owners and their attorneys to exploit our coastal resources in the future. Should this property owner seek to justify this project as a legitimate reconstruction of a pre-existing nonconforming use, I would strongly disagree. By my observation and recollection (having regularly walked along this beach for several years) the subject construction appears to be a significant expansion of the preexisting cabana or beach shack that once stood on the subject site. In fact, even a cursory examination of the current structure with its air conditioning, French doors, plumbing, outdoor shower, electrical supply and bluff-side retaining wall, suggests that the recent renovations have made this structure far less conforming to the current code than it ever was previously. I am also concerned about the extensive cutting of stabilizing bluff-stabilizing vegetation that apparently coincided with this project. Comment Letter: Robert S. DeLuca Teperman Violation -122 Aquaview Drive, East Marion - 3/21/05 Ironically, the property owners may have placed their own extensive new construction at even greater risk by eliminating the bluff vegetation that currently aids in stabilizing tons of soil located directly and steeply above the subject structure. For the sake of the maintaining the bluff feature and minimizing the potential risks associated with it clearing, I hope that any resolution to this violation will also address the issue of bluff restoration as part of the overall disposition of this case. In closing I would like to express my appreciation to you and the Board for the opportunity to express my views on this project. I am extremely hopeful that the Trustees will take the necessary action to protect and preserve our public beaches for those who make passive use of them today and for the generations yet to come. If I can provide you with any additional information or assistance, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. ~': }JL Robert S. DeLuca P.S. For the record, please note that I hold both a B.S. and M.S. in Environmental Science and have served an adjunct professor of Environmental Studies at Long Island University's Southampton College for the last 15 years. My entire professional career has been spent in the area of environmental impact assessment. 1 have worked as a Biologist and Sr. Environmental Analyst with the Suffolk County Office of Ecology and currently serve as President of a nonprofit conservation and planning organization based in Southampton Town. 2 I Southold Town C1er~ C- ~~ ;;0 ~ m N n C> ~ m < ~ m 0 ~ -~ ,. .. ~f!. .r_' :...~JJ .~.. (/, ~ ......0:.. "-. . 4 . ~'-..... ..... .~ ,<,' ~.... 'I'~,. \. . ... ~ ~~. j I ~ to 1\. ,!\ :~I .~ll "( , ~I' ......-u .\ 257,7& ". ~ 1--\ L-a~~ . \; J II ~\ l ,,;-,J", 2"5.t:!5' '0 .\.- ~ ,'OJ "': j oI'..c:cw- Ii I ,I' i i ~oc<'l p(lINT I/O<All (' -- ~ 37-2 SOUTHOLD CODE ~ 37-4 ~ 37-4 COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREAS ~ 37-5 ~ 37-2. Title. This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Town of Southold Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Law." E. Regulate the construction of erosion protection structures in coastal areas subject to serious erosion to assure that when the construction of erosion protection structures is justified, their construction and operation will minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, private and public property, natural protective features and other natural resources. ~ 37-3. When effective. This chapter shall take effect twenty (20) calendar days from the date of this chapter's adoption and filing pursuant to ~ 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law or the date of filing the official maps, whichever is later. ~ 37-5. Findings. The Town of Southold finds that the coastal erosion hazard area: A. Is prone to erosion from the action of the Long Island Sound, Gardiners Bay, Long Beach Bay and Orient Harbor. Such erosion may be caused by the action of waves, currents running along the shore and wind-driven water and ice. Such areas are also prone to erosion caused by the wind, runoff of rainwater along the surface of the land or groundwater seepage, as well as by human activities such as construction, navigation and certain forms of recreation. B. Experiences coastal erosion which causes extensive damage to publicly and privately owned property and to natural resources, as well as endangers human lives. When this occurs, individuals and private businesses suffer siguificant economic losses, as do the town and the state, either directly through property damage or indirectly through loss of economic return. Large public expenditures may also be necessitated for the removal of debris and damaged structures and replace- ment of essential public facilities and services. C. Experiences erosion-related problems that are often contribut- ed to by building without considering the potential for damage to property, by undertaking activities which destroy natural protective features such as dunes or vegetation, by building structures intended for erosion prevention which may exacerbate erosion conditions on adjacent or nearby property and by water action produced by wakes from boats. D. Is the subject of programs which foster erosion protection structures, either with private or public funds, which are costly, often only partially effective over time and may even be ~ 37-4. Purpose. The Town of Southold hereby assumes the responsibility and authority to .implement and administer a Coastal Erosion Manage- ment Program within its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 34 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. In addition, it is the purpose of this chapter to: A. Establish standards and procedures for minimizing and preventing damage to structures from coastal flooding and erosion and to protect natural protective features and other natural resources. B. Regulate, in coastal areas subject to coastal flooding and erosion, land use and development activities so as to minimize or prevent damage or destruction to man-made property, natural protective features and other natural resources and to protect human life. C. Regulate new construction or placement of structures in order to place them a safe distance from areas of active erosion and the impact of coastal storms to ensure that these structures are not prematurely destroyed or damaged due to improper siting, as well as to prevent damage to natural protective features and other natural resources. D. Restrict public investment in services, facilities or activities which are likely to encourage new permanent development in erosion hazard areas. Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 December 21, 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN 1225 AQUAVIEW AVENUE, EAST MARION SCTM# 21-2-16 Dear Ms. Moore: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday December 21, 2005 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore as agent for LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold Chapter 97 and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, application dated February 15, 2004, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application 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, WHEREAS, the action as proposed is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, and, WHEREAS, there has been shown to be a historical use of a structure, and the proposed decks in the proposed location, and, -'2.'- ,.., { 2 WHEREAS, no residences are allowed in the Coastal Erosion areas, and, WHEREAS, the structure has undergone extensive rebuilding without the proper approvals, to wit, utilities, plumbing, new foundation for the structure, new siding, new windows, new decks; said reconstruction deemed not to be ordinary cosmetic repair, and, WHEREAS, the proposed unpermitted as built beach house is INCONSISTENT with the following policy standards of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: 4.1 A, B, 4.2 A, B, C, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1, and 8.3, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENIES the application of LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN for beach house repairs as built and proposed, and APPROVES a wetland permit and a Coastal Erosion permit for the previously existing storage shed, with no amenities except the outdoor shower, and with two wood decks seaward of the Coastal Erosion area, with the following conditions: 1. The structure be for storage only, specifically not for habitation; not a dwelling. 2. The following unpermitted amenities shall be removed prior to the issuance of the permit: a. All plumbing including the portable toilet b. Plumbing vent c. All utilities, appliances, and electric d. Air conditioner e. Glass windows and doors on the north side of the structure. f. Stairs located on the west side of the storage shed. 3. Plans showing the size and dimensions of the structures (shed, stairs, and decks) submitted for approval, with the decks sizes complying with the current code. 4. Final inspection of the exterior and interior of the structure. 5. Failure to comply with the aforementioned may result in criminal and/or civil action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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, ~9~~~.'0. Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees 8 GUARAN TEES iNDICA TFD HERE ON SHALL RUN ()lov'L Y TO THE PERSON FO/? WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TinE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, LENDING INSnTUTfON, IF USTFD HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGN[ES OF THE LENDING /NST/TUTlON. GUARANTFES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADOlnONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQVENT O'M'lER5. UNAUTHORIZED AL TE:RA nON OR AOOlnON TO THIS SURl/E:Y IS A VfOLA nON OF SECTiON 7209 OF THE NEW' YORK STATF mUCATiON LAW. COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP Nor BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORs EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. LONG ISLAND SOUND S 87'57'35"[ 40.01' APPROX. HWL THIS DATE SHOI1("R AReA JV 0.1' 3,2.7' 5. z o 02 ~ o WOOD STAIRS W/RAllING LINE o ~ ~ q -l> en. o o r<1 12' END STOCKAOE FENCE AJ o (") ^ -< -0 o z: -; AJ I' o "~)(';OPOfIJt.UfT WooO sTEPS g' 7. CONC t.401'l. TIE 1,200'+/_ 80' coNe AQUA VIETA~5 70 W 62.6 ~o~, rr A VENUE"vCC SURVEY OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATE EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLO SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. , SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS GJ SURVEYED: 5 APRIL 2004 , z b .IAI. ,.'.71 . "", ,.... MEMORANDUM OF SALE DATE "'l- - ;?;3-0~_ RecoNo<Hrllm lJR, Uti/IS I f/et!i!# 7J3~ft(JI;1IJ/{) . ....... Ad'~.oK.' onogreornenltopurcho.. /Z2S jJ(Jt;DIA'M tJ(jf,tJ(l.E-, '-~-'.r c,4;7 /lllliIOtO. )I f'j193 '7 .._._SCTlU /19~ .- -;?j - t1.z-tJ/h / Fram .f (J Ii- f'.I fo/ ft a- / 1(;11 N CI p"C/ LI >' Tho ...... prIca 1a.!...J.; :2 2.sf tJ'(!"'2 poyoblo ., rollowo~ / ;; 'I \ ~.. "L f1Ii h,? . T.r"" /~% /kXI-W' "p C'o<<77R1lcC l' /22I.saJ.J~~$'''O fJfk./ltllC/; . &,u /.:'~cJ>/ ~4::: . ...j Clo.ln.to 1.'0 p1aco on'" ,ooul ftff!.lb 2-3, "2-tJOcj ",e 5()(J,(/~/2- 1l.5 P'E7ij('/f/!::?'J) .' , Fumlahln.,(1o AIlpllanc... h,n<t" oro.) Includo<lln 111,...10: ...-.-Ll-~ 111'1''' /J;(,Ci!!:> /,A/ nbr/$.6-"l..--_ 1f,L}<;fNMT 'f- UAc# /-/(!(/5C:---;-_ Ill", 13!Ml!>.?:. ~. '.~ b10 --?t.icit;N -;;";Al ftf!'/!;'t< f Ett;it2(~ rellC-!; _) >1VlI Addlllonol oonllngoncle. _ upon In 1hI, oaro by both po"'..: C.? dlhfl. 777(./3. Cc!!7IPC/17EL..fl,f:: Qccvf'iJ-VC'/ _.~N /lCJC/$& -I .87/11'('1-. <;71!?(lcT(/4'Ii..? ' SELLER <...7rJ(!!lfC/;:). .G//JfC/;i.J:Jl"elC/4> lElEPIiONE.(S'16)?6S -276..:) ADORESS "7//" C.WfJPEl, j2olJ{) f?1l;()f)/J.5.5c; .._p f //() '30 / SELLER'SATTV. 'J)flJl S l3eoJJY. Pc.,.. , TEU!P",,?' S/6 13 ')"U ?tiJ FAX'..{,j",t:;lb _932---:.15 ?2S AD"""S_ 73>'3 <SEf2/cllrJ..T/J(hVPll!: -SUITt' ?3.bvE(2;cfm Alf/ 1(7..5.3 PURCHASER D12, t.ftill~f ;leL:!Jld )2~ft{!!!/MJ"'~PI<ONE.(-Zr1)7fl- Z-p/"Z_ ADOIlESS..f?-OO /3I1ff_?21!.f~T-__ _ ~ :;:13 .... /JdU fj{)f2f; NY' ) (Jd r.6 PURCHASER'SAlTY. f))?AICfj(.TfPeR E. ,.TeLEPHO" Ji;:z -'?'7J3 . .. /, FAX -z. 7 $" - 19 ADOIlE8S ?AE~~ Ijo'I!J;[ 911113 c;d7 Nw./ <jM . dO/-6 Cook Pony Farm Real glllsl I . commlailon b~ aeparalflllQl1Htmunt. /Idle.... / ptfJ?,t/1tttt- 1.5 IItVA/i1f,. ?~T;le ~ .'....~. 4:WI-!U,Q,7Y jJjtSl:lIlI,tpui !'V1lI/) TIlK BROKE 'cOOK PONY FARM REAL~ATE, INC. ?(j{UIIII~t.- 111" 27p IIl1p 7f1t 1% SEW AGENT f/;tI/oAiIltt2t- 71/-X dF tV'!:> JJI/II/lt# t.W f'tJPcliII~"t /IT Pitt 4lP oo..$/fo/o-- 20 MAIN STREET, SUITE I, EAST HAMPTON. "EW YORK 11031 (516) 32A-98oo FAX (618) 324-81131 30 NUGENT STREET, SOUTHAMPTON, NeW YORK 1111118 (018) 263-9800 FAX (516) 283-9021 161A MAIN STREET, P.O. BOX 7134, AMAGANSETT, NEW YORK 11930 (516) 267-7700 FAX (616) 267-6819 2406 W>IN STREET, P.O. BOX 189B, BRIDGEHAMPTON, NEW YORK 11932 (816) 637-1773 fAX (016) 037.6133 98 MAIN STReET, P.O. BOX 1466, SAG HARBOR, NEW YORK 11963 (616) 6252rAX (616) 726.6004 . ... .... _____..... .._..........."........'-1 DC"""U ..n::WW\AU' 11A7A IfitA\ 288-6900 FAX (516) 288.-8999 ~.). .; . ... rlH1"'(-c.J-c.~~J U"J' UU SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUNfY OF SUFFOLK x AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT LEWISTEPERMAN x STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS.: COUNfY OF SUFFOLK) Donna Palumbo, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I. I reside at 261 Nassau Avenue, Manhasset NY 11030. T also own a swnmer home at 1095 Aquaview Avenue, P.O.Box 602, East Marion, New York 11939 and am Dr. and Mrs. Teperman's neighbor. 2. That I am very familiar with the Teperman residence and the existing conditions before and after repairs to the existing beach structures. 3. The structure on the beach appears to have been built in the 1950's and contained plumbing with an old compost toilet, electric, shower, kitchen, and a living area. The Teperman's replaced the old toilet with a high tech. self contained toilet. The building improves the appearance and value of all our properties. 4. The prior owners loaned out the house to friends in the summer and this building was used by them for bar-b-ques and parties. The Teperman family have fixed up the building and cleaned up the property. The family is quiet and considerate of their neighbors. 5. The existing beach strUcture was not enlarged in any way, in fact the decking was cut back from its original size. 6. The beach in front of my property and the Teperman's property is a private beach with lirilited access. Many of the homes along this beach have beach structures from the 1930's and we value the continued use and enjoyment of our property. I on behalf of myself and my husband, Albert Palumbo, support the application by the Tepennan Family and support tbe Trustees granting of the permits. . . /7 ~-nH'l~~ Donna Palumbo Sworn to before me thi~day of March 2005 ~-<-~ Notary Public DONNA R. PERFETTO NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No,01PE61198S2 QUALIFIED IN NASSAU COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC. 6, 2006 TOTAL P.01 ., " b,j SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x LEWIS TEPERMAN AFFIDA VIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMlT x STA TE OF NEW YORK) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 5. George Wetmore, being d,IIy sworn, deposes and says: l. I reside at ] 7737 A Lake Carlton Drive, Lutz F]orida 33558-6046; 2. My exwife Borbm Wetmore and I resided at 1225 Aguaview A venue, East Marion, the property now owned by Tepemlttn, from 1984 to 1991, prior to our di vorce. 3. That while Borbra and I lived in the house we made improvements to the house, repaired and replaced the existing structures on the bluff. 4.. The beach house was built in the ]950's before the upland house was built by Salamone in 1975. The beach house contained plumbing with an old compost toilet, shower, kitchen, and a living area. Mr. Salamone stayed at the beach hOllse before the main hOllse was built. I have seen the 1992 Areal photograph and the structures appear as they were while 1 lived at the property. ~) George 'Wetmore ;t/ !'lilY Sworn to before me this~ day of ~2005 I~ '-j)~ ~ ,,"'" PATRICIA DARlAS ..W~ MY COMMISSlON 1# D0356837 O}~ EXPIRES: Oc!obcr 01, 2008 l~]~OTAAY Fl. Notary Di~t A!1';(lC. Co. Notary Public I'd Et-9t- S91. IE9 . .. :) 1 -. . J.. .. . d9t-:~1 SO SO h~W_. aO~JJO m~l a~ooW ~ 'r::;@ Uw ,~m~ .) l~ '3. ~. "'fr - I"'~ . - ~ .. .....,,, n 'I-,......a.-"..'l "'---C1I-"JI! ~! {.:I . ~... ..., ~ . _.... ~ '/'" li;' .It:.('r~' '. I. . ..... 1 I .~ f, .,~; .,,~^," I.;..:J, ~ I '1/ ~ . .~, " . ..... \ '~... __ .__~_:: ,~J:. . , 'r~~""""~lJ- . I l' r.. .t". ~.~, 1.,.: :j.:t,. ., ! ,~'~..~U . i ~~ ht~'~~l; .llliUi.i . I ~i~ ~~i~l~Hh~II'--'~-"":-"'.,,,, , ,q 1aij ~~~h;iN ...'..-.-:.... ; 'I!:~.j ;~~~ !!JstliH i rt.lW. t!lj!rid~ ,-.-.- .....-- i~, ~~-lfo-.~~!#lJ.-J!---._---_._..,-_.. . c0'd )3/Ql!2ee~ 17:55 21 ,725:;:3j. '3 0~/el,~ae4 l~:eB SlS~~2S7?5 ...-.,,-.......,....... ___or-_ -' ---.'-- ./ . "J! , I .'1.1 r \.lJ 10'; t., r' ,_ :< ,. , ~.~.. I~ , . (t ..,1 ;" ill ti '~ 'i " '.... ~ .'( 'i. '.1' ...j ':l "( '. '" .~ {: ~I <1: 'It: I~ ,\ .- \;; II) ~ l,l ~ ~ () ~( .:~ :. l~ I~\ " , .~ .t 'C. ,<:1: '" 'll .~ ~~ .. .:! :j .', '.1 ~;, .' "i "1 ~l I., ~ '-,I Zl, :!,,-tl,j 7nnl7.n(')@l "1.6 L~:L1 p~~2-~t-~d~ r ~"j':: IO':U --~--~-Il-II'/' il. u=0 I I!_l ~ J U ~ ~~ I 1 fU---~. --^---~- ----., I I ~.,,,, , I ' .' I " ' , ' (1 '. l 11,\" ~ _cuJ , _.~____w__. I 1:'p.<.:E" :..~ ----~- SCli!il'Jid To\'m Board of Trustees ~-----"'''1 \i ~.. I ~\: .\ ~ ... . "" ':) ;I,: ....... ~~ ...-"}.\1 "'3F ' ~~t- ~;:; i ~ ~ 11 -It ! ''::1 ->l......I.~ ~ .. .~ ~ 'I ; \1 ~~w ~ ~ 1 .' '.1 ~ ~ ~.~ .l... .~ .. .... ~ , J' ~ '<:. ." " '= .~ .... 1': '. ~ ,'1~ -ll ~ . . " .. "HI ~ ~t ti ::;-: hi h, \.. rt. ... " .. . ., .... ... ... "I .... ~ '" ~. ~, ." , ~ " i ~~ ~~ ~ , , , "'--: .~ -~ ~ .., , ~ ~I ~ ~'O~ ~ '" ~ '" -!'- ..~'-;. " ~ .. .. '" . ~. ". :-..! ~, <ti , , . 1;)/ " J .~ ~ tl 'I. :1". . 0/ '.r: I I , -' fff'''' i....~::Jli ....~ -;, .... . ~ " ., -;..... " '! ~ r.: .;. '1 ~.~ :::,,"0( .' ~~ (1'. ,..."", "'.... ~ " ".eo",)!...,.). ! / , I.h "V't'.,~f" . .:: c!l , , ...I>t,_. ,'.., ~Q 1: ",or . 0: ~ '-:~ '" 3:.. ;.. ~ .. .i .:J .....11... "...... . . ~.. , .\. .- '.' dil ,lt~ f ~ f,J ... 1& .'.......t. \ ".-.-, . . ....-_...~.. -"'--'. 11 ~ il-M1 ;96~Hlt~9 ~s:, I 'G~.i9'/~,1 ~~,~ 86 KV~ bL ;0 ;l0Z!lO/tO .' (~~lMf~ (O!NIJ~ll~!NICQj CQj~o~r Ci.)/11plt'h' LI/ld {lse Selvices - - /Ilc/udin..'? Fl1J111l1t'?, Des{,?l1 mId EllI'1ilJJ1JlIc'J/t.11 P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (63 [)4 76-0flR4 - Fax ((>3 [) 4 76-(;~):~:; November 24, 2005 Thomas W. Cramer, Principal Ms. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, New York 11971 RE: Lcwis & Hclaine Teperman @ East Marion L WRP Consistency Review SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 . Dear Ms. Moore: As per your request, I have reviewed the letter from Mr. Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner, dated August 23, 2005, concerning the above. The proposed action is for the repair/reconstruction of an existing beach house (12.5' x 24.8') with associated decks, walks and stairs. According to affidavits, the structures were built in the 1950's. The beach house has plumbing, electricity and a bathroom. The site is located on a bluff in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent to Long Island Sound. A wetlands permit and a Coastal Erosion permit has been requested from the Town of Southold Trustees for the as-built structures. Photographs and a portion ofthe survey of the site and structures are provided at the end of this document for illustration. Mr. Terry's letter was prepared to provide a review of the actions consistent with the Town Code's Chapter 95 and the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). The Town of Southold LWRP, and the 13 policies and standards within it, are a refinement of the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) 44 Coastal Policies. I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program and the rigorous process the towns go through to assure consistency with the State's plan. I have both instructed and been a guest speaker at a number of workshops and symposiums for the NYSDOS on the L WRP program. In addition, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and Development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities I was the chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of Brookhaven's LWRP. Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the differences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the L WRP program by developing a number of detailed L WRPs to address the various sub-regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island, many dealing with the various local L WRPs. As stated, I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program, which is the basis of South old's program, and have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). The Town's document was developed to provide an "appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation that will permit beneficial (sic) use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources". As stated above, the Town has culled the 44 NYSDOS R-l II ~ policies down to 13 that are relevant to Southold. These 13 are categorized into four groups in the LWRP. The categories are useful in determining consistency to the LWRP depending on the type of project and its location and setting within the coastal zone. The categories are as fo llows: . Developed Coast Policies . Natural Coast Policies . Public Coast Policies . Working Coast Policies Each of the policies within the categories is provided with a narrative as to its relevance to Southold. They are then followed by a set of policy standards to aid and provide guidance in development within the coastal zone. It is these standards and how the project is proposed according to them that would determine consistency to the Town's LWRP. Mr. Terry states in the second paragraph of his letter that he reviewed the L WRP Consistency Assessment Form as well as other information and that it is his recommendation that "the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the ... policies standards and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP." He then lists four (4) of the thirteen (13) policies in which the proposed action is supposedly inconsistent with the various standards. However, no supporting information is provided to substantiate how the project does not conform to the policies or their corresponding standards. In fact, in reviewing the proposed project and comparing it to the L WRP policies and standards, the project, in my opinion, is consistent with the intent of the LWRP. The following is a review of the various L WRP policies and standards as listed in the August 23, 2005 letter. The policies and standards are shown in bold italics; each is then followed by a discussion on how Lewis & Helaine Teperman's proposed project relates to them. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Po/icy Standards 4. Z Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazarcb'. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested: A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 1. Avoid development otlrer 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 a. No devetopment is permitted in I/atural protective feature areas, except as specificat/y at/owed under tire retevant portions of6 NYCRR 505.8. b. Avoid Irazards by siting structures to maximize tire distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. The repair/reconstruction of the existing beach house, walks and stairs is allowed under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8. The following are the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8 to the project: 121 .' 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(4) - The normal maintenance o.!structures may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(5) - The restoration of existing structures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(6) - Nonmajor additions to existing structures may be allowed Oil blu/ls pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit. (Note: Major additions are defined under 6 NYCRR 505.2(u) as additions that are 25% or more of the existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion, and therefore would be considered a non major addition). 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(7) - A coastal erosion management permit is required for new construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures, walkways or stairways. Elevated walhvays or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by orfor an individual property owner for the limited pwpose o.! providing noncommercial access to the beach are excepted/rom this permit requirement. As shown above, the project is allowable under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. In tact, portions of the project would be exempt and may be undertaken without the need for a coastal erosion management permit. It is important to note that this Town L WRP policy specifically refers to the definitions of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505.8, not the Town's own Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas), which is Southold's implementation of6 NYCRR 505. The relevant portions of the Town Code, dealing with construction on the bluff, are as follows: $37-178(3) New construction, modification or restoration 0/ walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions 0/ a coastal erosion management permit $37-178(4) Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on blulft. pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit (Note: Major additions are defined under ~37-6 as additions that are 25% or more of the existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion and therefore would be considered a nonmajor addition) Even under the Town's more restrictive implementation of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505, the proposed project would be a permissible activity. However, as discussed above, the Town's LWRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. 1 :k .- <.. The beach house has been in existence since the 1950's. The proposed activities will not relocate or expand any existing structure(s). The entire portion of the site that includes the activity is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as presently defined by the NYSDEC. The structure has been located as far as possible from the shoreline, avoiding potential hazards as much as possible. It is impossible to locate this non-major addition out of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The proposed action meets this standard by avoiding the hazards of erosion as much as possible (Standard 4.I.A.I.2) and fully complies with the all other aspects of the standard. 2. Avoid reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part of a water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in coastal hazard areas. This standard addresses reconstruction of structures in coastal hazard areas that are damaged by 50% or more of their value. The existing structures are not damaged; the action is tor a non- major addition and repair/reconstruction of existing structures. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the project. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practicaL Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: Q. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters. b. J1'Clter.dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards. c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure, or major public facilities. d sites where relocation of an existing structure ;s not practical As stated in the response to Standard 4.1.AI, the proposed project has been located as far as possible from erosion hazards and does not change or expand existing structural conditions. As, stated in the above policy standard, "existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted" if certain conditions, as listed, exist. Standard 4.l.A.1.3 condition letters "a", "b", and "c" are not relevant to the project. The proposed project conforms to condition "d". Therefore, the action conforms to this policy standard. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards. I. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion, based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. 2. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities afnatural protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any development project. 3. Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhancement of those natural drainage features where they exist. While the use of vegetative non-structural measures is desirable, it is not practical nor does it have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition in this particular case. The existing structures are located on the bluff, immediately adjacent to its toe. In front of the toe of the bluff is a high, narrow beach consisting of large cobbles. These cobbles provide no medium for plant growth. Any plant material installed on the beach, in front of the structures, would not survive. Therefore, policy standard 4.1.8.1 would not be relevant to this project. As discussed previously, the existing structures have been located on the bluff since the 1950's. The bluff itself is heavily vegetated with indigenous species. In addition, since the structures 4 1 ,~ ...1 have been located in their present position for a considerable time, the existing vegetation has surrounded the structures and stabilized itself around them. The proposed action will not disturb the existing vegetation on the bluff. It is the intent to replace/reconstruct the structures in-place. In addition, the existing natural drainage patterns will not be disturbed. Therefore, the project conforms to policy standards 4.I.B.2 & 3. It should be noted that the existing trees on the bluff were apparently trimmed in the past (prior to the 2005 growing season). The trimming apparently topped the larger trees, leaving a substantial portion of them in place. Significant new growth on the trimmed trees show that they have survived and continue to provide beneficial protection to the bluff. It is possible that the removal of some of the old canopy allowed more light to penetrate to the soil, allowing additional smaller plant species to colonize the bluff, thereby increasing the beneficial aspects of bluff stabilization and erosion protection. Photographs are provided at the end of this document that illustrate the existing vegetated bluff. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and SllOUld be protected, restored and enhanced Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically a/lowed under tlte relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. As stated previously, the proposed activity is a non-major addition to an existing structure(s) as defined under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSD EC) 6 NYCRR 505.8, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, and the Town of South old's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Therefore, the proposed activity is not considered new development and is allowed in the natural protective features found on the site. Also, as noted above, 6 NYCRR 505.8 is less restrictive than Chapter 37; the Town's LWRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itselfto the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this policy standard B. Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by: 1. avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enhancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 5. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which lIas diminished, the protective capacities of the natural shoreline 6. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness of tire importance of natural protective features As stated throughout the above discussion, the proposed activity will take place within the area of the existing structures; there will be no additional disturbance of the site. There will be no disturbance of the existing natural protective features existing on the site. The bluff is stabilizcd with existing vegetation and is not presently impaired. Therefore, there is no need to enhance or restore the natural protective features. As discussed above, it is not practical to install vegetation on the beach because of existing conditions. Condition "6" is not relevant to a single-family home. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. C Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by: I. providillg for natural supply and movement of uncollsolitlllted materials and for water and willd trallsport 1:; All of the activities will be above the beach and there is no dune in the area. The beach consists oflarge cobbles that cannot be moved by wind. The activities are set on the bluff face, back from the beach, the area where water transport of the cobbles would take place. Given the elevation of the beach and the existing stability of the bluff, it does not appear that waves capable of moving the large cobbles frequently reach the toe of the bluff. Two existing stairways extend from the structures to the beach area. Upon examination of their construction and considering the existing conditions around them and the nature of the beach (elevation, composition, etc.), it is apparent that the stairways have had no or very little impact on the transport of material on the beach. As such, they provide minimal, if any, interference with the natural coastal processes. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy standard. Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. Poliq Standards 5.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standard... B. Prevent point source discharges into Southold's coastal waters and manage or avoid land and water uses that would: 2. cause or contribute to contravention afwater quality classification and use standards, or 3. adversely affect receiving water quality, or As part of the activity, the existing sanitary system was upgraded to a self-contained composting toilet. Since there is no discharge of waste, direct or indirect, the action will not cause or contribute to the contravention of, or in any way adversely effect, water quality. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy's standards. 5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters. A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse, and suspended solids). C Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation, fill, dredging, and disposal of dredged materiaL See response to Policy Standard 5.2.1 above. There was no excavation, fill, dredging or disposal of dredged material into the coastal waters during construction. There was also no threat of erosion on the site as none ofthe existing vegetation was removed or disturbed when the structures were replaced in-kind. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the policy standard. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality andfunction of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Policy Standards 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southold. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 1. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltatioll, changes in community composition, or evidence o/pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological compollents Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance of fish or wildlife, often resultillg from n behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that tlo not ~5 necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. Timing of activities can often be crmcal in determining whether afunctional loss is likely to occur. Functional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. In the narrative following this policy in the L WRP, the importance of the ecological natural resources is discussed. It is stated that: "Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. In addition to specifically identified discrete natural resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly distributed natural resources, such as the extent offorest cover, the population of over- wintering songbirds, or benthic communities. These more common natural resources collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. 'The role ofthe Southold Town Board of Trustees in the protection and management of the Town's ecosystem, particularly as it relates to surface waters, is recognized by the Town. The policy standards noted below recognize that federal and state legislation governing the protection, management and restoration of the environment are not always sufficiently restrictive to protect local resources. Where the Town and its Board of Trustees have implemented protective measures that exceed that of federal and state regulations, local regulations and standards should be complied with." The applicant will comply with the various federal and state regulations, as well as those of the Town of Southold. Furthermore, degradation of the ecological components of the Town of South old will not occur as a result of the proposed action. In fact, there will be no loss of existing vegetation or ecological components on site as a result of the project. With regard to the functional loss of ecological components, this too is not an issue as the project is a replacement in-place. The proposed activity is consistant with the existing ecological character established in the area, that of single-family homes with beach houses (see photos at end of report). Wildlife that currently utilizes the site is no doubt species that are tolerant of, and even prefer, the activities of man. Secretive and human intolerant species, such as forest interior birds, would not utilize the site because of its small size and surrounding land use(s). The proposed project is considered consistent with these policy standards. Policy 8 Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. Policy Standards 8.3 Protect the environmentfrom degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to the environment and public health. 1 7- ..U A. Prel'ent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment that would have a t/e/eteriolls elfect on fish and wildlife resources. In the LWRP, there is a narrative following this policy standard that is provided to clarify its intent. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry did not include it in his letter of August 23, 2005. The following is the clarification and the intent of the policy standard: "The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protective measures to prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife resources, will be determined during the environmental review. Further, the dredging oftoxic material from underwater lands and the deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short or long term." The proposed project is for repair/reconstruction of a beach house; therefore, a site plan application is not required. No dredging of any type is proposed. A home does not use either toxic pollutants or hazardous substances other than household chemicals, which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. B. Prevent environmental degradation due to persistent toxic pollutants by: 1. limiting discharge ofbio-accumulative substances, 2. avoiding re-suspension of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances and wastes, and avoiding reentry ofbio- accumulative substances into the food chain from existing sources. Again, a beach house does not use toxic pollutants and hazardous substances. The project will use ordinary household chemicals (if any - since it is not a residence), which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Neither suspension, no less re-suspension, of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances nor the discharge ofbio-accumulative substances will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. In summary, it is my professional and expert opinion that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of South old's LWRP. The above review is based, in part, on the survey prepared for Lewis & Helaine Teperman by Stanley J. Isaksan, Jr., L.S., revision dated May 16,2005, and my familiarity with the site, the proposed project and the surrounding area. If I can provide any additional information or clarification of the above, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC/ Enclosures 1 i\..., . , , CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas W. Cramer 54 North Country Road P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Office (631) 476-0984 Fax (631) 476-6933 Licensing and Certification: . Landscape Architecture; State of New York Experience: . Principal of, Cramer Consulting Group, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (6/97 to Present) . Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/95-6/97) . Principal of, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (8/88-4/95) . Deputy Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (4/86-8/88) . Acting Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (7/87-11/87) . Director, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (8/82-3/86) . Environmental Planner/Planner, Department of Environmental Protection & Planning Board; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/75-8/82) . Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (9/74-3/87) Significant Professional Achievements: . Numerous Draft & Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), list furnished by request. . County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of South old. . DGEIS and FGEIS for the County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. . Expert Witness in Federal, state and local courts. . Extensive work with NYS Attorney General and other state and local agencies. . 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . DEIS and FEIS for the 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . Draft Port Jetferson Harbor Complex Management Plan, 1996 . Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1995 . Draft New Ordinances for the Town of Brookhaven. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Central Pine Barrens District, Bed & Breakfast Ordinance, Marine Commercial District, Recreational Commercial District. ~l .. . Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Bays and Harbor Bottoms Ordinance Planned Development Districts (POD), Planned Retirement Community (PRe), Change of Use /Expansion, Sign Ordinance, Historic District, Wetlands Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, 1-Business Districts, L-Industrial Districts, as well as others. . Computerization of Department of Planning, Environment & Development Permit issuing and tracking system in Building Division, 1997. Computerization and Networking of entire Department, 1997. Computerization oflog-in and tracking applications, 1997. Computerization of Town's Real Property Inventory, 1996. Computerization of Building Divisions records, 1997. Upgrade and expand GIS capabilities, 1995. . Numerous projects for private and municipal clients as a partner in the firm of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 1988-1995. Specific list provided upon request. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Feasibility and Development Potential Studies. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Audits. V isual Impact Assessments. Site Planning and Landscape Design. Archaeological and Historic Studies. Testimony before Boards and in Court. . Town of Brookhaven's application for the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, 1996. . GElS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS A-I Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS Commercial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988. . Environmental Quality Bond Act, Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987. . Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987. . Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985. . Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984. . Open Space Study - Town of Brookhaven, 1984. . Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone, Town of Brookhaven, 1983. . Coastal Erosion Along the North Shore of Brookhaven, 1979. . Sound Beach - A Neighborhood Study, 1978. · Puerto Escondido, Hoy y Manana, 1976. . Mount Sinai Harbor, A Conceptual Plan, 1975. . Cedar Beach - A Balanced Future, 1973. . Guest lecturer at several colleges and universities on land use and environmental issues. . Conducted seminars and workshops for the State of New York Department of State on land use and coastal management. On '--oJ.. .. Professional & Other Organizations: past and present . Bo'sun Supplies, President. Mail order & Internet marine supply business. . Chairman of the American Cancer Society Regatta . American Planners Association . American Society of Landscape Architects . American Water Resources Association . National Eagle Scout Association . New York State Pine Barrens Council . New York State Pine Barrens Task Force . New York Planning Federation . New York State Association of Environmental Professionals . Suffolk County 208 Technical Advisory Council . Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality . Suffolk County Pine Barrens Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Peconic River Advisory Board . Long Island Association Advisory Committee . Boy Scouts of America, District Advancement Chairman . Miller Place Historical Society, Trustee . Moriches Inlet Breach and Stabilization Committee . Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee . Mount Sinai Sailing Association, Commodore Education: . SUNY, College of Environmental Science & Forestry; Undergraduate and . Syracuse University; Undergraduate BLA - Landscape Architecture BS - Environmental Sciences & Forestry . SUNY at Stony Brook; Graduate courses in Planning and Political Science . Suffolk County Community College; Associate Business and Humanities . LIU, Southampton College, Undergraduate studies . SUNY, Agricultural & Technical College at Farmingdale, Specialized technical course work . Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning and environmental fields References: Furnished upon request. 14 ') -: <..~ J ~ _' " - ~~___ _._u _ _ _ ~___~__._ _ _.___~ ~____ "__ . _ __~___"_ _ __ _ _ ~_.__ lC'Y't::ilmeT' Consul-cing GT'OUP ..., . .' ~~---- ----~~-~--~-~---- -~---- -- - - Complete Land Use Services -- Including Planning, Design and Environmental P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (631)476-0984 - Fax (631) Thomas W. Cramer, Principal 476-6933 June 16, 2006 William Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis & Helaine Teperman @ East Marion Coastal Erosion Appeal SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 Dear Bill: As per your request, I have reviewed the documentation that you forwarded to me with regard to the above referenced appeal of the Southold Trustee's decision of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit. Below are my comments and my professional opinion with regard to the decision rendered by the Trustees. As you are aware, the Town of Southold has accepted me as an expert witness in planning and environmental issues numerous times in the past. In addition, I have been accepted as an expert witness in local, State, and Federal courts as well. I have been a consultant to the Town of Southold in the past, preparing planning studies, environmental impact statements and environmental and planning reviews for various projects and rezonings for the Town of Southold. I have also provided similar services to private individuals throughout Long Island and have provided consulting services to numerous municipalities and State agencies. Furthermore, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and Development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities, I was the chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of Brookhaven's Coastal Erosion Hazard Area's (CEHA) program which, like Southold's CEHA, is based on the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Part 505, the Coastal Erosion Management Regulations. Also while at Brookhaven, I was in charge of developing Brookhaven's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (L WRP). Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the differences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the L WRP program by developing a number of detailed L WRPs to address the various sub- regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island dealing with the various local L WRPs. As such, I am thoroughly familiar with the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) program and have been a speaker at a number of their workshops on the program. The NYSDOS' program is the basis of South old's program and I have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). ) . ~ I am also very familiar with this property and case. I have carried out site inspections and appeared as an expert witness for the applicant before the Trustees. On December 21, 2005, the Southold Town Trustees passed a resolution approving a "previously existing storage shed with no amenities except the outdoor shower and with two wood decks seaward of the Coastal Erosion area" on the Teperman's property. The approval also placed numerous conditions on the "permit" that result in a situation that is not what the Tepermans requested, nor what existed on the property in the past. While an "approval," it in effect denies the application for the Tepermans. The following are my specific comments with regard to the decision. As part of the Trustees' resolution there are nine (9) "whereas" that put forth the facts that the Trustees considered in rendering the decision. The first four (4) "whereas" refer to the fact that the Trustees considered all the testimony, documentation, held public hearings, visited the site and referred the application to the Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Council for comments. "\Vhereas" #5 and #9 both refer to the Town of Southold's L WRP and that the application is inconsistent with the L WRP in general and specifically with the policy standards 4.IA, 4.IB, 4.2A, 4.2B. 4.2C, 5.1, 5.3, 6.1 and 8.3 as found within the LWRP. This is not the case; the action is consistent with the LWRP. As part of my original review of this action I prepared a review ofthe Town of Southold's staff recommendation letter on their LWRP consistency review of the project. A copy of my report letter, addressed to Patricia Moore, Esq., dated November 24,2005, and presented to the Trustees at their public hearing, is attached herewith. My November letter addresses in detail how the application conforms to the LWRP. For the most part, the staff referenced policies of the LWRP and said the action was inconsistent with these policies. No analysis was provided within the staffs review. In fact, as discussed in my November 24th letter, many of the policies referenced by the staff are not even relevant to the proposed action. While I will not reiterate all the comments in my letter, it is sufficient to say that the staff was apparently "grasping at straws" to try to show that the project was inconsistent with the L WRP, but was not able to document it. While the Trustees apparently accepted the unsupported staffrecommendations, it is my opinion that the Town Board must give full consideration to the lack of any supporting evidence that the action is inconsistent with the L WRP. As summarized in my letter, after detailed review it is my professional and expert opinion that the action is consistent with the Town of Southold's L WRP. "Whereas" #6 states: "WHEREAS, there has been shown to be a historical use of a structure and the proposed decks in the proposed location." As part of the record, I have reviewed several sworn affidavits from individuals who testified as to the conditions inside the existing beach house and the period from which these conditions existed. I have also reviewed historical aerial photographs that show the structure existed prior to 1976. However, "whereas" number 8 states that "the structure has undergone extensive rebuilding without prior approvals, to wit, utilities, plumbing, new foundation for the structure, new siding, new windows, new deck; said reconstruction not deemed to be ordinary cosmetic repair." It is unclear what the term "ordinary cosmetic repair" refers to since this term is not found in either the Town's Wetland or CEHA ordinances. The Town's CEHA does define NORMAL MAINTENANCE under 937-6 as "Periodic replacement or repair of same-kind structural elements or protective coatings which do not change the size, design or function of afunctioning structure. A "functioning structure" is one which is fully performing as originally designed at the time that normal maintenance is scheduled to begin. "Normal maintenance" of a structure does not require a coastal erosion management permit." As such, and based on the testimony and the Trustees' own Whereas #6, the activity that took place could be considered normal maintenance under the CEHA ordinance. It should be noted that the testimony that conflicted with the affidavits submitted was based on people's apparent opinions of what existed within the structure from walking by the structure, not on actual knowledge of what really was inside the structure. The action is located on the bluff, as defined in 937-6. The relevant portions of the Town Code dealing with "activities specifically allowed" on the bluff are as follows: 337-17B(3) New construction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion management permit 337-17B(4) Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on bluffs, pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit (Note: Major additions are defined under 937-6 as additions that are 25% or more of the ground area coverage of existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion and therefore would be considered a noo- major addition) Therefore, since by the Trustee's own admission in Whereas #6, the structure and use existed on the site and since there is NO expansion, the proposed project would be a permissible activity. Whereas #7 states that "no residences are allowed in the Coastal Erosion areas." There is no such restriction in the Town's CEHA ordinance. A search of Chapter 37 does not find any references to "residences", "homes", "houses" or similar terms. The Town Code, just as NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505 (the State law that the Town's is based on), only refers to "structures." The type of the natural protective feature the structure is found in within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area determines how "structures" are regulated under Chapter 37, whether the structure is a residence or not (see discussion on 937-17B(4) above),. Therefore, residences CAN be located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area, and even additions added, if they existed prior. However, the proposed action is NOT for a residence; the action is an existing beach house or cabana. No habitation is proposed, nor has it been used for such in the past. As noted above, the Trustees approved a permit for the action and placed conditions on the action that remove what has been documented in the past to have existed on the site. Among these conditions is the removal of: . All plumbing, including the portable toilet. . Plumbing vent. . All utilities, appliances and electric. . Air conditioner. . Glass windows and doors on the north side of the structure. The CEHA ordinance was adopted by the Town to prevent erosion within Southold. These conditions of the permit will not have any effect on existing or future erosion on the site. These improvements have been documented to have existed on the site prior to both the Town's 05/15/2005 15:47 531-475-5933 TWC GROUP INC PAGIo ~L The CEHA ordinance was adopted by the Town to prevent erosion within Southold. These conditions oflhe permit will not have any effect on existing or future erosion on the site. These improvements have been documented to have existed on the site prior to both the Town's Wetland and CEHA ordinances. The purposes and findings of the CEHA ordinance are spelled out in ~37-4 and ~37-5, respectively. Nowhere in these sections, or for that matter anywhere in 937, does the Town have the ability to remove existing structures. In fact, provisions are contained throughout the Code to allow for the continuation of existing structures, provided there are no major additions. Since the action calls for NO ADDITIONS, and only "normal maintenance" (as defined under ~37.6) the proposed is consistent with the CEHA ordinance. It also should be noted that the permit is in conflict with itself. The approval states that there shall be "no amenities except an outdoor showe''', but as one of the conditions, all plumbing must be removed. How a shower can be allowed with all plumbing required to be removed is unclear. In my opinion, the Trustees recogni<:ed that the structure(s) and use were preexisting. However, because of some opposition, they sought to punish the applicants for not initially obtaining permits for perrnittable work that took place On the site and in the approval they have attempted to remove rights and uses enjoyed on the property. If you have any questions or comments, please give me a call to discuss. Very truly yours, ~QO \..-J . ex af'l'1"t?R CL Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC/el Enc. ~ , Boa~dteeting of May 23, 2006 Town of Southold - Letter RESOLUTION 2006-473 ADOPTED Item # 19 DOC ID: 1870 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-473 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON MAY 23, 2006: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southo1d hereby amends Resolution No. 394 of 2006 adopted at the April 25. 2006 meetinl!: to chanl!:e the date of the public hearinl!: for the Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal of Teperman from Mav 23. 2006. to June 20. 2006. at 9:00 a.m. ~~ :/i.. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS) MOVER: William P. Edwards, Councilman SECONDER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell, Krupski Ir. Generated May 25, 2006 Page 26 "' v #7902 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 1st day of June, 2006. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2006 () day of q)fl( fl _ U;Jt ( .~~f dte~~~ hereby sets WNI"_''-:~..... Southold Thwn ~s~'),aiD ~ Southold, New tort """'*"'\"".'iad place"!or " pubIIti heari1lit9lith.,p lion of appeaIiua the '1,liif .""Of the Soutbold Th"" ." J)e- comber 21. 200S. "hich . the application o(Dr. lbt beach house ~ posed. The propllJIy in - I tifiedbyllCIMUlJOO.il~l6:.....' plication was deQied. 1IDlfI 1I.fa:, ~~~,' ,a -:~; (Coaatal ErosioniHazara AiololJottbe Thwll C<MIe. : i ' . " c, ^ more delaiIed ~~:of the ~~~~ ...~*.,.,.. .'~ 1, _.... =~~.;, . ,BT~_1B SOUlHOLDTOWNIIOAJID ~~,A.NEVILLE . c sotJ'gI;OLp T9,vN CLERK 12!lHT6Il/?"i: CHRISTINA VOllNSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO.Ol-V06105050 Qyaliri&d in Syffo'k C Comml"'<>n bplr.. F.b Ounry /Uary 28. 2008 , l , LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets JUNE 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing on the question of appealing the determination of the Southold Town Trustees dated December 21,2005, which decision denied the application of Dr & Mrs. Teperman for beach house repairs as built and proposed. The property in question is identified by SCTM# 1000-21-2-16. The application was denied under Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code. A more detailed description of the above mentioned application is on file in the Southold Town Clerk's Office, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business hours. Dated: April 26, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 4, 2006, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times John Cushman, Accounting Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Town Board Members Southold Town Trustees Town Attorney Teperman ~ , " '( STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the day of , 2006, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of South old, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Teperman - June 20, 2006, 9:00 p.m (1' ~ger? Southold Town Clerk ( -IL Sworn before me this _ day of .2006. Notary Public <I \ .~'O .. WILLIAM D. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,NewYork 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4663 Fax: (631) 765-4643 email: wdmoore1@ootonline.net May 12, 2006 Elizabeth a. Neville, Town Clerk Office of the Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 RE: DR. LEWIS & MRS. HELAINE TEPERMAN PUBLIC HEARING; MAY 23, 2006 Dear Ms. Neville: With reference to the above, please let this serve to confirm our request made to your office to reschedule the public hearing for June 20, 2006. Thank you. Very truly yours, ~ W 1 lam D. Moore WDM/bp C: Dr. & Mrs. Teperman Tom Cramer, Cramer Consulting Group PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us ~ I 'f ~ t. SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.oy.us Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 17, 2006 William Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Tepermans' Coastal Erosion Appeal Dear Mr. M9ore: I arrJn receipt of your letter of May 12, 2006 concerning Albert Krupski's participation in the Tepermans' appeal. Mr. Krupski has already advised the Town Board that he will recuse himself from participation in this matter. Additionally, this letter shall confirm that the hearing has been rescheduled to June 20, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. PAF/lk cc: Members of the Town Board Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk ...' . , , WILLIAM D. MOORE Attorney at Law 5] 020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4663 Fax: (631) 765-4643 email:wdmoore1@ootonline.net May 12, 2006 patricia Finnegan Office of Town Attorney Town of Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 ~ RE: DR. LEWIS & MRS. HELAINE TEPERMAN \t ~ PUBLIC HEARING Dear ~egan: With reference to the above public hearing which has been rescheduled for June 20, 2006, we are respectfully requesting that Councilman Albert Krupski refrain from participating in said hearing, deliberations and decision as he served as Town Trustee when the Board made its decision of December 21, 2005. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Very truly yours, WDM/bp C: Dr. & Mrs. Lewis Teperman Tom Cramer, Cramer Consulting Group. MAY 1 5 2006 ' ' :I =I ~ II J =I :ttI-.:c:.lj~':i.lll' ~.=-.; ,b....."'f=c...C.,l1 ~.M\l.'};,.7fT~J;"~:7!'j~-'.'i:'rnCi''3I?'mfirY> n"i'~'~;,~'."",".,_~._~,.~.._"",~=.b",~~,,""'!;,, _"-.11~/:J.2.=-.:IJ.."'"l;{fI)1[.JJ.lI.Ja'..J::f'j"::f:A~ . Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can retum the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mail piece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addres~ to; n My"" ' Lbn~ Go\clcrki"l )'Y\'I ~ ~e.tol~ IvlC- Bd.S Que.eV\ St~ee:r G-e~~~ N'i \\'iLjL( -+o"W'"i.~ 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 7003 A. I ature ~ .. X 0 Agent (\..-\. \(). 0 Addressee B~i\~ K~~~~'-r I5'JOtj!;zve~ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? D'Ves- If VES, enter delivery address below; 0 No li -~~;:eMall- 0 Express Mall o Registered 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise _n_ 0 Insured Mall 0 C.O.D. _~ Restricted De~I~ery? (Extra Fee) Dyes 3110 0001 8547 3999 --- =-__~~........._.:m'~~f;:}k~~~,(cr"!~I._1It~~~jJ A. Signature SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION _1J.JI~/:1.~t~t:I1""'"1!C8.H'HI'~=l~rJ.=l;,l'" . Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front jf space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: t'~kil'\ Moo..e. 6\D~ MAIN ~~ ~v~1d N'{ \ \ql' c.E.l-l~ '2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) ,oS Fonn 3811 , February 2004 O.t o Addressee r~eco,ved by (Pnnted Name) I C. Data of Deliva,., D. Is delivery address different from Item 17 dYes -- ------ If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 No x 3. Se~e Type Da""'"Ceitlfied Mall 0 Express Mail , q,Reglstered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise l i r. d lnsured Mall 0 C.O.D. ! 4. RestrictedOeli~e~?~~~~_--~---O-Y~~---- 7003 3110 0001 8547 4415 - 1 02S9!W!'M- 1540 Domestic Return Receipt "!" Q ) #7852 STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 weeks, '''''''''';''''~, oomm= 4" day of M.. ,2006. ~ a~~~oQ, Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2006 :) daYOf~ ~ vtvvLJ{a CHRISTINA VOLlNSKJ NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01-V06105050 Quollfied in Suffolk County -ommission Expires February 28, 2008 LEGAL NoncE NOTICE OF PUBLIC IIEAIlJNG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets May 23, 2086 at 9:00 a.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing on the ques- tion of appealing the determination of the Southold Town 1h1stees dated De- cember 21, 2005, which decision denied the application of Dr. & Mrs. Teperman fOf beach house repairs as built and proposed. The property in question is identified by SCfM# 1000-21-2-16. The application was denied under Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code. A more detailed description of the above mentioned application is on file in the Southold Town Clerk's Office, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be examined by any interested person during business hours. Dated: April 26. 2006 BY ORDER OF11IE SOUTHOLDTOWN BOARD ELlZABE11I A. NEVILLE SOUTHOLD'roWNCLEU 7852-1T 5/4 . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 BOutholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTH OLD May 2, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Dr. Lewis & Mrs. Helaine Teperman 200 E. 320d Street, 35B New York, NY 10016 Dear Dr. Lewis & Mrs. Helaine Teperman: The Southold Town Board, at its regular meeting of April 26, 2006, set May 23, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing on the question of appealing the determination of the Southold Town Trustees dated December 21,2005, which decision denied your application. The property in question is identified by SCTM# 1000-21-2-16. The application was denied under Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code. A certified copy of the resolution and public hearing notice are enclosed for your records. Very truly yours, d~~@iL Lynda M. Bohn Deputy Town Clerk Ene. Cc: Town Attorney Patricia Moore, Esq. APR, 27, 2006 9:21AM NO, 984 p . . James F. "King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 58095 Route 25 P.O. BOl< 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (681) 765-1892 Fax (681) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FebtuMY 6, 2006 l~(? do.s Dt. Lewis and Mrs. Helaine Tepennan 200 E. 32nd St., 35B New Yorl<:, NY 10016 Re: 1225 AQUA VIEW AVE., EAST MARION, SCTM# 21-2-16 ~~~ ~~.(}JJ ~ ~~ Dear Dr. and :Mrs. Teperman, Enclosed is a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Board of Trustees in December regarding your application for the above referenced property. This matter stili has not been resolved. To be granted a penuit you m1,lSt submit new plans showing the specific dimensions of the beach house/shed and decks as well as compliance with the conditions of the permit as outlined on the attached resolution. Non-compliance with the specified conditions within the next 30 days will result in legal action. Please contact the office for an inspection when compliance has occurred. V"YE,"" Jam F. King c:< "'7- President, Board of Trustees JFK/bkc , -', " Cc: Patricia Moore Lori Montefusco, Assistant Town Attorney PI' . . LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby sets May 23, 2006 at 9:00 a.m., Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main road, Southold, New York as the time and place for a public hearing on the question of appealing the determination of the Southold Town Trustees dated December 21,2005, which decision denied the application of Dr & Mrs. Teperman for beach house repairs as built and proposed. The property in question is identified by SCTM# 1000-21-2-16. The application was denied under Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas) of the Town Code. A more detailed description of the above mentioned application is on file in the Southold Town Clerk's Office, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, and maybe examined by any interested person during business hours. Dated: April 26, 2006 BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON MAY 4, 2006, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK. TOWN HALL, PO BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times John Cushman, Accounting Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Town Board Members Southold Town Trustees Town Attorney Teperman .. . . STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, Town Clerk of the Town of South old, New York being duly sworn, says that on the;:;[6 day of ~ ' 2006, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. Teperman - May 23,20069:00 am. ~/~I/7'.(O Q-~fhJ . abeth A. Nevill Southold Town Clerk lYNDA M. BOHN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 01 B06020932 Qualified in Suffolk County Term Expires March 8, 20.e:; . ~Q--,- BOaaeeting of April 25, 2006 RESOLUTION 2006-394 ADOPTED Item # 49 DOC 10: 1792 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2006-394 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON APRIL 25, 2006: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of South old hereby set Mav 23. 2006. 9:00 a.m. at the Southold Town Hall as the time and place to hear the Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal of Teperman. ~Q..:J~. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS) MOVER: Daniel C. Ross, Councilman SECONDER: Thomas H. Wickham, Councilman AYES: Evans, Wickham, Ross, Edwards, Russell ABSTAIN: Albert Krupski Jr. . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 BOutholdtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 16, 2006 Ms. Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-1011 Dear Commissioner Sheehan, Transmitted herewith is a copy of the "Appeal of Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Dr. Lewis and Mrs. Helaine Teperman, 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, New York 11939 SCTM# 1000-21-2-16. This application is being sent for your information in accordance with the Southold Town Code, Chapter 37, Section 35B. This matter has been assigned to our Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran. You may contact him at 631 765-1939 for further information. Very truly yours, ~~~ Southold Town Clerk cc: Town Board Town Attorney Town Trustees . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFTICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 16, 2006 Mr. Peter A. Scully, Regional Director State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Dear Mr. Scully Transmitted herewith is a copy of the "Appeal of Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Dr. Lewis and Mrs. Helaine Teperman, 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, New York 11939 SCTM# 1000-21-2-16. This application is being sent for your information in accordance with the Southold Town Code, Chapter 37, Section 35B. This matter has been assigned to our Assistant Town Attorney Kieran Corcoran. You may contact him at 631 765-1939 for further information. Very truly yours, c!Y~/-Il{D~ Elizabeth A. Nev1.:-- Southold Town Clerk cc: Town Board Town Attorney Town Trustees . . Neville, Elizabeth ~~-'""'-->~-~~'~_~~_~___'__"_~'~_____"_"'_'"_W_'____~__"_,,_,_,~~~~,,_,,~~~~,__~~_~~,_~__ From: Krauza, Lynne Sent: Thursday, March 16, 200611:46AM To: Neville, Elizabeth Subject: DEC Addresses The addresses you need for the Teperman letter are as follows: Ms. Denise M. Sheehan, Acting Commissioner NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, NY 12233-1011 Mr. Peter A. Scully, Regional Director NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Bldg. 40, SUNY Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 3/16/2006 Page 1 of 1 . Town Of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 . * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 03/16/06 Receipt#: Transaction(s): 1 1 Reference 2/10/06 Application For Appeal Check#: 5294 Total Paid: Teperman, Lewis & Helaine Sctm #21-2-16 Aquaview Ln East Marion, NY 11939 Clerk ID: L1NDAC Name: 5294 Subtotal $250.00 $250.00 Internal 10: 2/10/06 PATRICIAA. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us . . SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor KIERAN M. CORCORAN ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 LORI HULSE MONTEFUSCO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM RECEIVED To: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk UAR16D1 From: Kieran M. Corcoran, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney Sou/hold Town CIeri Date: March 15, 2006 Subject: Teperman Coastal Erosion Appeal Please accept the above-referenced appeal for processing and review by the Town Board. Please also distribute to the Commissioner of the DEC as required by Town Code Section 37-35. Our office will present the matter to the Town Board in the near future for its consideration of how it wishes to proceed in hearing the appeal. KMC/lk cc: Members of the Town Board Patricia A. Finnegan, Esq., Town Attorney Lori H. Montefusco, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney . . ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork. net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan From: Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville Re: Application of Dr. Lewis and Mrs. Helaine Teperman for Coastal Erosion Appeal Date: March 6, 2006 This application was filed at 4:00 P.M. Friday afternoon on February 10, 2006 just as the Town Clerk's Office was closing for business for the week-end. It was inadvertently left in the safe until this morning. I am now transmitting it for your review. Please advise of its suitability for filing. Thank you. cc: Supervisor & Town Board Members Town Trustees . . Southold Town Board Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM#1000-21-2-16 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion The subject property was offered for sale in 2004 and shown by the Cook Pony Farm agency. The Sales Memorandum is herein attached at page 39. The Memorandum states that the "Beach House" contains kitchen and all appliances and electric toilet. An electric toilet is not regulated by the Suffolk County Health Department and the Beach House does not contain a sanitary system. A survey prepared by Stanley Isaksen, Jr. on April 5, 2004, used at closing of title, clearly showed the location of all structures prior to the repairs and is herein at page 35 Affidavits of the neighbor Donna Palumbo and a prior owner George Wetmore were submitted in support of the application. Herein attached at page 41 and 50 respectively. Photographs provided of beach houses located on same beach on neighboring properties at pages 11 and 55. It is respectfully requested that the Board set a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 37 to consider the appeal herein which seeks a reversal of the determination made by the Southold Town Trustees as Administrators of Chapter 37. DATE ,.::'//o/rJ b I ~:~ ~ k1 T~.;C1!J:- I $1 ~ - I I ~ JufYJdud H7 qt, /~ DOLLARS ~ =-= I rJ ~Bank (;;;?t MEMO~~ -- -11:0 2 ~ 1.0 'jlCl ~ 21:11"1. 2 21."'0 ~O q (;." qll" 52 q I. PATRICIA c. p,tOORE ATTORNEY BUSINESS ACCOUNT 51020 MAIN RD. 765-4330 SOlJ11otOLD. NY 11971 50-791/214 4224010989 5294 II' . . . South old Town Board Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM#1000-21-2-16 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members: The South old Town Trustees issued a decision in error which deprives the owner of a permit to maintain and repair a preexisting beach house (cabana). The Trustees further threatened criminal and civil prosecution if the preexisting amenities in the beach house (cabana) are not removed. By its decision the Trustees wrongfully terminated the pre- existing use of the beach house (cabana). The cabana is a pre-existing structure and use which has previously existing electric and water service and a self contained toilet. Trustees applied improper standard to deny permit. Proof was provided to the Southold Town Trustees that the Beach House (cabana) was preexisting and that repairs were in kind (wood siding and decking) and in place(structure in same location): The work undertaken consisted of necessary repairs which did not materially affect any structural features pursuant to South old Town Code 45-8 (A)(1 )(a) and (b) such that a town building permit was not necessary. In addition, the work performed constituted "normal and customary" maintenance and repairs which are unregulated activities which do not require a Coastal Erosion Permit pursuant to Chapter 37-6. An analysis of both the Local Waterfront Revitalization Law and the Coastal Erosion Law is provided by Cramer Consulting Group in which Mr. Cramer sets forth his professional opinion that the work performed falls within the purview of "unregulated activities" and that is consistent with the policies of the LWRP. His report is set forth in pages 1 - 14. The exterior was re-shingled, the aluminum windows were replaced and the electric toilet fixture was replaced with a "Biolet"- an environmentally sound compostable toilet that does not use a septic or other sanitary system. An aerial survey was provided which also showed the existence of all the structures prior to the adoption of Chapter 37 and 97 to establish the pre-existing size and location of the structures. [Copy of aerial pg. 26] . . Southold Town Board Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM#1000-21-2-16 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion The subject property was offered for sale in 2004 and shown by the Cook Pony Farm agency. The Sales Memorandum is herein attached at page 39. The Memorandum states that the "Beach House" contains kitchen and all appliances and electric toilet. An electric toilet is not regulated by the Suffolk County Health Department and the Beach House does not contain a sanitary system. A survey prepared by Stanley Isaksen, Jr. on April 5, 2004, used at closing of title, clearly showed the location of all structures prior to the repairs and is herein at page 35 Affidavits of the neighbor Donna Palumbo and a prior owner George Wetmore were submitted in support of the application. Herein attached at page 41 and 50 respectively. Photographs provided of beach houses located on same beach on neighboring properties at pages 11 and 55. It is respectfully requested that the Board set a hearing in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 37 to consider the appeal herein which seeks a reversal of the determination made by the Southold Town Trustees as Administrators of Chapter 37. PATRICIA C. MOORE ATTORNEY BUSINESS ACCOUNT 51020 MAIN RD. 765-4330 ~ / /> / SOUTHOLD. NY 11971 DATE~/It>/ v'" ! ! ~~~~ ~ /J' T~(l2. 1- I $1 Z6b - I i vw-. Iw~ H~ oo,,~ ~ = ! .~ !!!~k~.!!~Bank / .. MEMO --:-krmt"I.--?V - .)1:0 2 ~ 1.0 'i' '1 ~ 21:11' I. 2 2 1..110 ~O '1 b.1I '111' 5 2'1 I. 50-791/214 4224010969 5294 ~r~::&~_i~~~;a~lt'_~--~~'W~ 051_",,'- ""'~ Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. . Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. . Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: \ , -0... Le.wi~ 1'1-\"$, '\"I. \<<pev-"'IIlV) ~CO E. 3,,1d '5-\...e.& 35"B New "lo.,..l NY 100Ho e.Q. \\v. 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811. Februarv 2004 A.Slg~ o Ago,nt o Addressee eceived by (Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery )- l{-~ D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES. enter delivery address below: 0 No 3. Service Type ~Ifled Mail 0 Express Mail o Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise o Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. r4~-R~~ct;d D~lI~~~- (Extra Fee) 7003 3110 0001 8547 4408 Dyes Domestic Return Recelot 10259S-02.M.1540 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid USPS Permit No. G-10 . Sender: Please print your name, address, and ZIP+4 in this box. ornCE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOumOLD EUZABETII A. NEVIll.E, TOWN CLERK P.O. BOX Il79 SOIJfHOLD. NEW YORK 11971 10.:::-: ': ~.~ .;. .. /...II!.,I/I,/,./!.,I!..III/,.,'.I."I,/,I,/"I."I/.I,..,I,il 01/30/2017 04:32 FAX IgJ 002/002 . . #-; >-'-~ ...-< '".U'- -_.- i'-'__'~~_""""~ TOWN Of' SOLTHOLD APf'L1CATfO~ FOR APPEAL TO THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW RECEIVED If: DO fUr; FE8 , 0 3106 DATE. F"b.lQ..,_~..o06 South old Town Clerl NAME OF APPLICANT: Dr. l..ewl. and Mr.. Belaine :l~~"pe.rm"n ADDRUSS: -':WU E. JZnd ~e. J,II -'-N"~-'Y"l:"~ lOOI.~ lJATc 01' DECISION APPEALED FROM ."b.l.>, 2006 Notioe ot Uetermination ....-d..ted "Pee 2l, 2lW, SPECIFIC CHAPTER/SECTION INVOLVED Ch. :)7 ..ectionoJ7-6; 37-22 THr:: ALLEGED ERROHS IN Tl-IE D~TERMINA 1'10"1 i\RE:__ .Sec._ Atoachcd Statcment INTERPRETATION THAT IS CLAIMeD TO BE CORRECT: !l"," AHnrn.rl llt.~t"m""t RELIEF SOUGHT: Deterl'uin.ation thaI.: .clcti\Ti ti"'J:: cs.kQ'/"I. .arQ: I1Ut"IregubH:C!d Activitic,:;:,t .as dr.:.:fi.ned .in c;;h~-J7-::6- o'CId recognll.:.1otl. orpt'e.t:xiSL:i~lg status (,f $t'ru<;tu'rc ..nd 1),:~C~ wh-icp ,.,....t'~~uL1.y__~,.t;l.i~n..'l.t~~d-.hy .:ao.n.r.d~..o.f-_.:pr-Yr tl'ab "COpy 01" THE ENTIRE BOARD Or-TRUSTEE FfLE I1"CLUDING ANY RELEVANT MAPS MUST BE ATTACHED TO TfHS APPEAL a'd E:i>Si> !;SL. U:S "01.:1.:10 me, "..1001-1 dtZ'ZO SO Ot q.~ . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen John Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 6, 2006 Dr. Lewis and Mrs. Helaine Teperman 200 E. 32nd St., 35B New York, NY 10016 Re: 1225 AQUA VIEW AVE., EAST MARION, SCTM# 21-2-16 Dear Dr. and Mrs. Teperman, Enclosed is a copy of the resolution that was passed by the Board of Trustees in December regarding your application for the above referenced property. This matter still has not been resolved. To be granted a permit you must submit new plans showing the specific dimensions of the beach house/shed and decks as well as compliance with the conditions of the permit as outlined on the attached resolution. Non-compliance with the specified conditions within the next 30 days will result in legal action. Please contact the office for an inspection when compliance has occurred. Very Tl!:~U~ Jam~~ -'7 President, Board of Trustees JFK/hkc Cc: Patricia Moore Lori Montefusco, Assistant Town Attorney ~l/~~/LVVO LL.L~ 'O"JOO....~ UVH.....i./ V' .."'w.....,............. . . Albert J. K<up.ki, President .Jemoe King, Vice-President Artie Footer Ken Poliwuda PegllY A- Dlckenon T..... Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Soutbold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fas (631) 765-6641 December 21, 2005 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN 1225 AQUAVIEW AVENUE, EAST MARION SCTM# 21-2.16 Dear Ms. Moore: The Board of Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday December 21,2005 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore as agent for LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold Chapter 97 and the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, application dated February 15, 2004, and WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, several Public Hearings were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application at which time a\l 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, WHEREAS, the action as proposed is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization program, and, WHEREAS, there has been shown to be a historical use of a structure, and the proposed decks in the proposed location, and, ~1/~3IL~~b 11:L~ (b~bbql nUA~U U~ I~U~I~~~ r-'AI.::r~ tlL . 2 . WHEREAS no residences are allowed in the Coastal Erosion areas, and, , WHEREAS, the structure has undergone extensive rebuilding without the proper approvals, to wit, utilities, plumbing, new foundation for the structure, new siding, new windows, new decks; said reconstruction deemed not to be ordinary cosmetic repair, and, WHEREAS. the proposed unpermitted as built beach house is INCONSISTENT with the following policy standards of the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program: 4.1 A, B, 4.2 A, B, C, 5,1, 5.3, 6.1, and 8.3, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENIES the application of LEWIS AND HELAINE TEPERMAN for beach house repairs as built and proposed, and APPROVES a wetland permit and a Coastal Erosion permit for the previously existing storage shed, with no amenities except the outdoor shower, and with two wood decks seaward of the Coastal Erosion area. with the following conditions: 1. The structure be for storage only, specifically not for habitation; not a dwelling. 2. The following unpermitted amenities shall be removed prior to the issuance of the permit: a. All plumbing including the portable toilet b. Plumbing vent c. All utilities, appliances, and electric d. Air conditioner e. Glass windows and doors on the north side of the structure. f. Stairs located on the west side of the storage shed. 3. Plans showing the size and dimensions of the structures (shed, stairs, and decks) submitted for approval, with the decks sizes complying with the current code. 4. Final inspection of the exterior and interior of the structure. 5. Failure to comply with the aforementioned may result in criminal and/or civil action. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that 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, dU<-$ 9. ~.~- Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees , (~~nlc:~ (O!NlJ~lL r~!NlCQ] CQ]~O~f ,~ Complete Land Use Sel"ices -~ Including Planning, Design and EnvzivnmenfaJ P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Telephone (631)476-0984 - Fax (631) 476-6933 November 24, 2005 Thomas W. Cramer, Principal Ms. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Street Southold, New York 11971 RE: Lewis & Helaine Teperman @ East Marion L WRP Consistency Review SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 Dear Ms. Moore: As per your request, I have reviewed the letter from Mr. Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner, dated August 23, 2005, concerning the above. The proposed action is for the repair/reconstruction of an existing beach house (12.5' x 24.8') with associated decks, walks and stairs. According to affidavits, the structures were built in the 1950's. The beach house has plumbing, electricity and a bathroom. The site is located on a bluff in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent to Long Island Sound. A wetlands permit and a Coastal Erosion permit has been requested from the Town of Southold Trustees for the as-built structures. Photographs and a portion of the survey of the site and structures are provided at the end of this document for illustration. Mr. Terry's letter was prepared to provide a review of the actions consistent with the Town Code's Chapter 95 and the Town's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan (LWRP). The Town of Southold LWRP, and the 13 policies and standards within it, are a refinement of the New York State Department of State's (NYSDOS) 44 Coastal Policies. I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program and the rigorous process the towns go through to assure consistency with the State's plan. I have both instructed and been a guest speaker at a number of workshops and symposiums for the NYSDOS on the L WRP program. In addition, I was Director of Environmental Protection and Commissioner of Planning, Environmental and Development in the Town of Brookhaven. In those capacities I was the chief executive officer in charge of the implementation of Brookhaven's LWRP. Because of Brookhaven's vast size and the differences in the various coastlines found within the Town, we chose to implement the L WRP program by developing a number of detailed L WRPs to address the various sub-regions in Brookhaven. Furthermore, I have provided consulting services to numerous private clients and municipalities throughout Long Island, many dealing with the various local L WRPs. As stated, I am thoroughly familiar with the NYSDOS' program, which is the basis of South old's program, and have worked with and reviewed the Town's LWRP numerous times in the past. For your use and information, I am providing a copy of my curriculum vitae (attached). The Town's document was developed to provide an "appropriate balance between economic development and the preservation that will permit beneficial (sic) use of and prevent adverse effects on Southold's coastal resources ". As stated above, the Town has culled the 44 NYSDOS OLvUUO l C \;UJ,LO . . policies down to 13 that are relevant to Southold. These 13 are categorized into four groups in the LWRP. The categories are useful in determining consistency to the LWRP depending on the type of project and its location and setting within the coastal zone. The categories are as follows: . Developed Coast Policies . Natural Coast Policies . Public Coast Policies . Working Coast Policies Each of the policies within the categories is provided with a narrative as to its relevance to Southold. They are then followed by a set of policy standards to aid and provide guidance in development within the coastal zone. It is these standards and how the project is proposed according to them that would determine consistency to the Town's LWRP. Mr. Terry states in the second paragraph of his letter that he reviewed the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form as well as other information and that it is his recommendation that "the proposed action is generally inconsistent with the ... policies standards and is therefore inconsistent with the LWRP." He then lists four (4) of the thirteen (13) policies in which the proposed action is supposedly inconsistent with the various standards. However, no supporting information is provided to substantiate how the project does not conform to the policies or their corresponding standards. In fact, in reviewing the proposed project and comparing it to the L WRP policies and standards, the project, in my opinion, is consistent with the intent of the LWRP. The following is a review of the various L WRP policies and standards as listed in the August 23, 2005 letter. The policies and standards are shown in bold italics; each is then followed by a discussion on how Lewis & Helaine Teperman's proposed project relates to them. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Policy Standards 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management measures to minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested: A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 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 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. The repair/reconstruction of the existing beach house, walks and stairs is allowed under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8. The following are the relevant portions of6 NYCRR 505.8 to the project: O () .. -, ".') . .... 2 . . 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(4) - The normal maintenance of structures may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(5) - The restoration of existing structures that are damaged or destroyed by events not related to coastal flooding and erosion may be undertaken without a coastal erosion management permit. 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(6) - Nonmajor additions to existing structures may be allowed on bluffi pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit. (Note: Major additions are defined under 6 NYCRR 505.2(u) as additions that are 25% or more of the existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion, and therefore would be considered a nonm,yor addition). 6 NYCRR 505.8(c)(7) - A coastal erosion management permit is requiredfor new construction, modification or restoration of erosion protection structures, walkways or stairways. Elevated walkways or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use and built by or for an individual property owner for the limited purpose of providing noncommercial access to the beach are exceptedfrom this permit requirement. As shown above, the project is allowable under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. In fact, portions of the project would be exempt and may be undertaken without the need for a coastal erosion management permit. It is important to note that this Town LWRP policy specifically refers to the definitions of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505.8, not the Town's own Chapter 37 (Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas), which is Southold's implementation of 6 NYCRR 505. The relevant portions of the Town Code, dealing with construction on the bluff, are as follows: S37-17B(3) New construction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a coastal erosion management permit S37-17B(4) Non-major additions to existing structures are allowed on bluffi, pursuant to a coastal erosion management permit (Note: Major additions are defined under ~37-6 as additions that are 25% or more of the existing structure(s). Since the project calls for no additions it is less than a 25% expansion and therefore would be considered a nonmajor addition) Even under the Town's more restrictive implementation of the NYSDEC's 6 NYCRR 505, the proposed project would be a permissible activity. However, as discussed above, the Town's L WRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. OOi'\"l'~3 3 . . The beach house has been in existence since the 1950's. The proposed activities will not relocate or expand any existing structure(s). The entire portion of the site that includes the activity is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as presently defined by the NYSDEC. The structure has been located as far as possible from the shoreline, avoiding potential hazards as much as possible. It is impossible to locate this non-major addition out of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. The proposed action meets this standard by avoiding the hazards of erosion as much as possible (Standard 4.1.A.1.2) and fully complies with the all other aspects of the standard. 2. Avoid reconstruction of structures, other than structures that are part of a water-dependent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in coastal hazard areas. This standard addresses reconstruction of structures in coastal hazard areas that are damaged by 50% or more of their value. The existing structures are not damaged; the action is for a non- major addition and repair/reconstruction of existing structures. Therefore, the standard does not apply to the project. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practicaL Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters. b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards. c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure, or major public facilities. d. sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practicaL As stated in the response to Standard 4.1.Al, the proposed project has been located as far as possible from erosion hazards and does not change or expand existing structural conditions. As stated in the above policy standard, "existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted" if certain conditions, as listed, exist. Standard 4.1.A.l.3 condition letters "a", "b", and "c" are not relevant to the project. The proposed project conforms to condition "d". Therefore, the action conforms to this policy standard. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion hazards. 1. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion, based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. 2. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capabilities o/natural protective features.. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any development project. 3. Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhancement of those natural drainage features where they exist. While the use of vegetative non-structural measures is desirable, it is not practical nor does it have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition in this particular case. The existing structures are located on the bluff, immediately adjacent to its toe. In front of the toe of the bluff is a high, narrow beach consisting of large cobbles. These cobbles provide no medium for plant growth. Any plant material installed on the beach, in front of the structures, would not survive. Therefore, policy standard 4.1.B.l would not be relevant to this project. As discussed previously, the existing structures have been located on the bluff since the 1950' s. The bluff itself is heavily vegetated with indigenous species. In addition, since the structures OOf\f)f)4 4 . . have been located in their present position for a considerable time, the existing vegetation has surrounded the structures and stabilized itself around them. The proposed action will not disturb the existing vegetation on the bluff. It is the intent to replace/reconstruct the structures in-place. In addition, the existing natural drainage patterns will not be disturbed. Therefore, the project conforms to policy standards 4.1.8.2 & 3. It should be noted that the existing trees on the bluff were apparently trimmed in the past (prior to the 2005 growing season). The trimming apparently topped the larger trees, leaving a substantial portion of them in place. Significant new growth on the trimmed trees show that they have survived and continue to provide beneficial protection to the bluff. It is possible that the removal of some of the old canopy allowed more light to penetrate to the soil, allowing additional smaller plant species to colonize the bluff, thereby increasing the beneficial aspects of bluff stabilization and erosion protection. Photographs are provided at the end of this document that illustrate the existing vegetated bluff. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protective features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradlltion of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. A. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of6 NYCRR 505.8. As stated previously, the proposed activity is a non-major addition to an existing structure(s) as defined under the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) 6 NYCRR 505.8, Coastal Erosion Management Regulations, and the Town of South old's Chapter 37, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. Therefore, the proposed activity is not considered new development and is allowed in the natural protective features found on the site. Also, as noted above, 6 NYCRR 505.8 is less restrictive than Chapter 37; the Town's LWRP policy refers to the less restrictive 6 NYCRR 505.8. The proposed action holds itself to the more stringent requirements of Chapter 37. Therefore, the proposed project conforms to this policy standard B. Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by: 1. avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enhancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 5. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which has diminished, the protective capacities a/the natural shoreline 6. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness afthe importance of natural protective features As stated throughout the above discussion, the proposed activity will take place within the area of the existing structures; there will be no additional disturbance of the site. There will be no disturbance of the existing natural protective features existing on the site. The bluff is stabilized with existing vegetation and is not presently impaired. Therefore, there is no need to enhance or restore the natural protective features. As discussed above, it is not practical to install vegetation on the beach because of existing conditions. Condition "6" is not relevant to a single-family home. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with these policy standards. C. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by: 1. providing for natural supply and movement of unconsolidllted materials and for water and wind transport on:l~')5 5 . . All of the activities will be above the beach and there is no dune in the area. The beach consists oflarge cobbles that cannot be moved by wind. The activities are set on the bluff face, back from the beach, the area where water transport of the cobbles would take place. Given the elevation of the beach and the existing stability of the bluff, it does not appear that waves capable of moving the large cobbles frequently reach the toe of the bluff. Two existing stairways extend from the structures to the beach area. Upon examination of their construction and considering the existing conditions around them and the nature of the beach (elevation, composition, etc.), it is apparent that the stairways have had no or very little impact on the transport of material on the beach. As such, they provide minimal, if any, interference with the natural coastal processes. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy standard. Policy 5 Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of South old Policy Standards 5.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharges that would cause or contribute to contravention of water quality standards. B. Prevent point source discharges into Southold's coastal waters and manage or avoid land and water uses that would: 2. cause or contribute to contravention a/water quality classification and use standards, or 3. adversely affect receiving water quality, or As part of the activity, the existing sanitary system was upgraded to a self-contained composting toilet. Since there is no discharge of waste, direct or indirect, the action will not cause or contribute to the contravention of, or in any way adversely effect, water quality. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy's standards. 5.3 Protect and enhance quality of coastal waters. A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity), health factors (pathogens, chemical contaminants, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils,jloatables, refuse, and suspended solids). C Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation, jill, dredging, and disposal of dredged materiaL See response to Policy Standard 5.2.1 above. There was no excavation, fill, dredging or disposal of dredged material into the coastal waters during construction. There was also no threat of erosion on the site as none of the existing vegetation was removed or disturbed when the structures were replaced in-kind. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the policy standard. Policy 6 Protect and restore the quality andfunction of the Town of Southold ecosystem. Policy Standards 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of Southo/d. A. Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that would resultfrom impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originating from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than physical loss and may be indicated by increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance offISh or wildlife, often resultingfrom a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that do not 01~:""6 6 . . necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational activities or predators. Timing of activities can often be criJical in tktermining whether afunctional loss is likely to occur. Fuactional loss can also be manifested in physical terms, such as changes in hydrology. In the narrative following this policy in the LWRP, the importance of the ecological natural resources is discussed. It is stated that: "Certain natural resources that are important for their contribution to the quality and biological diversity of the Town's ecosystem have been specifically identified by the State of New York for protection. These natural resources include regulated tidal and freshwater wetlands; designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats; and rare, threatened, and endangered species. In addition to specifically identified discrete natural resources, the quality of the Town's ecosystem also depends on more common, broadly distributed natural resources, such as the extent of forest cover, the population of over- wintering songbirds, or benthic communities. These more common natural resources collectively affect the quality and biological diversity of the Sound ecosystem. "The role of the Southold Town Board of Trustees in the protection and management of the Town's ecosystem, particularly as it relates to surface waters, is recognized by the Town. The policy standards noted below recognize that federal and state legislation governing the protection, management and restoration of the environment are not always sufficiently restrictive to protect local resources. Where the Town and its Board of Trustees have implemented protective measures that exceed that of federal and state regulations, local regulations and standards should be complied with." The applicant will comply with the various federal and state regulations, as well as those of the Town of South old. Furthermore, degradation of the ecological components of the Town of Southold will not occur as a result of the proposed action. In fact, there will be no loss of existing vegetation or ecological components on site as a result of the project. With regard to the functional loss of ecological components, this too is not an issue as the project is a replacement in-place. The proposed activity is consistant with the existing ecological character established in the area, that of single-family homes with beach houses (see photos at end of report). Wildlife that currently utilizes the site is no doubt species that are tolerant of, and even prefer, the activities of man. Secretive and human intolerant species, such as forest interior birds, would not utilize the site because of its small size and surrounding land use(s). The proposed project is considered consistent with these policy standards. Policy 8 Minimize environmental degradation in Tuwn of Southo/d from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. Policy Standards 8.3 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic polbdants and substances hazardous to the environment and public health. 00;):'\'"17 7 . . A. Prevent release aftoxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources. In the L WRP, there is a narrative following this policy standard that is provided to clarify its intent. Unfortunately, Mr. Terry did not include it in his letter of August 23, 2005. The following is the clarification and the intent of the policy standard: ''The Town's Site Plan application process will determine whether proposed land use activities will involve toxic substances. Protective measures to prevent their release to the environment, particularly fish and wildlife resources, will be determined during the environmental review. Further, the dredging of toxic material from underwater lands and the deposition of such material shall be conducted in the most mitigative manner possible so as not to endanger fish and wildlife resources, in either the short or long term." The proposed project is for repair/reconstruction of a beach house; therefore, a site plan application is not required. No dredging of any type is proposed. A home does not use either toxic pollutants or hazardous substances other than household chemicals, which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. B. Prevent environmental degradation due to persistent toxic pollutants by: 1. limiting discharge of bio-accumulative substances, 2. avoiding re-suspension of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances and wastes, and avoiding reentry of bio- accumulative substances into the food chain from existing sources. Again, a beach house does not use toxic pollutants and hazardous substances. The project will use ordinary household chemicals (if any - since it is not a residence), which this policy standard is clearly not intended to address. Neither suspension, no less re-suspension, of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances nor the discharge of bio-accumulative substances will occur as a result of the project. Therefore, this policy standard is irrelevant to the proposed project. In summary, it is my professional and expert opinion that the proposed action is consistent with the Town of South old's LWRP. The above review is based, in part, on the survey prepared for Lewis & Helaine Teperman by Stanley J. Isaksan, Jr., L.S., revision dated May 16, 2005, and my familiarity with the site, the proposed project and the surrounding area. If I can provide any additional information or clarification of the above, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, /s/ Thomas W. Cramer, ASLA TWC/ Enclosures OO(\!"I"8 8 . LO_NG . ISLAND S:., 0- ITND k t/ -'-" APPFWX, IiWf THiS HATE S 81"57'35"[ 40_01' WOOD STAIRS cL.! _ _ _ _WLRIYLillG. _ _ 7WOOD DECKING n. '1_ _ _'._ ._ SHOIi(R AREA ,AI" Nollo Seale n 4~__ COAST~ ~'!2..SI.~S-~ . ~ ~ g ~ IlJ '" o o ^ -< " Q z --< '" o )> o -I ~ -l>. ~ 1 2 N -J>. 01 OJ trj 01. aol1::'Jl.t '.)f 61.1.'" i'PP~.~_ -'-'elf) DECI( t), r-- F.F'/OM PROP. LlNf _ct 10 '-1J>_n 12 --: Et 14 _: -:-~Et 16 :=d q:. F - -::. -~~: _0. - Q --- -- -~ ~p{~ - -'1-z' ;-~..;";~:t' rOP--r;--Btl.ir, WOOD STEPS ;] .9'. _ .- - lARD LINE HA._._ -.- 90' "- ~ ~ " ~ 0; ~ '" c WOOD (E.NCE. DRwf.WA'f EARTH/STONe TI[~ 1.200'+/_ 80'35 1 ~'ii.? Ow ~ AQUA VIEW A VENUE' Portioa ofourvey prepared by: STANLEY J.ISAKSEN,JR. Revision dale: May 16,:ZOOS SCTM #1_21.1-16 00[\''''''9 9 Upper Left: View of existing beach house from west. Upper Right: Middle Left: View of existing beach house from east. View of top of existing stairway. Middle Right: View of stairway looking down. Bottom Left: View of bottom of stairway, looking up from beach. 00(1."\ 1.0 10 . . Upper Left: View of vegetated bluff east of stairway. Upper Right: View of vegetated bluff west of stairway, neighboring stairways. Bottom Left: View of neighboring beach houses to west. Bottom Right: View of neighboring beach houses to east. OO!"\!"I~l II . . CURRICULUM VITAE Thomas W. Cramer 54 North Country Road P.O. Box 5535 Miller Place, New York 11764 Office (631) 476-0984 Fax (631) 476-6933 Licensing and Certification: . Landscape Architecture; State of New York Experience: . Principal of, Cramer Consulting Group, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (6/97 to Present) · Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/95-6/97) · Principal of, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc.; Environmental and Planning Consultants; Miller Place, New York (8/88-4/95) . Deputy Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (4/86-8/88) · Acting Commissioner, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (7/87-11/87) . Director, Division of Environmental Protection, Department of Planning, Environment and Development; Town of Brookhaven, New York (8/82-3/86) · Environmental Planner/Planner, Department of Environmental Protection & Planning Board; Town of Brookhaven, New York (5/75-8/82) . Private and Public Consultant, Planning and Environmental Issues (9/74-3/87) Significant Professional Achievements: . Numerous Draft & Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), list furnished by request. . County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. . DGEIS and FGEIS for the County Road 48 Corridor Land Use Study, Town of Southold. . Expert Witness in Federal, state and local courts. . Extensive work with NYS Attorney General and other state and local agencies. . 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . DEIS andFEIS for the 1996 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Town of Brookhaven, 1996 . Draft Port Jefferson Harbor Complex Management Plan, 1996 . Central Pine Barrens Comprehensive Land Use Plan, 1995 . Draft New Ordinances for the Town of Brookhaven. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Central Pine Barrens District, Bed & Breakfast Ordinance, Marine Commercial District, Recreational Commercial District. on n ,,,\ ~_ 2 12 . . . Revisions to Existing Town of Brookhaven Codes. 1995-1997. Including but not limited to: Bays and Harbor Bottoms Ordinance Planned Development Districts (PDD), Planned Retirement Community (PRC), Change of Use /Expansion, Sign Ordinance, Historic District, Wetlands Ordinance, Site Plan Ordinance, I-Business Districts, L- Industrial Districts, as well as others. . Computerization of Department of Planning, Environment & Development Permit issuing and tracking system in Building Division, 1997. Computerization and Networking of entire Department, 1997. Computerization oflog-in and tracking applications, 1997. Computerization of Town's Real Property Inventory, 1996. Computerization of Building Divisions records, 1997. Upgrade and expand GIS capabilities, 1995. . Numerous projects for private and municipal clients as a partner in the firm of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 1988-1995. Specific list provided upon request. Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements. Feasibility and Development Potential Studies. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Audits. Visual Impact Assessments. Site Planning and Landscape Design. Archaeological and Historic Studies. Testimony before Boards and in Court. · Town of Brookhaven's application for the Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act, 1996. · GElS Industrial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS A-I Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · GElS Commercial Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. . GElS Large Lot Rezonings on the Towns Own Motion, 1988. · Award for Environmentally Sensitive Land Design, Pine Barrens Review Commission, 1988. . Environmental Quality Bond Act, Acquisition Study for Brookhaven Town, 1987. . Town of Brookhaven Land Use Plan, 1987. . Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve, 1985. . Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 1984. . Open Space Study - Town of Brookhaven, 1984. . Comprehensive Review of Industrial Zoned Land in the Sensitive Hydrogeologic Zone, Town of Brookhaven, 1983. . Coastal Erosion Along the North Shore of Brookhaven, 1979. . Sound Beach - A Neighborhood Study, 1978. . Puerto Escondido, Hoy y Manana, 1976. . Mount Sinai Harbor, A Conceptual Plan, 1975. . Cedar Beach - A Balanced Future, 1973. · Guest lecturer at several colleges and universities on land use and environmental issues. · Conducted seminars and workshops for the State of New York Department of State on land use and coastal management. on{'\{'\~3 13 , . . . Professional & Other Organizations: past and present . Bo'sun Supplies, President. Mail order & Internet marine supply business. . Chairman of the American Cancer Society Regatta . American Planners Association . American Society of Landscape Architects . American Water Resources Association . National Eagle Scout Association . New York State Pine Barrens Council . New York State Pine Barrens Task Force . New York Planning Federation . New York State Association of Environmental Professionals . Suffolk County 208 Technical Advisory Council . Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality . Suffolk County Pine Barrens Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Conservation Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Council . Town of Brookhaven Peconic River Advisory Board . Long Island Association Advisory Committee . Boy Scouts of America, District Advancement Chairman . Miller Place Historical Society, Trustee . Moriches Inlet Breach and Stabilization Committee . Mount Sinai Harbor Advisory Committee . Mount Sinai Sailing Association, Commodore Education: . SUNY, College of Environmental Science & Forestry; Undergraduate and . Syracuse University; Undergraduate BLA - Landscape Architecture BS - Environmental Sciences & Forestry . SUNY at Stony Brook; Graduate courses in Planning and Political Science . Suffolk County Community College; Associate Business and Humanities . LIU, Southampton College, Undergraduate studies . SUNY, Agricultural & Technical College at Farmingdale, Specialized technical course work . Other Continuing Education Programs offered by organizations in the planning and environmental fields References: Furnished upon request. O()[)(I~4 14 . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at I ,w 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765.4330 Fax: (631) 765.4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary November 10, 2005 Southo1d Town Trustees P.O.Box 1179 Southo1d Town Hall Main Road, Southo1d, NY 11971 Re: Lewis Teperman, MD SCTM#1000-021-02-016 Dear President Krupski and Board: On November 7, 2005 I submitted a request for an adjournment to give Tom Cramer, Cramer Consulting Group an opportunity to prepare the response to the LWRP. I am advised that the Trustees closed the hearing and want to issue a decision at their next meeting (Nov. 16th), we again object to the Board making a decision without giving the applicant an opportunity to submit a response to the LWRP recommendation. A review of your file shows that Doctor Teperman filed the application with the Trustees on February 17, 2005. The matter appeared on the March calendar at which time I submitted an affidavit by the adjacent property owner, palumbo and the Isaksen survey which the owner used when he purchased the property a few months earlier. The Board met with me and my client at a work session and the Board stated that if we could show that the beach structures and decks were grandfathered that the Board could approve the "as built" repairs made to the structures. Despite our submission of a current title survey which showed all the structures, you asked for a topographic survey. While the topographic survey was irrelevant to the location of the existing structures, my client agreed to undertake the expense. The meeting continued in April with additional testimony, in May I submitted a topographic survey. This survey continued to show the same structures before the repairs as after the repairs. I also submitted an areal photograph again showing the structures in existence prior to the Trustees jurisdiction. We anticipated an approval of the permits, however, the LWRP law was enacted one day before the Trustees meeting so this matter, as well as almost every 0(\'1("\15 . . . matter on your calender, had to be postponed (by the Trustees) since LWRP applications were now required. The Town and public received an educational program at the end of June on the implementation of the LWRP. We immediately submitted the LWRP application. On August 2~, one day before the Trustees meeting, you received the LWRP recommendation from Mr. Terry. The applicant was not provided a copy of this recommendation and was surprised to learn at your meeting that Mr. Terry had concluded that repairs to grandfathered structures were "inconsistent" with LWRP policies. I appeared at the hearing in Septerrber at which time I submitted an extensive exhibit for your consideration. Our expert on LWRP could not be reached in time before the September hearing because he was leaving for a two week vacation. Prior to the October meeting Mr. Cramer returned from his vacation and I was able to retain him to review the LWRP recommendation. Our first request for an adjournment was for the October meeting. For whatever reason the Town Attorney was advised that there had been "no activity" in the file when I requested the adjournment of the October meeting, however, I submitted a written response with exhibits for the Board's consideration as late as September 21st. Given that the LWRP recommendation is based on Mr. Terry's opinion of "Policy's" and that he disregards the express statutory right to repair and maintain existing structures we demand that Mr. Cramer's response, when submitted, be incorporated in the record of this file. Therefore, the matter should remain open pending receipt of the applicant's LWRP response. Vf}ry // I /~~ ~r'icia C. Moore cc: Dr.Teperman patricia Finnegan, Esq. Town Attorney 0('\'"11"' 16 CUARANTEES INDICA TED HERE ON SHALL RUN . ONl Y TO THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURV['( '~ PREPAREO, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE ITLE COMPANy GOVERNMf:NTAL LENDING INSTITUTION IF LISTED HArGRENCY, TO THE ASSIGNEES ' fON, AND GUARANTEES ARE NO;; ~[ LENDING INSnTunON. ADDITIONAL fNSTfTUnONS ~~SFCRA8LE TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS LONe ISLAND S 87'S7'35"E 4001' APPROX, HW THIS DATE . ~ UNAUTHORIZED AL T[, SURVEY 1$ A \l70LA n~:~~ ~:C:lg~n;;b/C6/H'S THE NEI1' YORK STATE CDUCAnON LAW. SOUND eAr LINE COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. €L...f END STOCKADE FENCE ....~)(~;OP7~l(!I"F WOOD STEPS n 46 COASTAL EROS/ON --- , -'-._~Ji:. J_9~ ___ HAZA!E. ,LINE .-' ~ , < o m F m ~ .3'- w~e:cr. W/RAIUNG 1 ~ 77.1' .0' ~f" z o ~ ~ o i z " ~ ~ ~ " "'. ~ '> < ~ ~ o c 2-STORY RESIDENCE ;0 o " ^ -< " o Z --1 ;0 o ,. o 11.2 - wooD FENCE CELLAR ENTR N .\>- U1 \J, "' CONG 1.101'1. T1E~,.200'+/ 80'3 cDNe A Q U 5 70 W "DN. A VIEW 62.6 '00;';- A VENuitNCt EARTH/SlONE DRiVEWAY N U1 --.l --.l OJ SURVEY OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATE EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N,Y, SURVEYED FOR: LEWIS TEPERMAN HELAINE TEPERMAN SURVEYED: 5 APRIL 2004 SCALE 1"~ 40' AREA ~ 12,457.7 SF OR 0.286 ACRES TM# 1000-021-02-016 SURVEYED BY STANLEY J. ISAKSEN, JR. P.O. BOX 294 NEW UFFOU<. NY 1/956 631- 34-5835 GUARANTEED TO: LEWIS TEPERMAN HELAINE TEPERMAN 16 MAY 05 26 APR 05 CHANGE NAMES ON MAP. AOO CONTOUR LINES ON BLUFF, COASTAL EROSION HAZARD LINE UPDA TE DECK AREAS BELOW BLUFF LINE. CORRECT STREET NAME SPELLING. 25 MAR 05 29 APR 04 ~ . ,,,./' MAIIlNG ADD.RESS, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE WCATION, Town all Annex 54.175 S. te Route 2.; (cor. Rd. & Young. Ave.) ./ Southold. NY PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS .)ERILYN B. WOODHOURE Chalr WILLIAM J. CRF.:MERS KENNETH J,. EDWMWS .MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON Telephone: 631 766-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD From: Mark Terry, Senior Environmental Planner L WRP Coordinator /(0) ~ (G fE nw ~ lft~ i ~ 1Jl1 AUG 23 2005 ~I To: ToW]) of Southold Board of Trustees Date: August 23, 2005 S'"thol~ Town Board of Trustees Proposed Wetland and Coastal Erosion Permit for Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM#1000-21-2-16 Re: LEWIS & BELAINE TEPERMAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit for the existing beach house. Located: 1225 Aquaview Ave., East Marion. The project is located in the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area adjacent to the Long Island Sound in REACH 4. The proposed action has been reviewed to Chapter 95, Waterfront COllllistency Review ofthe Town of South old Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to me, it is my recommendation that the proposed action is generaOy INCONSISTENT with the following Policy Standards and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. The reconstruction of the structure within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area is inconsistent with the following Policy Standards. In addition, it Is evident from the succession of surveys In the me that the house structure was enlarged during the recoDstructlon. I recoml1lend that the Board reqnire that the applicant clarify the use of the strul:ture and lUllend the application to comply with Chapter 37 and further the intent of the following Policy StlIndards. Pursuant to Chapter 95, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written deten:nination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. NATURAL COAST POLICIES Polic:v Standards 4.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The following management mell5ures to l1Iinimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards are suggested: O(\f)[\~7 11/15/2005 12:21 Ib~bb41 tlUA~U Ur lKU~I~~~ ,...AI..Jt. 1::::l'L ,. ,~_. A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development Imd structures away from flooding and erusion hazards. 1. Avoid develoDmeDt other than water-denendent uses In coastal hazlitd m!!; Locate new development which is not water-depeJ1dent as far away from coastal bazard areas as practical. a. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas, except as specificaOy allowed under tbe relevant portions of 6 NYCRR 505.8. b. Avoid bazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. 2. Avoid recoDstrnction of structures. other than structures that are Dart of a wllter-deDendent use, damaged by 50% or more of their value in coastal hazllrd areas. 3. Move existiJlg development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion bazards as practical. Maintaining existing development and structures in bazard litess may be warranted for: a. structures which functionaOy require a location on the coast or in coastal waters. b. water-dependent uses which cannot avoid exposure to hazards. c. sites in areas with extensive public investment, publir infrastructure, or major public facilities. c. sites wbere relocation of an e%isting structure is lIot practical. B. Use vegetlllive tJon-structural measures to manage flooding and erosion "azards. 1. Use vegetative non-structural mell8U1es which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion, based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometIy, and sediment composition. 2. Use vegetative measures to increase proteetive capabilities of natural protective features. Discourage clearing of existing, particularly indigenous vegetation during siting, design, construction and regrading phases of any development project. 3. Discourage alteration of existing natural drainage contours and swales and encourage enhaneement of those natural drainage features where they exi5t. 4.2 Protect and restore natural protedive features. Natural protective geologic features provide valuable protection and should be protected, restored and enhanced. Destruction or degradation of these features should be discouraged or prohibited. A. No devel"pment is permitted in "atural protective feature areas, except a$ specifically allowed under the relevant portions uf 6 NYCRR 505.8. B. Maximize the protective capabilities afnatural protective features by: I. avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enbancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features O{)()(\~8 1111oIL~~~ lL:LI IbObbCH ~UH~U ur I~U~I~~~ ,1-l1J~ tJ,j . '....-.- . ....M-". S. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which has diminishcd, tbe protective capacities of the natural shoreline 6. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness of the importance of natural protective features C. Minimize interference with natural coastal processes by: I. provi.ding fOT natural suWly and movement of unconsolidated materials and for water and wind transport Policy 5 Protee! and improve water uality and snpply in the Town of Southold. ] Policv Standards 5.1 Prohibit direct or indirect discharee9 that would cause or contribute to . contravention of water quality standards. B. Prl!Vent point source discharges into Southold's coastal waters and manage or avoid land and water uses that wOllld: 2. cause or contribute to contravention of water quality classification and use standards, or 3. adversely affect receiving water quality, or 5.3 Protect and enhllJlce quality of coastal watert. A. Protect water quality based on an evaluation of physical factors (pH, dissolved oxygen, dissolved solids, nutrients, odor, color and turbidity), health factor.' (pathogens, chemical contaminantS, and toxicity), and aesthetic factors (oils, floatables, refuse. and suspended solids). C. Protect water quality of coastal waters from adverse impacts associated with excavation, fill, dredgin& and disposal of dredged material. PoUty 6 Protect and eeos stem. restore the quality and function of the Town of SouthOI~ Policv Standards 6.1 Protect and restore ecological quality throughout the Town of South old. A Avoid adverse changes to the Long Island Sound and the Peconic Bay ecosystems that wOllld result from impairment of ecological quality as indicated by: 2. Degradation of ecological components Degradation occurs as an adverse change in ecological quality, either as a direct loss originating within the resource area or as an indirect loss originatiJlg from nearby activities. Degradation usually occurs over a more extended period of time than ph)'llicalloss and may be indicated by on(\f\~9 11/1b/Z~~~ lZ:zr rb~bb(H OUf!..Ut:u Ur- I t<:lJ.:> I t.l:..~ rH\Jt:. t:Jq . . increased siltation, changes in community composition, or evidence of pollution. 3. Functional loss of ecological components Functional loss can be indicated by a decrease in abundance of fish or wildlife, often resulting from a behavioral or physiological avoidance response. Behavioral avoidance can be due to disruptive uses that do not necessarily result in physical changes, but may be related to introduction of recreational. activities or predators. Timing of activities can often be critical in determining whether a functional loss is likely to occur. Functional loss can also be manifested in physicaltelU1s, such as changes in hydrology. Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of SoutboJd from solid W8lJte] and bazardous substances and wastes. 8.3 Protect the environment from degradation due to toxic pollutants and substances hazardous to tbe environment and public bealth. A. Prevent release of toxic pollutants or substances hazardous to the environment that would have a deleterious effect on fish and wildlife resources. B. Prevent environmental degradation due to persistent toxic pollwants by: I. limiting dischargc ofbio-accUlJ1ulative substances, 2. avoiding re-suspension of toxic pollutants and hazardous substances and wastes, and avoiding reentry of bio-accumulative substances into the food chain from existing SOUTces. O(H'n~D ;\1' . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold. New Yark 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary May 16, 2005 Southo1d Town Trustees P.G.Box 1179 Southo1d Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis Teperman, MD SCTM#1000-021-02-016 Dear President Krupski and Board: In accordance wi th the Board's reques t, I obtained an areal photograph taken on 12-22-92 (closest date to 8/91 adoption of ordinance). The areal shows all the structures which exist today and are the subject of the Coastal Erosion Permit. The structures were existing on the date of adoption of the Coastal Erosion Law. The repairs, in kind and in place, are permissible to existing structures. I have also located the prior owner, Mr. Wetmore, in Florida, he provided an affidavit after reviewing the areal photograph confirming that the structures were located on the property during his occupancy from 1984 to 1991. He also described the use of the beach cabana by ~ Salamone. The Salamone family occupied the cabana as a dwelling until the main house was constructed in 1975. As Doctor Teperman has previously stated, he repaired the existing structures. The deck, stairs, and cabana had been constructed by prior owners and prior to the Trustee's regulations adopted in 1991. The revised survey with 2' contours has been prepared by Stanley Isaksen, he placed it in the mail to me today. As soon as I receive it I will deliver it to your office. Your approval of the "in kind in place" repairs to the existing structures is requested. The stairs down the bank were not repaired, they are very steep and unsafe, and we would respectfully request that the work be included in the permit t void future problems. ".--- /"'Ve yours, / Moore cc: Dr.Teperman on(\"~2 . . SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x IEWIS TEPERMAN AFFIDA VIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT x STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 71+ 1'l1t'Y Sworn to before me this~ day of A{mr2005 I~ /)~ Notary Public 4.. 5. 1 "d George Wetmore, being duly sworn, deposes and says: L I reside at 17737 A Lake Carlton Drive, Lutz Florida 33558-6046; 2. My exwife Borbra Wetmore and 1 resided at 1225 Aquaview A venue, East Marion, the property now owned by Tepennlln, horn 1984 to 1991, prior to our divorce. 3. That while Borbra and I lived in the house we made improvements to the house, repaired and replaced the existing stlUctures on the bluff. The beach house was built in the 1950's before the upland house was built by Salamone in 1975. The beach house contained plumbing with an old compost toilet, shower, Idtchen, and a living area. Mr. Salamone stayed at the beach house before the main house was built. I have seen the 1992 Areal photograph and the st.ructures appear as they were while I lived at the property. ~Ji.) George Wetmore e' PATRlClADARIAS :u.t~ MY COMMISSION # D0356837 ~A EXPJJ<EHk-"OI,2008 I-llC:3~ARY FLNotaryDiscoo..1lAssoc.Co. El7Sl7 SSl. 1ES . onnf'll"l.3 ~ dSl7:21 SO SO ~~W~ aO~jjO m~l a~oow . . SOUTH OLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x LEWIS TEPERMAN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT x STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Donna Palumbo, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I reside at 261 Nassau Avenue, Manhasset NY 11030. I also own a summer home at 1095 Aquaview Avenue, P.O.Box 602, East Marion, New York 11939 and am Dr. and Mrs. Teperman's neighbor. 2. That I am very familiar with the Teperman residence and the existing conditions before and after repairs to the existing beach structures. 3. The structure on the beach appears to have been built in the 1950's and contained plumbing with an old compost toilet, electric, shower, kitchen, and a living area. The Teperman's replaced the old toilet with a high tech. self contained toilet. The building improves the appearance and value of all our properties. 4. The prior owners loaned out the house to friends in the summer and this building was used by them for bar-b-ques and parties. The Teperman family have fixed up the building and cleaned up the property. The family is quiet and considerate of their neighbors. 5. The existing beach structure was not enlarged in any way, in fact the decking was cut back from its original size. 6. The beach in front of my property and the Teperman's property is a private beach with limited access. Many of the homes along this beach have beach structures from the 1930's and we value the continued use and enjoyment of our property. I on behalf of myself and my husband, Albert Palumbo, support the application by the Teperman Family and support the Trustees granting of the .pel1lli~s. . '0,.. / <:,-:,~'1~~~--- . DonnaP~umbo Sworn to before me thi~day of March 2005 @U~~~ Notary Public DONNA R. PERFETTO on(l(\~4 NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No.01PE6119852 QUALIFIED IN NASSAU COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC. 6, 2008 LONG ISLAND . SOUND CVARANTfES INDICATED HERE ON SHALL RUN ONL Y TQ THE PERSON FOR WHOM THE SURVn 15 PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE nTLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. LENDING IN$ Trru nON, IF LISTED HEREON, AND ro THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION GVARANTf[S ARE Nor TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL fNST/ninONS OR SUBSEOUENT OH'NfRS. . S 87'57'35"[ 40.01' APPROx, HW THIS DATE UNAUTHORIZEC' AL TERA TIDN OR ADDITION TO THIS SURVEY 1$ A \.1DLA nON OF SECTION 7209 OF THE NEW Y"WK STATE EDUCATION LAW. WOOD STAIRS n.!_ ___WLRdilJ.NG._ .,_" 7 WOOD DECKING CL l!-.._ ___.._ ',_ SHOIlf"R ARCA LINE COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND $URv[I'ORS EMBOSSED SEAL SHALL .vOT BE CON$I()[f?[O TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. K "~PAAO",:iO~8Lt!FT WOOD STEPS '" o () ^ -< " o Z -I '" o )> o z ':;; < 0 F ~ 2_STORY ~ i RESIDENCE -J ~ .... u g ~ 11 .2 N -1>- (Jl CO "' (Jl ;L9~_- - HAZA~ ~/~ .-' .- n 46 _ COASTAL EROSION --'-,-- -'-.-S.li..:. .0' z , ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ g CONC t,tOl'l. TlE-l.200'+/ . A Q 80 35 70 W ~~c VA VIEW 62.6 IYooOF- A VENVEtNcc EARTH/STONE ORIVEWAY N (Jl --.I '--.1 CO SURVEY OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATE EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: LEWIS T[PERMAN HELAIN[ TEPER MAN SURVEYED: S APRIL 2004 SCALE 1"~ 40' AREA ~ 12.457.7 SF OR 0.286 ACRES TM# 1000-021-02-016 SURVEYED BY STANLEY J. ISAI<SEN, JR. PO. BOX 294 N[W SUFFOLK. NY 631 -7'34-5835 GUARANTEED TO: LEWIS TEPERMAN HElAlNE TEPERMAN 16 MAY OS 26 APR 05 CHANGE NAMES ON MAP. ADD CONTOUR LINES ON BLUFF. COASTAL EROSION HAZARD LINE UPDATE DECK AREAS BELOW SLUFF LINE. CORRECT STREET NAME SPELLING. / / i 04R13 1/ .25 MAR 05 29 APR 04 . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold. New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary April 12, 2005 Southold Town Trustees P.G.Box 1179 Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis Teperrnan, MD SCTM#1000-02l-02-0l6 Dear President Krupski and Board: Two issues were addressed at the last Trustees meeting: ISSUE 1: The trees on the bluff were cut by Chris Mohr without the owner's authorization. Chris Mohr was recommended by a neighbor, Chris Mohr would do annual garbage pick up on the neighbor'S property. Since he was hired by one neighbor, Dr. Teperman asked Chris Mohr for a proposal to pick up garbage on Teperman' s property also. Doctor Teperman had spoken wi th Chris Mohr by telephone, they made an appointment to meet at which time Chris Mohr would get instructions with regard to the areas with garbage accumulation. Chris Mohr did not show up for the appointment so Dr. Teperman did not expect Chris Mohr to do any work at his home. Chris Mohr was not hired to cut down trees on the bluff or any other form of landscaping. A police report was filed with regard to this incident (cc#05-2833). Doctor Teperman has always used Creative Environmental Design (David Cichanowicz) for his landscaping needs at the subject property, Mr. Cichanowicz addressed the Trustees, in person, to state that he has been Doctor Teperman's landscaper since last year after he became the owner of the property. He had recently completed some work around the house (landward of the bank) and they were discussing future work. Attached are bills of work performed by Creative Environmental Design and paid in full (Exhibit A) Doctor Teperman plans to protect his property from damage, he has asked Creative Environmental Design for a landscape plan for bluff stabilization and protection. Attached is his plan (Exhibit B) (}(l[\l'\f"\7 . . ISSUE 2: Repairs to the existing structures seaward of the top of the bluff: Doctor Teperman purchased the property in May 2004. A title survey was prepared showing the existing structures. The April 29, 2004 survey prepared by Stanley Isaksen, Jr. shows the same structures of today (Exhibit C). The surveyor showed the deck which extended over the line into the neighbor's property. The updated survey dated March 25, 2005, prepared at my request after our last meeting, shows the same structures, made a little smaller(Exhibit D) . The decking was cut back to eliminate the encroachment on the neighboring property. A wood wall and decking behind the beach house was the same in 2004 as it is in 2005, however, it had been covered over with garbage and debris. When the property was cleaned up, the decking was uncovered and repaired. All work was "in kind in place" as permitted pursuant to Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 37, "Normal Maintenance" (which is an unregulated activity) and Wetland Ordinance 97-13 Exceptions to permit, "The ordinary and usual maintenance and repair of a presently ... existing building... or structure" . The Beach house as it appears today (repaired) was purchased with a living area, a kitchen with all utilities, a wine chiller and "\, toilet. The building had electric and water service. The toilet was replaced with a state of the art self-contained system- no sanitary system is required. Attached is a copy of the original Cook Pony Farm Memorandum of Sale dated 2/23/04. (Exhibit E) Also attached is an affidavit dated March 22, 2005 signed by Donna Palumbo, a neighbor, which confirms that the original structures were built in the 1950's. These structures were repaired by Dr. Teperman. These structures are very valuable, other similarly constructed structures are on this beach, and the owner wished to preserve them and make them safer (Exhibit F) While the owner believed that a permit was not legally required for the maintenance and repair of existing structures, an application for an "as built" permit application was submitted to avoid a protracted court action. Your approval of the "in kind in place" repairs to the existing structures is requested. The stairs down the bank were not repaired, they are very steep and unsafe, and we would respectfully request that the work be included in the permit to avoid future problems. cc: Dr.Teperman O()("\,,~8 '" " w C1 ...' is ~~~ ." :.-: w ~. ... x w Cl :!; ~ .. " W ~ ~ ... ~ 01 r:: '" <1 ~ J II/) If t.x~/.b/T 71 '. . ) 00(\1"1)9 . , CREATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN 11,""",,, ,'!./"J,,,,,.\',,'l ,"r""""H Lewis TepermaD., M.D. 200 East 32..1 Street - 358 New York., N.Y. 10016-'6306 (917) 453-2578 Cell A STATEMENT Installation of New Fence: . 39160 ROUTE 25 POST OFFICE Box 160 PECONIC, NY ] 1958 611-714-792l 631-734.7914 F..l,X /? November 19,2004 Purchase of Shermin Williams PremilDll Stain: Labor for painting Fence: Disposal of Old Fence to Town Landfill: $ 5360.00 $ 452.00 $ 1045.00 $ 118.80 $ 6975.00 11/10/04 #4676 - $ 3500.00 BALANCE DlIE: S 3475.80 ~WWv\. .-'r orp"10 ''-1:' -A . CREATIV~' . ENVIRONM~TAL DESIGN D;v;,iu .J hJi.. Nul Corp...';... Lewis Teperman, M.D. 200 East nod Street - 35B .' New York, N.Y. 10016-6306 (917) 453-2578 Cell. STATEMENT Planting of the following: . 59160 ROUTE 25 PoST.OFFlCE Box 160 . PecoNlc, NY 11958 6J1-7H-7923 631-734-7924 FAX December 1,2004 10 - Parsoni Juniper 3 Gal. 3 - Dwarf Fountain Grass 3 Gal. 3 - "LiJ" Bwmy Fountain Grass 3 Gal. 1 - Cubic Yard Premium Grade Mulch BALANCE DUE: $ 570.00 W;f\ ~ ~~l~lot1 , on(l(\1! 0: ~ .... . r~1 !~ [,; T X '" ,. ... x UJ " Z . ~ <t " w ~ ,. ...~ .. " '" < ~ 1 f 11/2 II' SA /1); f--) . " O()[\t\32 --;:t'" ~ 1 / ", " -----, ..-,,---' I I 1 '., /~ I '-_ f. ;- r ' , , 1,:7":' . 1---'::~' -~ ......... ".1 I. '" "t,:,;;'; , r~"t'''.: '\, ,"- ' . fd / ._f:u. , , 1-- I , ! / ~ ~ - ,~ -., ... 'I ',\, '" . ,'\ I ,", " '-'--"~"-1--'<f'" H 1:'" """_"" .r....."-e"~..'.. _....-~'\'> 0" ~_"",O_"~'_"~""':~''''''''~''{!'''''_ _~~ 1 ) c V'l \ "\~ t , , ~ :J i I I I , .~ .~...... ~ ~ ')0 :. ..:F '2 '1'1 \ .,-:-1 ~ . ~ .. """,' '. ~-" ':::> ~ ;. .,. -.... -....'- ,J " I .......,.- . " .....,,---.. __H-+- A . ,~"., . ""~'" ,t. .-f ,.;o,\- ~', ' (. .......~ -~,' '~' of. . ,- . /" 't',' '.. -...... ~ ~ ~': ~. ~' t , i .,I! :;,)!:J, : \- /'1" ,f ','k ~..:. ',' ';3.' , '1' 1 X ! ....:\,~ , . " < :}." ~ .' "'~ ~ ~ . rlt Jf ,f!)' , " fl, r.; :"'-" , ~;li'i -'\ ~ ~ " \r.. ,".. ~ '" -' ,~-' t -,' ,- ..".,'Ji..... , . _" -' J>'~'" . ,.~,~~-~-. . , 'r ' , , \ . , 1 'i '~f;l:;~ c. ".-" " '>,1., ~.> . ...., ~r .:., :; , ' - ~- J ~\l-, " ,~ -J l~. ~, ':~ , I". '. ',t,-,. .~..;., ' . . :1~'~ , ~I~ . A' r #.' Itj ',' )l~'.. ;1' ..>/ ,..:;. ;,1::," .~ "'_.0 "t 1 ,I :,,/" 'j'; .~'I:~ , ~,'" 'J " . "" ,'e ' , ".~1 f, ; ',//x' '. !j~ ,..' ~ .".;I'r:, . ,:::!~~. . ~t "5 """ '~1 ;.~1' , 'I'~' " ...... ., '110'- .~ f ,. .... , ?, .... - . , , .... . it; , ", " 1'-; i .~ .....;.+ .... '. ',~" ,~>.______~__.,~~~.. "'..1-" '.r":, -- " ll-"r~--t" .......,..t!~ )t. <!.. ), ',~'~, ~"'.:.\~, '1L tf- .,.t , ". . "'J: .,.;;' :';~{J. ' ',l,\\" ~ ..;. ~. , , /~.t'- ~ ,\\' " " " . " " f.. '1 " . , ' " A 'd~~' ~ l\.l \ . -<", l' ~~,..~;:.~ ......, ~I ~," "'t, . ~ ". . '1,' p ,I,. ", '< ;'!,! ,''. .. ','::' ~ ~ IU <0 " ~ "" " w ~ ~ ~ - <II c: C\ < ~ , , . E(hil~/f tC f . '" O\lllf'''l4 , . . IRAN TEES INDICA TED HERE ON SHALL RUN ilL Y TO THE PERSON FOR ImOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARto, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE nTtE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL <4CENCY, LENDING INSl1TUnON, IF LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INsmU11ON. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADomONAL INsmUTTONS OR SUBSEQUENT OttNERS. LONG ISLAND SOUND UNAUTHORIZED ALTERAT70N OR AOOlnON TO THIS SUR~Y IS A VIOLA nON OF SECTTON 7209 OF THE NEW YORK STA1f EOUCAl1ON LAW, . S 87"57'35"E 40.01' APPROX, HWl THIS DATE' z COPIES OF THIS SURVEY MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS EMBOSSED. SFAL SHALL NOT 8E- CONS/DERm TO BE A VALID TRUE COPY. OECK OYER O.g' J\f ~ 5.3' -. END STOCKADE FENCE' WOOD STEPS '1.9' <' 8.6' ~ . ~ 32.3' WOOD DECK W/RAlUNG 77, .0' " 1 ~ ~ <'. ~ 2_STORY RES100lCE ~ i ~ " 4>, 32.0' ~gE :0 o (') ^ -< '1) o ~ N 1,2 -l>- ~ 00 (JI. ~ ~ . ~ t{) ~!.-CU~I~ N (JI -.l "--1 00. cEllAR ENTR. :0 ~ " co" MON. Tlf=1200 I ' + - 80'J cD"C AQU 510W """. , A VIE TIlT 62.6 "000 Fi: , rr A VENUE NeE EARTH/STONE DRIVEWAY SURVEY OF DESCR/BED PROPERTY SITUATE 'EASf<MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD " SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA G/ANNOPOULOS CD SURVEYED: 5 APRIL 2004 SCALE 1 "= 40' AREA = 12,457,7 S.F. OR 0.286 ACRES TM# 1000-021-02-016 SURVEYED BY STANLEY J. ISAKSEN, JR. P.O. BOX 294 NEW SUFFOLK. N. Y 6.31 -7 4-58.35 GUARANTEED TO: JOANNA G~NNOPOULOS LEWIS TEPER MAN HELAINE TEPERMAN CHASE MANHATTAN BANk DrlVIiI ARC:T'fJArT ~ ~, ?Q APR 1i4. 'r.nRRFr.T ,<;TRFn NAME SPElliNG, n4R 1 " . GUARAN7[[S INDICA TED HERE ON SHALL RUN ONL Y TO THE PERSON FOM' WHOM THE SURVEY IS PR[PARE:O, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE nTLE COMPANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY, LENDING INSTITUTION, IF LISTED HERmN, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO AOOITlONAL INSnrUTlONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. . LONG ISLAND . SOUND UNAUTHORIZm AL TERA rlON OR ADDITION TO THfS SURVF;Y IS A VIOLA nON OF SEcnON 7209 OF THE NEW' YORK STArt mUCATlON LAW. S 87'57'35"E 40.01' APPROX. HWL THIS DAn: WOOD STAIRS W/RAllING K 0.1' 3,2. ' 5. Z o O'! ~ o o ::E -. ,oPP~~q()l.lOf8LUff . - 'DECK 0.1' FROM PROP, LINE COPIES OF THIS SURI/[y MAP NOT BEARING THE LAND SURVEYORS EMBOSSED SE'AL SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VALID mUE COPY. 5>10"", AR~A ~ q -l> 0'>. o o ['1, 1..2 END STOCKADE FENCE "APffiOx~ro,.7Bl.1JFF WOOD STEPS ~ 8.6' ~ . o .~ ~ '1.g' 32.3' WOOD DECK W/RAILING 77.4' .0' ~ i ~ o ~ ~ z "" ~ ID g '" o () ^ -( -0 o Z --\ '" ~ o N -l> U1 ~ <rj co~c MOt>!. TiE:-l,200 +/- 80' A Q 35 10 W "DN UA VIE TAT 62.6 "'000'- ry AVENUE ptNet ISARTH/STONE DRIVEWAY N U1 -.\ '-.\ 0:>. SURVEY OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATE: EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS D ()0031 SURVEYED: '5 APRIL 2004 SCALE 1 "= 40' CD I~ k\~cl/l~~\d(€ ~\(' ~ b<.tf>t'wtCj ~V c..-h.li"e AREA = 12.457.7 S.F. OR 0.286 ACRES GUARANTEED TO: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS LEWIS TEPERMAN HELAINE TEPERMAN CHASE MANHATTAN BANK ROYAL ABSTRACT ~ SURVEYED BY STANLEY J. ISAKSEN, JR. P.O. BOX 294 NEW sur OLK. N. Y. 631-73 -5 35 TM# 1000-021-02-016 25 MAR 0 29 APR 04 i 04R1311 ~ .7"../lep-o/ . 'f i7 It . ^ L .. T ... 'Ii .. II 5 T. I"" 5 MEMORANDUM OF SALE DATE "Z- -?7 -() f<_ Reco~od_ lJR, Utf//S r l/e/./l/jIlc 7.ElfR/l/l.1J . Ad"eehl en egreemenllo purcheee !Z2S /J(Jf/{}1JtEt/l ;J(jf,Al({.6, ---.r c,4~T flJ4PIOtU, .AI Y .../193 'i ..._SCTM# /&~ __"2/- t?,z-tJlh / From .f(JjJ-j:lIoIA r2-//ll'N,:JfJtJtlL/5 The"leeprlce"~l' 22.s:~ cJ1tto pllIyatlkt 1i8 follow8:-, / ~ iJ Torma jQ % !kX>>f',I tiP C'<1'o/R/IcC. I- In,Set:) / ' /3f}t,I1,IJcl; . c'Jr<! r-;:.ccJS/ Alty:~ ../ Cloelng 10 Ia.. pIooe on or OOOu' /ff~ft- 2.3, 'ZcJO c.j O~ 5()O;(/~j2. IJ;$ P'ETtfPlI/p:ll> .. , Fum""'lng.(Ie.Appllanooe'I>JIndo,.lo,)I_InIhI.eele:.~~ III'I'PI1;{,Q!:> /Al ~>&-, .?/JI,fNMT ,UFAc# 1/~(/5t:--,/-. /1<<. L'UPP.f:.. ~. ~..:(i/;I("#-~;Al/ffft~~ -I ~jc r~/(.~ ' Addlllonal oontIngencIee 8!If08d upon In thI....e by both pel1I.., C ",-1f,912- rr7(..c. Cc,{l7IPc,4r~r C)a::vl'lJ,</C'/ ._. ~N /I"'t:/5~ -i. HTf//tL. <;7K:.(/CT(/Rp~ .' .m' . 9~%~~ 1hz , iJO 5eU-ER ,J"f)l!!.,N;C//'J .G//Jt'/iI!;J/'CJ&./$ m..EPHON..{ Sl6):76S -2960' AIJllRE5S -z.-tv cwfJPct- fJo//[) I1I/AJI)/J?.5~J ._;0 r 1112 ~ () / SELLER'S ATTY. j) flJ / S BEat> l(,. PC.:.. TOLEPHO . S/6 '7:') 7.'-<5 ?nJ 'AXO I Cl'32---.rS?2S ADDReSS 7?-3 uEf2/cflrJ. T/I[)Nfrll!: 5IJITt: 73.6vf/2/ct!(J, Aff /17.53 PURCHASER /)(2, a{.l/(~f r/et.,4;d ./cPcR!!IP.JTELE""""o.(zrz)-n?- 'Z-OfZ_ A!lOOESS Z(JO .tAff."?? J:.1.'!T- __ ~ :;~fi .... AldU r;~#; AI Y' ) {j(1I,6 PURCHASER'S ATTY. 15 J2l1c~Jr.lEPeR e. '.TELEP ZlZ - '?"7lJ . ... rJ ,r FAX. -Z-f7 $" - 19 AOORU. 2.(E~~ fO'!> ~f, 5iJf7'!3 9d7 NtuJ yo - ~(J Cook Pony Ferm Reel Eetet I .COmml..ion by .op..... ogreement. I'dTe: / p.tfk.flltctt.. (.s Ilt(/M.t- i!ll'"i/le . ;;%~l ~(/I'I,7Y ff:5l'R~rw ,c7/pj) TlJK BROKE 'COOK PONY FA M REAL ElATE,INC. aJfUf/t1~tfe- "'I' ZJl> lJ,fIp 7ilt:. 1J!f. SEllI AGI'NT f/(WOIIIrIt/lj.. 711)< dF Nf:> ffII!..Mit tW jJ/.IPcIl~t /IT 7iltt IfIP oo;l,.v.r- 20 MAIN STREET, SUITE I, EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK 11 g37 (6111) 324-11600 FAX (6'5) .24.....' 30 NUGENT STREET, SOUTl1AMPTON, NEWYORK f,068 (516) 2~1leOO FAX (6'6) 28:1-8021 157A MAIN STREET, P.O. BOX 7134, AMAGANSElT, NEW YORK 11930 (BIll) 267.7700 FAA (616) 26Hl619 2406 WJN STREET, P.O. BOX 1696, BRIDGEHAMPTOlI, NEW YORK 11932 (015) 5Yr.177e FAX (616) 637-11133 96 MAIN STREET, P.O. BOX '468, SAG HARBOR, NEY/YORK 11963 (516) 6252 fAX (816) 72/HI6" ... .... _____ .._^........................ DoCM'U Ir.I!:Wvnnlt 11A7A/~1A\288-6900FAX (615) 288-6999 OO()"'9 .E . . F OOf)"40 . . SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT LEWlSTEPERMAN x . STATE OF NEW YORK) )SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Donna Palumbo, being duly sworn, deposes and says: L I reside at 261 Nassau Avenue, Manhasset NY 11030. T also own a swnmer home at 1095 Aquaview Avenue, P.O.Box 602, East Marion, New York 11939 and am Dr. and Mrs. Teperman's neighbor. 2. That I am very familiar with the Tepennan residence and the existing conditions before and after repairs to the existing beach structures. 3. The structure on the beach appears to have been built in the 1950's and contained plwnbing with an old compost toilet, electric, shower, kitchen, and a living area. The Tepermao's replaced the old toilet with a high tech, self contained toilet. The building improves the appearance and value of all our properties. 4. The prior owners loaned out the house to friends in the swnmer and this building was used by them for bar-b-ques and parties. The Tepennan family have fixed up the building and cieaned up the property. The family is quiet and considerate of their neighbors. 5. The existing beach structure was not enlarged in any way, in fact the decking was cut back from its original size. 6. The beach in front of my property and the Teperman's property is a private beach with lin\ited access. Many of the homes along this beach have beach structures from the 1930's and we value the contioued use and enjoyment of our property. T on behalf of myself and my husband, Albert Palumbo, support the ~PPli ation by the Tepennan Family and support the Trustees granting of the permits. ~ c:::::::-'f9. ~ ~ . Donna Palumbo Sworn to before me thi~ day of March 2005 ~~~. Notary Public DONNA R. PERFETTO NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No.01PE6119852 QUAUAEO IN NASSAU COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC. 5, 2005 TOTAL P.01 onfl"1i F . . Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-~<ob'll BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only _Coastal Erosion Pennit Application _Wetland Pennit Application _ Administrative Pennit ~ AmendmentrT ransfer/Extension _Received Application: _Received Fee:$ _Completed Application _Incomplete _SEQRA Classification: Type I_Type II_UnIisted_ _ Coordination:( date sent) _ CAC Referral Sent: _Date ofInspection: _Receipt of CAC Report: _Lead Agency Detennination:_ Technical Review: _Public Hearing Held: Resolution: Address 0200 La{/l-S :I /-I.~.J q l,u E3::(/7dJ.f,3S-.8, c2i;;<. Phone Nurnber:( ) 7 e p f?---Vr?7Cl4"-> Name of Applicant N.Y. , N.Y. IOOlb- b30(' , 779 - d.O/7 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - c) I - 0.;:2 - / f.c, Property Location: / C:<;J. s- 4 cf C/el VI ~ /h,+! ru.u , it!)} rnevnon !J.y' (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: {{,Ire ,-,t{ (' /flOOr(! CZ1' ( (If applicable) Address: 6{ 02--0 fY/ Clil" /rom) :;~1.-C /d Ivy //17/ Phone: 70J~-tj33o onn"'-12 . . Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet): " 28(P 4c-. Area Zoning: R. - '10 Previous use of property: ~ ,~~~ ~ &ac.k ~~ Intended use of property: /.~ Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date Pno>, OlN'>ILL-6: 7j;a-.v/(. SulCI fYl6/A<... '73 ---X- No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. S Oq YJt?CI 6-t'a Ylt?opou /0;' (un~o-u,"",,) '0'/ Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? ~No_ Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): I6ptl,'r -&i,i:./Wtf ofrl..l(jt.~ onnl'\1.3 . . Board of Trustees Application Purpose of the proposed operations: WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA IZ.fJ?'tI y (2-';(( s h~/ S /vuclu<-e- u as ~ " Area of wetlands on lot: L J S'O''=/square feet Percent coverage oflot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: /0 feet (N" c-acVMJ<!) Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: IS- feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? X No Yes o cubic yards If yes, how much material will be excavated? How much material will be filled? o cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: D feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: Har Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: e~ hlacU.- I by ha'1'1/1 '7 Cf4..L /Y>4J7 tn/"t' d /Ck-A'Ac C-w.f. heu_i:J ( -e", -c0t7ac:IJ/J'lMCt, Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): IV~ - -VV<'sfv>; sf-vuc~ f'-C.jla-u.e-d on(l"-14 . . Board of Trustees Application COASTAL EROSION APPLICA nON DATA Purposes of proposed activity: /2y'Ja~ ~c.&~ ,~ Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? No X Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? )( No Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? o (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: J/) A Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) .bY/;~ Sjyu~ ;Yf(/)~c1 "ra-u.s., tt~. d.""")"J I:y h an cI OA.eCl. '1 U?i/knj r:L.,-A'.i::,U?l ~/Pf~t2('~ th1. acjt'cu..tuJj/JY/M A.M'?? /9-07'0/. OO()i"'1.5 PART 1. PROJECT INFORMATION /- 617.20 APPENDIX C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) . -A_;>o; I PROJECT 10 NUMBER SEQR 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 2. PROJECT NAME --- ,4e u.-J. hla>-u.p Utw / / A-. 'A-???~ ~t:lA-<A I 3.PROJECT LOCATION: ;.::1zKl - A1vr- G. n k- /;!.;;lS- Uat/lew _ Municipality e./Yla' County ~ .4// 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections. Prominent landmarks ete . or provide mao / ~-::?5-Ay(/a'U7~ .4v-e. . :2/ - .;z -/b / 0 00 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: 0 New D Expansion [2g Modification I alteration 1M /4';'0' /f, plt7<e ~4.U"" 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: ~ < 'h:, ~J --U ;o~ sfyu~ rctrJ ~ 0 f0t'l ~ , /YYJtldL '-h ./4jJ tL.{A..O 7. AMOUNT O[Jt,ND AFFECTED: Ultimately, ~ .'Z%b Initially .1 2.- acres I m acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING 20NING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? Q9Yes ONO If no, describe briefly; . No Ur'JUaib>1 ~ ~~ 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) oa Residential D Industrial o Commercial DAgriculture o Park I Forest I Open Space DOther (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal. State or Local) DYes ~NO If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes @NO If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT / APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Ges 121 No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / SPO~ ~ ii~!::-i/YY1C0V .-t:; Date .;{ - 'J -C7 S- /~ ~ u,o/. <. C m~ Signature ~ , '\... '--.--/ If the action Is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment on iV' "G- . . PART II. IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.41 If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF. DYes D No 8. Will ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.61 If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. c=J Yes c=J No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels. existing traffic pattern, solid waste production or disposal, rtentiat for erosion, drainage or flooding probtems? Exptain bdefly: 'II C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community Dr neighborhood character? Explain briefly: C7, o[er imp~cts (includlngch~nges ,n use of e,ther :uantity or type Of:energy? Expta,n briefly: D, WtLL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTtCS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABUSHMENT OF A CRtTICAL D'::~D~~T'~I"'"'_."~' _ ] C. O,;::,e. '0 :::r "'m m ~ '=OO'ffi~ "'~= m OO~_'",e ,~~"'"'~ -=" ',- "~.l PART 111- DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be ccmpieted by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (Le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impactofUle proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actio WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide.. on attachments as necessary, the reasons-supporting thi determination. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: -.. .. --"."~ ., C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of fand or other natural resources? Explain briefly: -."-..--_ ...._ ....". ou _.._..... ~___ C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely 10 be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: eG. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-C5? Explain briefly: Name of Lead Agency Date Pnnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer rn Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer {If different from responsible officer} on fI l"of7 '---l'-CQ,-,O.L..J! 10; b.Jl (b:> "fb"U f-'. 1/1 . . " Board of Trustees App~cation AUTHORI<:ATION' (where the applicant is not the owner) .' I, L.ecA.){ .5, ~Yl;f""""""""'''-<'''' (print owne 0 property) rusiding at 200 Gi, 32 ",d <1'1-. (mailing address) 3'5"!3 N,Y. I N, Y /bM b , do hereby aU'thorize ;:{M-<AL. c mo~ (Agent) to apply for permit(s) from the Southold Board o~ Town Trustees on my behalf. 8 onn"-18 [ '<I 8;'9;' 98l. 189 aOl,j,:JO me, a.Joow d;.O:;'O so GO q~.oI 01/24/2016 07-48 FAX evI>RI>t:IT:CS 1Iv{)IC,o. '[tI "'~FI~ ON SU,o.~~ t;IJN lJA1L r 10 7H( ~f"SDtI rOff II,f-II)IJ THf $t.IRYI'"r 1'1 PRrp~t:;[O, .vJO ON rllS gO/At. TO 'Ht: Tine CO/JPAfiY, GC1It:Rf>lkE~TAL I>"""r, Lr"'o''''t; l"smvrTON, IF usrro I"tRt:ON. ,I,Nf) TO T'HE .4SS1~fB or Tkf LfM>tN(; INsrrwnON W.&"',l.Nrt:t:S ARt: ",OT ",,o.HS'~AIil..C TO "~O'~'OWoL. IN'HITUTlONS OR SI./SSCQUENr O'At-lfR$. U.V"uTJ.ioP/110 I>Lrr;IM'f'ON OR "OO/1/CW Tc;> rnrs SlI...h!"Y IS .& lI;O!..o\ 1/0/'1 or SCCTtON 7101 OF T'H!NEo!/l'P'i'l( 511110 roUCATlOrJ (...... COJ',n OT THIS Sl,bfl'!"l' /.1M' liaT aC,4RfNC "WE: (JI"I{) .fVR\lfr(ll':,~ rio/BOSSED SCAL S>i.....t 1>IOTP'( CONSJ()(R(O TO 8C.. V,4UO n;>lJC f;()I>Y. ~1J1Jl:i/IJOl:i LONG ISLAND SOUND S 87"57'35"[ 40.01' ~"kwitIIllSD.Ur OU:K Q\IO! 0.9' K Z 5.3' a II "l -0 ~ o. ~ ,., ~JOCI(.<\DC """ WOOO S1(~ ~ ~ " ~ % _lfIf'orlll.\I<1 :].9" z 8.6' 32.3 ." .000 (l{t~ . lo" ._"" ~ ! 7 <. 1 S i-stOll>' i _nIOf.NCE .... :.. ~ 1.2 .... '" '" '" o' ~ \ N '" ..., '..., "'. toRfflfll'O/"EOAI\Itl'I.ll' ~.. TI["',200 -../- 8. AQ 03510W ~~ VA VIEW 62.6" A VENUE"" SU.RVf'f Of DESCR/8ED PROPERTY 51 rUA rr EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA GIANNOPOUlOS SURVEyED: 5 APRIL 2004 SCALE I'"" 40' AREA - 124577S.F. 'OR' (>.286 ACRES TM# lOOO-02t-02-016 JR. ClJARANTEEO TO: JOANNA GfANNOPOVLOS LEWIS TEPERt.4AN HElAINE TEPERMAN CI--JA$E" MANHATTAN BANK ROYAL ABSTRACT 29 APR 04 CORR(CT STRE:H NAJA( SPEr.lING. OdR! 311 onf11' ,Hf Ma~ 10 05 01:21p G~O~C~ w. w~~more OJ...,-,,,c..-.Lc.....:;JU ,.. . . . SOillHOLD TOWN TRUSTF.:ES COUNT)'OFSUFFOLR x LEWIS TEPERMAN AFFIDA VIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMlT x STATE OF l'<'EW YO~K) )S5.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) George Webllon;. being duly swom. deposes and says: 1. I reside at 17737A Lake C~r1ton Drive.. Lut;r.Florida 33558-6046: 2. My exwife Borbra Wetmore and I resided at 1225 Aquaview A\'enue. East Marion. the property nowowned by Tepcrman. from 1984 to 1991. prior to our di \'orcc. 3. That while Borhra and 1 lived in the house we made impl'ovcmenl~ to the house. repaired and replaced the existing stl'l.lctures on tho bluff. 4.. The beach house W.IS buill in the 1950'5 befol'e tho upland house was built by Salamone in 1\175. The beach hOLlSC cont:rined plumbing wi.th an old compost toilet. shower. \"itchen. and a Jiving urea. Mr. 5al:lmone stayed at the bellch house bl.ofore the main house was built. s. "1 have seen the 1992 Areal pho[og""ph an<.l the structures a'ppea,' as they \Vere while I lived III the property. A ..!b-- George etmorc '-"'''''!. PATRlCIADAlUAS ~;. MVCOMMlSSlONlfDD)S6IlT ....,~ ,'lCI'IIIl!.~:~ou""" ~~~ n.~Di-"'-"-'o.. tit I'l-tV SWOI1l to before me this~ day of At>l'it"2005 I~~~ Nomty Public t . d e:1Io911o S91. le9 ao~~~o ~w, ~~OD~ 88. OOf"lf'50 ::: 8 d9~:Zl SO SO ~ew~ . . SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES COUN1Y OF SUFFOLK LEWIS TEPERMAN x AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF WETLAND PERMIT x STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Donna Palumbo, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I reside at 261 Nassau Avenue, Manhasset NY 11 030. I also own a swnrner home at 1095 Aquaview Avenue, P.O.Box 602, East Marion, New York 11939 and am Dr. and Mrs. Teperman's neighbor. 2. That I am very familiar with the Teperman residence and the existing conditions before and after repairs to the existing beach structures. 3. The structure on the beach appears to have been built in the 1950's and contained plumbing with an old compost toilet, electric, shower, kitchen, and a living area. The Teperman's replaced the old toilet with a high tech. self contained toilet. The building improves the appearance and value of all our properties. 4. The prior owners loaned out the house to friends in the summer and this building was used by them for bar-b-ques and parties. The Tepennan family have fixed up the building and cleaned up the property. The family is quiet and considerate of their neighbors. 5. The existing beach structure was not enlarged in any way, in fact the decking was cut back from its original size. 6. The beach in front afmy property and the Teperman's property is a private beach with lin\.ited access. Many of the homes along this beach have beach structures from the 1930's and we value the continued use and enjoyment of our property. I on behalf of myself and my husband, Albert Palumbo, support the ~PPli ation by the Tepennan Family and support the Trustees granting of the permits. ~h . _ / J c::::::::-:i9 Hl,..d. ~ Donna Palumbo Sworn to before me thi~day of March 2005 ~)(~. NotarY Public DONNA R. PERFETTO NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK No.01PE6119852 QUALIFIED IN NASSAU COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC. 6, 2006 TOTAL P.01 o(\n(\~l . ~. ~~*; ~~~. Ifli ~ ~'.. ~"- ,'-' ~ ~ ..! ~" I , ,- '\ ; . J ~ : '\' .1 '.~ "J t..... l...... (P~ .. \< . ; ,; -, . on{)f'52 MVC-002X.JPG (JPEG Image, 1024x768 pixels) . mailbox:///q/WINDOWS/ APPLICA TION%20DA T AlMozillaIProfil... . ~v-eI~~1 bw V'lq- =- Kd-chen In~;clL Ca..'oCVV\o-" o (F\ " !) 3 1 of 1 6/24/05 11:04 AM . onn"r')4 . , (l.Q.Aq\n bo v ~ onnf'r')5 S-\Yu c\-vres . 1111" : " strict: 00 ction: 1. 00 ock: .00 t: 6.000 . . . T 691- Standard N.Y.BTU. Form 8002: Bargain deed, wilhcovcnanl Rgainsl granlor'sacls-Ind. or Corp.: singJeshe el, 11-98 D".UTED BY Blumbergl9<celslor. Inc.. NYC10013 CONSULT YOUR LAWYER BEfORE SIGNING THIS INSTRUMENT -THIS INSTRUMENT SHOULD BE USED BY LAWYERS ONLY THIS INDENTURE, made onyY1~ SA., 2-0 · Y- BETWEEN JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS, residing at 212 Chapel Road, Manhasset, NY 11030 party of the fint part, and At's "",;1<<) LEWIS TEPERMAN and HELAINE TEPERMAN~residing Apt. 35B, New York, NY 10013 at 200 East 32nd street, party of the second part, WITNESSETH, that the party of the first partltinf",m-.,lderation of Ten DollBrs Bnd other "BluBble consideration paid by the party of the second part, does hereb ~ 'and release unto the party of the second part, the heirs or successors and assigns of the party of the aeco. ...:~. otever, ALL lhat certain plot, pi";'e or parcel of Ian ;,~)t tJ huildings and improvements thereon erected, situale, lying and being in the ' (\1tti. ) [L/,." ~:-j, \" / t'"I" I '.,..J,,'. - , , ' , 'o" j.. ~.', ,'. n . y' .. J .!,!<f ~~I .'. \)\ " ' \ l.rl'\\ \ll,',~ '. " . \ ~\ 'I,' , \,\ \ 1 \\\ \,:\. \\\\ 1,\ ...., , 1,\ \ \\\ ~ ! \ .~,} ~- . '. t ~ '. "l\i...lI \\', I ~ \ '>it \I~'./' \",,) - - i' <i!1: t~ ,1 iW"'~_....~ ..."i ;r...."'~, ~ ...t~).,-4.~""-'~ See Schedule "A" attached. TOGETHER with all right, title and interest. if any~ oJ the party of the first part in and to any streets and roads abutting the above described premises to the center lines thereof: TOGETHER with the appurtenances and all the eatate and rights of the party of the first part in and to said premises; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises herein granted unto the pal1)' of the gecond part. the heirs 01' successors and assigns of the party of the second pa.rt forever, AND the party of the first part covenants that the party of the firs.t part has not done or suffered anything whereby the said premises have been encumbered in any way whatever, except as aforesaid. AND the party of the first part, in compliance with Section 13 of the Lien Law, covenants that the party of the first part will receive the consideration for this conveyance and will hold the right to receive such consideration as a trust fund to be applied first for the purpose of paying the cost of the improvement and will apply the same first to the payment of the cost of the improvement before using any part of the total of the aame for any other purpose. The word "party" $hall be construed as if it read,llparties" whenever the sense of this indenture so requires. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, lhe party of the fi"t part ha, duly executed this deed the day and year first ahove written. '7'~ I ~ oanna Giannopoulos ,{}00" ~O . Q) . SCHEDULE "A" ALL THAT CERTAIN plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at East Marion, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument set on the northerly line of Aquaview Avenue, which point is 1200 feet in an easterly direction and along the northerly line of Aquaview Avenue from its intersection with easterly line of Rocky Point Road; RUNNING THENCE along land now or formerly of Murphy, north 6 degrees 10 minutes 10 seconds west 240 feet, more or less to the ordinary high water mark of the Long Island Sound; RUNNING THENCE easterly along the ordinary high water mark of the Long Island Sound, north 87 degrees 38 minutes 10 seconds east, 39.99 feet, more or less to land now or formerly of Miller; THENCE along land last mentioned, south 10 degrees 46 minutes east 225 feet more or less to the northerly line of Aquaview Avenue; THENCE along the northerly line of Aquaview Avenue, north 80 degrees 35 minutes 10 seconds west 62.65 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. Being the same premises conveyed to the Grantor from Joanna Giannopoulos and Donald S. Sullivan, under Sheriff, County of Suffolk, State of New York, pursuant to said order issued by the honorable Elaine Jackson Stock, Justice Supreme Court, County of Nassau, State of New York, filed with the Clerk of Nassau County on April 18, 2003, under index number 203543/00 by deed dated 9/3/03 and recorded 10/8/03 in Liber 12276 Page 699. Premises known as 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, New York, and designated as District: 1000, Section: 021.00, Block: 02.00, Lot: 016.000, as shown on the Suffolk County Land and Tax Map. onnf\t;7 1- . . . ACKNOWLEDGMENT IN NEW YORK STATE (RPL 3011-8) State of Ne~ York, County of N'Y' On J11a'1 ..r, 2-1>0 'T personally appeared J oanna before me. the undersigned. Giannopoulos . 55.: ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY SUBSCRIBING WlTNESS(ES) State of County of ! ss.: On personall y appeared before me, the undersigned, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfac- tory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) the subscribing witness(es) to the foregoing instrument, with subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that whom I am personally acquainted, who, being by me duly helshe/they executed the same in hislher/their capacity(ies), sworn, did depose and say that he/she/they reside(s) in (;fth, and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument, the indi~ place al re.\'idence i.I' j" " city, indude the street und street number, vidual(s), or the pe~n upon behalf of which the indW.~~atr A~f1.'f[<of); acted, executed the mstrument Notary Public, S Ie of New York /11., NC.48 0036 t1IV'I- qualified in We chester Counly (siRna/UTe and office a/individual takin,H~W?i~MJi?)lJjr ::;; March 3D, 2008 ACKNOWlEDGMENT OUTSIDE NEW YORK STATE (RPL 309-b) State of County of ss.: On personally appeared before me, the undersigned, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satis- factory evidence to be the individual(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/herltheir capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature(s) on the instrument, the indi- vidual(s), or the person upon behalf of which the individual(s) acted, executed the instrument and that such individual made such appearance before the undersigned in . (iflSert ciry or political subdivision and state or (,'OUn/y Of other place acknowl. edgment faken) (signature ami office of individual/aking acknow/edgmml) .arlJain anb 6alt Jlttb WITH COVENANT AGAINST GRANTOR'S ACTS 'ITLE No. Joanna Giannopoulos TO ~ewis Teperman & Helaine Teperman that helshe/they know(s) to be the individual(s) described in and who executed the fore- going instrument; that said subscribing witness(es) was (were) present and saw said execute the same; and that said witness(es) at the same time subscribed his/her/their name(s) as a witness(es) thereto. ' ( 0 if taleen. outside N~ York State insert dry or political subdivision and state (Ir muntry or otlwr place acknowletJsment taken And that said subscribing witness(es) made such appearance before the undersigned in (sigrulIure and office ('I individugJ taking acknowlf?dgment) SECfION 021 .00 BLOCK 02 . 00 LOT 016.000 COUNTY OR TOWN Suffolk RETURN BY MAIL TO: Teperman & Teperman 21 East 40th Street, Suite 907 New York, NY 10016 Zip No. .. IS o .. Q ;a ~ o " " 0:; ~ " ~ ~ o ... " " .. ~ M :s " ~ ~ " ~ " 0: on['\f'~~ . . South old Town Board Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM#1000-21-2-16 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members: The Southold Town Trustees issued a decision in error which deprives the owner of a permit to maintain and repair a preexisting beach house (cabana). The Trustees further threatened criminal and civil prosecution if the preexisting amenities in the beach house (cabana) are not removed. By its decision the Trustees wrongfully terminated the pre- existing use of the beach house (cabana). The cabana is a pre-existing structure and use which has previously existing electric and water service and a self contained toilet. Trustees applied improper standard to deny permit. Proof was provided to the Southold Town Trustees that the Beach House (cabana) was preexisting and that repairs were in kind (wood siding and decking) and in place(structure in same location): The work undertaken consisted of necessary repairs which did not materially affect any structural features pursuant to Southold Town Code 45-8 (A)(1 )(a) and (b) such that a town building permit was not necessary. In addition, the work performed constituted "normal and customary" maintenance and repairs which are unregulated activities which do not require a Coastal Erosion Permit pursuant to Chapter 37-6. An analysis of both the Local Waterfront Revitalization Law and the Coastal Erosion Law is provided by Cramer Consulting Group in which Mr. Cramer sets forth his professional opinion that the work performed falls within the purview of "unregulated activities" and that is consistent with the policies of the LWRP. His report is set forth in pages 1 - 14. The exterior was re-shingled, the aluminum windows were replaced and the electric toilet fixture was replaced with a "Biolet"- an environmentally sound compostable toilet that does not use a septic or other sanitary system. An aerial survey was provided which also showed the existence of all the structures prior to the adoption of Chapter 37 and 97 to establish the pre-existing size and location of the structures. [Copy of aerial pg. 26] . . James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Joho Holzapfel Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 6, 2006 Patricia Moore 51020 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman SCTM # 21-2-16 Dear Mrs. Moore, The Board is in receipt of your faxed letter dated February 2, 2006 regarding the above referenced application, and your request to discuss it at the next Trustee work session. The application you referenced has been resolved by a decision of the Board dated December 21,2005, after several public hearings on the matter. Please contact the Town Attorney's office if you have further questions regarding the decision. Very Truly Yours, /r:;.~ 4 President, Board of Trustees onnM59 . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary February 2, 2006 Southold Town Trustees P.O.Box 1179 Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis Teperman, MD SCTM#1000-021-02-016 Dear President King and Board: On December 21, 2005 the Board issued a decision which eliminated my client's use of the beach cabana and decking. We have never requested a "dwelling", merely "as built" repairs to the existing beach house (a.k.a. a beach cabana). The Board's decision unlawfully directed removal of all the pre-existing amenities. In addition, the decking was not increased in size. The owner reduced the size of the original decking, as was shown on the 1980's areal photograph (prior to Trustees's jurisdiction), in that an encroachment of the decking on the easterly neighbor's property was eliminated. The Board's actions have taken valuable and constitutionally protected property rights away from my client. You give my client no alternative but to go to Court. We respectfully request that the Board consider a reasonable compromise which would avoid a costly court action. Please place this matter on your next work session calender so that we can discuss some alternatives to a Court action. cc: Dr.Teperman~ yours, C. Moore one'" SQ HP Officejet 6100 Series 6110. Personal Printer/Fax/CopierlScanner . Log for Moore Law Office 631 765 4643 Feb 02 2006 !0:27am Last TraD""ction ~ I.im.e ~ 10:26am Fax Sent Identification Duration ~ ~ 0:59 1 OK Feb 2 7656641 0('\1'''61 ,,:! . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 October 19, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 RE: TEPEMAN Dear Sir or Madam: Please be advised that we are putting in a response to the LWRP recommendation and that the file is not ready for final decision. If the Board chooses to act despite my request for an adjournment, you will be acting contrary to the Law and in violation of constitutional due process. PCM/bp encls. OOJ' " ~2 HP Officejet 6100 Series 6111' Personal Printer/Fax/CopierlScanner . Log for Moore Law Office 631 765 4643 Oct 192005 10:14am Last Transaction ~ Time ~ Oct 19 !0:13am Fax Sent Identification Duration ~ ~ 0:41 1 OK 7656641 Ofln"'J~ . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 September 21, 2005 via 765-6641 Board of Trustees South old Town PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 RE: TEPERMAN Dear Sir or Madam: I respectfully request an adjournment of the above matter from tonight's hearing, Thank you, O(l,,"~4 HP Officejet 6100 Series 6110. Pe.rsonal Printer/Fax/Copier/Scanner . Log for Moore Law Office 631 765 4643 Sep 21 2005 10:42am Last Transaction ~ Time ~ Sep 21 1O:42am Fax Sent Identification Duration ~ ~ 0:37 I OK 7656641 O(l()f' 65 Albert J. Krupski, President James Kingt Vice.President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson . . Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES 72 HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT FOR A PRE-CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL BE CONSIDERED A VIOLATION AND POSSIBLE REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. INSPECTION SCHEDULE Pre-construction, hay bale line 1 sl day of construction Y, constructed t/ Project complete, compliance inspection. 00('\"'36 . . Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Soutbold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 24, 2005 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Rd. South old . NY 11971 RE: LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN 1225 AQUAVIEW AVE., EAST MARION SCTM#21-2-16 Dear Ms. Moore: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed., August 24, 2005 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Patricia C. Moore, Esq. on behalf of LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 97 of the South old Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated June 28, 2005 and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on August 24, 2005, 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, O(l.'\l"~7 2 . . WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of lEWIS AND HElAINE TEPERMAN for four foot wide stairs and one 4'x4' platform in the middle with the condition that the bluff be replanted after construction and all as per plans drawn by Creative Environmental Design dated January 2006. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date the permit is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Inspections are required at a fee of $50.00 per inspection. (See attached schedule.) This is not a determination from any other agency. Fees: $50.00 Very Truly Yours, Q.~~~ t:::F.King '7 Vice-President, Board of Trustees JFKlhkc Of\f\f'S8 O()(1f'S9 . . .-:'5. -; :. .'1"- .~. , ". .. ., - nor)f"7C) . . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 F\L.E August 22, 2005 Attn: Lauren Board of Trustees Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 HAND DELIVERED RE: TEPERMAN Dear Lauren: With reference to the above and pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today, enclosed please find two (2) proposed plans for the deck & staircase. Thank you. Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore By Betsy Perkins, LA bp encls. Onn"?1 . Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Premises: Dear Sir or Madam: . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 August 8, 2005 Lewis and Helaine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Enclosed please find a drawing of the cross section of the Teperman stairs, along with the restoration plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. PCM/vc Enclosure Very truly yours, Patricia C. Moore on()f'~2 r , \ ,\ )\1 411 ~H ,~} '".-'j I I I Jl j1J\ ''", .~.,. , , '\[\ i . '\ , , -" "\'_'.~,,;c_ ,I j ~ \j t:i ~ 'Q & ') ..J OJ >- -' , . ..... . '< '.':! ~ l'} \J ',,',. ~'.~" , '.. ~""~',"-'rnffffMf~~ '.~ ,".,< .: ~,..~' 0"'" ',"'~":~~".' '''., ~"l""""""""'~"'II!l""..~.m~~""\ - 't:." ...., ~'~" /" ., "'.< ""." ,,-:'," ,-, " ", ;,~' lO . .-":".",,,,'" ::{.... 2"~ . , ,.\ .., ", " ,"'~:.?'h:' ~,,t;,.iif"\ ~~(~.) . ....,.' ( , ,,~ ,(1 ~ l~ ~ r-: ~~ :.' '"l: .~, ~, j' ""~ ,~ , " ,( o' '~" " i'" , '~;:.ts.:i<b \ 'f ~"'i ! (I,' '. , "?C\: \:,'" i.;, ~~ ' .-" >~}~ ~1'( ;,.,.:~~f" ~1.1<- '~:~' :iJ ',,: 'i"t._;"', : , '" ).. ' 'I ~ "~,, ,~,' "'.' .~,;':. ,'<:. . ~1.~:-')' '. . . j, :.," io.~"' f~":)~' I " 'j- '~JIL~ \ll' ", - ~ 1;,\~~ '\-::~'r";,S4.',, I~:; .1;f'l"I.'t'O' ~ ~~~ ,,'!: .: ~:r<> .# , .t .'IlC~ .I,' . i.t,'r ,,' , ":.'~~'t\,;. .'~," ~ ,\ {~'&~:.,_.: ~., , '~.:-}~ ." I" ' ".' -, r" ~~ ~~;<' c,~ ::.:.J; ", .?,!.., ,~ ," 'l '. ~ i ' ~ .;;,(,,.~ ,~" ;~'~$ "it, , ''''\.'f , '" ',,:: ~~::: ,.^ ,'tti ,,,",I \ .' r ,!.;. ":;,,,,., ~ ~~:"~J ~ ~ .,' > ~ '~J ~,,1\, "'1> 11 ' fj ,/ ..,i:!;M"L",' ~''''., { 1 1 J~ ~,., '\- \ , ",~~'" 11 ,. , "-.)l', "'~:')" ,iJ"-' - """'..~' ":''1<' ~ ~ "" ". ,f!i-" i ~ 1, ';r~ ,.... , " ,",'. . 1 .\:",\" .,~,;:~,:-i '~ " (,";, ,.,1 .f " ",.!)',' "l' ,'\' :;;. " , ;; '?~r. . i l'.~.,,';... , ,) }~tr7,~y, ~"~~"!if"''''"$1'' . tjr":';':.j;~<" "! ' ,';j", 'I " .... l' }' " ~ lJ \. . > "- "t ~, , ," .~ \>,,'1-" .; --W!t'.~ ~, ~: 1.\ '~ '~ .'!~' ~ ,,\ ~,. ., t J': '..'d. ...",,,,,,,, l","'" , ." ,,' " :~. tl.I .~ 'h .{\ ~ ~ ~. ,~, .... ./,i,',' .~, ' ',^ I,.,' ,. ,',' ~:,: ~ ~':1}~: :j '" .. ,-~'" 1 ,~::~;' ".\-: '.". ~i:~~,: ',:lOt" f. I J, ) .j"" ~~ , .-.~,' 'i.~' . ,\!It " :;,' ~ ". .~ *.;--~' f.' ' .,; , ..... , , ~. t,~~~ t:'~ . ~ 'i< '~:, , ..1' ,.,'. " ,~,-t <;. , :, i.~'" - ,"'/ "I :, ::," ' "~~,,-~,, '~'l' ' , , Jtd l'~ .;, )'';''. j r I . ko'",:" J~, " :1 , "~',;, ' :l' . . Ci)/-:-' / . '-'-_. \;"',:-'., \'~I) ,'. ",,..:.' PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 19, 2005 Southo1d Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Premises: Hearing: Lewis and He1aine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion July 20, 2005 Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed please find a Return Receipt card received this date for the above application. Very truly yours, patricia C. Moore PCM/mr Encls. on(\I')Oj~ I '----- -~.-..,,_._~"--_....- - -- --"- -',_. -. --, ',..-,... PATRICIA C. MO. ,'ATTORNEY AT LA . 51020 MAIN' ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 C. Date of DeJIVe;y 14 os. 1. Article Addressed To: 7192 6463 3110 1000 0444 O.Addtes&ee'SAddrGliS 1.CNArw,tFlDmAddlw.lJftdby~ .~'A'ci...-..-rS~i.r~7flOc;'1.5i8a"..Prlnic"'rlYj 'D.U;ii';..Adiii;~.'..'-'--'-_____",._.____,,_.,..___..... , ;cii,-.-..............--..._...__... "iii.i. '._-."zji:i";'-.~C06; -_.. - ---'--.- 4. Restrloted ,Dellve a....sel'Vice.Type 1 C~RnF'ED I, f4tr"[t=.e~) aYe,s 2. Article Number 7192 6463 3110 1000 0444 - 111111 11111 IIfIlUU 11111111111111111111 I I I I ! GEORGIA c. LAMBROU REVOCABLE TRUS~ 5440 NORTH OCEAN DR., APT. 1506 I" SINGER ISLAND FL 33404 I I I I I u' 'l" OflC''''r'J . . ,....--------.., / f;'-i..-, I'^ , \ " /C ~- PATRICIA C.MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 14, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Premises: Hearing: Lewis and Helaine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion July 20, 2005 Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Posting for the above reference matter, along with two (2) returned receipts received to date_ Very truly yours, patricia C_ Moore PCM/mr Enc1s_ O(')r\ "76 . . (S~S~. . -:"', / ......----- SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------)[ In the Matter of the Application of AFFIDA VIr OF SIGN POSTING Lewis and Helaine Teperman Regarding Posting of Sign Upon Applicant's Land Identified as 1000-21-2-16 ---------------------------------------------------------------)[ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, Patricia C. Moore, residing at 370 Terry Lane, Southold, NY 11971, New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On thelOth day of July, I personally placed the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon the property, located ten (10) feet or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance*; and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for ten days prior to the date of the rubjoc, b"",, d,,. wbich "'..., """ WM 'hO~ Sworn to before me this 12111 day of July, 2005 ~~(?'#Z~~~~ N ary Pu lie MARGARET C. RUTKOWSKI Notary Public, State of New York No. 4982528 Qualified In Suffolk Countv 07 Commission Expires June 3, ~ *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby. .... O('\(\I'~\ <, <=> ::> :> ") '-1 OQ i !....:~f,>.i.'Jr..~'..'...€>.........,~........~..........'.'.....,...... ~' " ,~~, ;~i\ ~*'v.,',', .,~~oi,' !) it~]~~O~OStiAtNROfJ) I SOUTHOLD NY 11971 I I I I I .'S;conifirj"XdililiiiTsuiie7P4ifTFio<<Tpifiis;".pi;ni"ciiiiiiij I...... I O.llv.;y..Addi..i-................................_....._................. .cWj...................................... .si.i. ..........zip.;..:rcoii.. PATRICIA C. MOORE ATTORNEY AT LAW 51020 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD NY 11971 4. Restricted Delivery? 3. Service Type 'l (Extra Fee) 0 Yes CERTfFIED I 2. Article Number 7192 6463 3110 1000 0437 1111I1111111111 " 11/11I11/11/ /I " 1111111 7192 6463 3110 1000 0437 1. Article Addressed To: ALBERT PALUMBO PO BOX 602 EAST MARION NY 11939 4. Restricted Delivery? 3. SeNloe Type (Extra Fee) 0 Yes CERTIFIED 2. Article Number 7192 6463 3110 1000 0413 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY B. Received By: (Please Print Claarly) I I C. Date of Delivery -I II D.Addressee'sAddrep (IIOfffwwtF. ~ "u..d~0 4.:~ ' !2.j I /~. ~ \ i ,/ ~ I ..S;;ondU1.Aadt...TSUiiti.,.APi:T~2.~;;;~Piini.CiN.rly; ~ 1 ,.,..._.,......,__............_,..,__.,..._.__~:::-!,~:::~.,";._,.". ~ I Oell",,1') Addr,.. ...."--.,_ ~,:.:,. 11I1111111111111111111111I11111111111111 7192 6463 3110 1000 0413 1. Article Addressed To: RICHARD AND NORMA MOELLER 59 IDELL ROAD VALLEY STREAM NY 11580 I I I 1 1 , l I / I' . . . , :>,.\." <<';I ~. ," fS '-- PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 7, 2005 BY CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED . RE: LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN PREMISES: 1225 AQUAVIEW AVENUE, EAST MARION SCTM # 1000-21-2-16 Dear Neighbor: My clients, Lewis and Helaine Teperman, are seeking approval frorn the Southold Town Board of Trustees to replace or repair the existing stairs, landings and supports as well as previous application for repairs to the existing beach house structure located on their property at 1225 Aquaview Avenue in East Marion. The hearing on this matter has been scheduled for Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at Southold Town Hall. If you have any questions, or you wish to support this application, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly~urs, .-:;~/L ..,," ---.. Patricia C. Moore PCM/bp ends. C: Dr. and Mrs. Lewis Teperman on f) (\ 7'9 . . . NEIGHBOR LIST; LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN SCTM: 1000-21-2-16 RICHARD AND NORMA MOELLER 59 IDELL ROAD VALLEY STREAM NY 11580 SCTM: 1000-21-2-15 ALBERT PALUMBO PO BOX 602 EAST MARION NY 11939 SCTM: 1000-21-2-14 GEORGIA C. LAMBROU REVOCABLE TRUST 5440 NORTH OCEAN DRIVE, APT. 1506 SINGER ISLAND FL 33404 SCTM: 1000-22-2-1 GEORGE AND ANTHOULA KAITERY 167-18 71sT AVENUE FLUSHING NY 11365 SCTM: 1000-22-1-2.1 o (\ f\ 'r"<3 0 ~OrCA'l'O >IC~f ()H ~..." f'i1JN .{ "f"~ON rOf/ kf{Q<,I ~ $l,.WVn' ,,[0. >VJO ()H rllS 1i<l-/,I,lF TO 1/-IC JUPMt'. GO"C,.roJMe"o{r...( "CC"ICY, " ItlS'I1UTTON. IF unro I4:RfON. AI'Q /HEA55IGNff"Scr THrLr/'lOi~,NsnflJ7UJN /""AIITrfS ,.,Nf /oIOT m,.NsrDT...SL( TO "(;D'~/ONA.I. IN5TTTunCJNS OR sueS(OUfNT O\INfRS. U.......n--OI'Il€D...Uf:/MT'OIJ OIi'.t>O/JIrtON TO nu5 SWh["Y'5" ~'OI.AnON Of' ~CTJOl.l721Jj or 1).I(Nf'" lTl'i'1I" 5YIITr roUOTlOrJ t,<1I' C(}Pr(SlYTHISS(.IIr"O,'J,I^,tJOTS',A.RlNG T)SfVNDSVR~\'"'(lI:S€l<eOSSff!s("'L SH.I.I..( "OT 9( CONSlDfR[O TO Be.. v..uo n;>V[ (.01'''. ING ISLAND . SOUND S 87'57'35"" 40.01' APNlox.kl'lt1I"lSlM.( &'"99< (l\I(~ J( 3.3' i . 0 ~ O. -:<: '"' '''''''''' 'fNCC :].9 ~ R 'l ~ o " ~ " ~ ~ 8.6' ~ .0. .. . , ~ i a ~ a ... :,.. 2-SfOff'" IldilOENCt \ 32.0' 1~ 1.2 ... '" en "'. ~ . . ~ lr) ~(Ic!- ~~ ""'" ",,, '" '" -> ...., CD. (.o.5ffit/SfONt[)lllllt"".l' "'" TI["" 1,200 .../ 8' AQ 03510 W ~o: UA VIEW. 6Z.6;, A VENUE""' SURVfl' Of DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATC EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS TM# 1000-021-02-016 GLlARANTE"(O TO: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS LEWIS TEPERMAN HE/.AINE TEPERMAN CHASE MANHATTAN BANl( ROYAL ABSH\ACT SURVEyED: 5 APRIL 2004 SCALE l~.o: 40' AREA' = 12457.7 S.F. 'OR 0.286 ACRES SURVEYED By STANLEY J. ISAKSEN. JR. P.O. BOX 291 NEW SUFFOLK NJ 6Jl-r-.5BJ5 Lit1{f{,U;'C- SURV ~YS Lie. Nu. 49273 29 APR 04 CORI?(CT STR(E:1 NAME SPEI.UNG. 04RI J; 1 onn"'ll NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, concerning this property. . OWNER(S) OF RECORD: ~fWl5 ~ ~tk\lnQ. T,panna" SUBJECT OF PUBLIC HEARING: 9\tplQ(tQ or~~\r e.\(~n<\ S~\fs, \4rd.\nqs (l~ suPP~, TIME & DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: . UJ-d., JU.llf tlO, ciQ)t.t)n cr4bcut '):00 PIl. If you have an interest in this project, you are invited to view the Town file(s) ~hich are available for inspection prior to the day of the hearing during normal ::.business days between the hours ot 8 a.m and 4 p.m. '"} 11 .:> BOARD OF TRUSTEES * TOWN OF SOUTHOlD * (631) 765-1892 . . (?'.'~).. ~F''': , ,_::~:/I PATRICIA C.MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971-4616 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 July 8, 2005 Southold Town Board of Trustees Southold Town Hall PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Premises: Hearing: Lewis and Helaine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion July 20, 2005 Dear Ladies/Gentlemen: Enclosed please find the Affidavit of Mailing with four (4) certified receipts for the above application. Very truly yours, patricia C. Moore PCM/mr Encls. onn"83 . . SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------)[ In the Matter of the Application of Lewis and Helaine Teperman (Name of Applicant) AFFIDAVIT OF MAlLINGS -------------------------------------------------)[ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) that: I, Vanessa Craigo residing at Cutchogue, New York, being duly sworn, depose and say On the 7th day of July, 2005, I personally mailed at the United States Post Office in Southold, New York, by CERTIFIED MAlL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in prepaid envelopes addressed to current owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ( X ) Assessors, or ( ) County Real Property Office Southold, for every property which abuts and is across a public or private street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the applicant's property. ~JUJ-A fL, ~ (Signature) Vanessa Craigo Sworn to before me this 8th day of July, 2005 '~)7f~ ~~~~~, (N~UbliC) MARGARET C. RUTKOWSKI Notary Public, State of New York No. 4982528 Qualified In Suffolk County CI- 007 Commission Expires June 3, _ PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper, the lot numbers ne)[t to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. O()(ll"g4 .. . REC .~_ 7192646 t'l@l2t'f FROM' ~ -----<. PaIr' '..:~~ ' RE~"'1l(N~ o -::"!/[lj' . SEND.sp - GEORGIA ,,-"~.Rfvo, 5440 NORTH OCEAN DR., APT SINGER ISLAND Fl33404 FEES: Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Restricted 0.60 2.30 1.75 TOTAL $ 4.65 POSTMARK OR DATE i-- I I ---- --- FEES: Postage CertitleclFee Return Receipt Restricted 0.60 2.30 1.75 TOTAL $ 4.65 POSTMARK OR DATE . RECEIP~ 71926463311(t;11'~1" FROM' ~O\ Palri~iaC.M~,. \"f., RE::TE..PE...~MA~''-~ _ _ '-< .' ~::: :j~ \? SEND TO;".s " ALBERT PAL PO BOX 602 EAST MARION NY 1 1 939 i FEES: Postage Certified Fee Return Receipt Restricted 0.60 2.30 1.75 TOTAL $ 4.65 POSTMARK OR DATE 11580 FEES: Postage 0.60 Certified Fee 2.30 Return Receipt 1.75 Restricted TOTAL $ 4.65 POSTMARK OR DATE o () f' " <15' . . Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 8, 2005 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Road Southo1d, NY 11971 Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Ave., East Marion SCTM# 21-2-16 Trustee Application for Replacing/Repairing Stairs to beach Dear Ms. Moore: As per your request for an emergency permit for the above referenced project, the Board of Trustees has reviewed the above referenced application and determined that the current condition ofthe stairs places them in the category ofthe regular application process. The application will be on the agenda at the July 20, 2005 Trustee Public Hearing. Please contact our office with any further questions. Sincerely, ~. ~~~ Heather Tetrault Environmental Technician Cc: Lewis and Helaine Teperman O()()"~6 . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Robert G. Kassner Legal Assistant JUNE 8, 2005 Albert J. Krupski, President Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis & Helaine Teperman East Marion SCTM# 1000-21-2-16 Dear Mr. Krupski, . Margaret Rutkowski Legal Secretary Enclosed, as requested in your letter of June 1, 2005, is the completed LWRP form. If you have any questions, please contact this office. ver.. y__t:.p>ly" yours, ( :;-~/C-- ~icia C. Moore Encl. on{)"~7 Town ofS~uthold . . L WRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS I. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. * Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of South old Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the L WRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of South old's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION (LEJYf~5 J-IfEJ.I9/1t E TE PER mitt!) ;1 /6 . SCTM# 12/ The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board D Planning Dept. D Building Dept. D Board of Trustees ~ I. Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) D D (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) . (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: ~ Nature and extent of action: RFQUEsT FoR wETll1/o,(D PeRml"-+- (:of;TJ7L ERoSlori , , PFt<YY.i/T Fol<- REPAIR,) To Ex/;;nlYh- TlFl7ctf t7OL(SE. OOl"f'Q8 Location of action: / ,21<;- 114' 1,1, 14 V IF W A t/ ~ CJo~f{6 Present land use: 5/ t7 h L E F /J rn I). '/ / R -lfo . . fA", I (Y) f) Rio 11 Site acreage: . R f S r Ofrj/ /19 /_ Present zoning classification: 2, If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Name of applicant: L E w 1,s,J- tf E L f1 j 1'/ f TE PER 111 ril'l (b) Mailing address: C- / t) P 17 T R Ie:. I Y-l C - h1 CJ 0 R ~ ,,')/0-:).. 0 101IJ-iH ROI9-}" ,')nL! rllOL}); f'lj //11( (c) Telephonenumber:AreaCode() 63/- 76,)-- Lf-33o (d) Application number, if any: - Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes 0 Nol8l If yes, which state or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. J81Yes 0 No 0 Not Applicable _' . . 7//,1-: j! E !;j/;IJJ, ft1ijF/i!i/i tflJ/!JJJfHfl}J~/ 7 Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of South old. See L WRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria DYes 0 No ~ Not Applicable O(1f1"q9:- I .. . . Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluatiou criteria 18J 'I Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See L WRP Section III - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria o Yes 0 No 0 Not Applicable Pte-of'O~CD . . .. ~LiV~~p,~ ~ 0- rt f2 <5 I I, G1 -,~ --;- - V R - F / S -+- 3-"J;L" ~uhf1d(:u~;4~:;J~,;;:; w /LL . ~o't~;r .yfi;''lr PI.. 0 0 O~~ {-j-.. ~ R 0 ~jf}J 71'; I'ttf. !fa r/f I,' Lf R L ---R f S r1 if ~ C> i- r,E - <5 f! - '/J / Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of South old. See L WRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria DYes 0 No ~NotAPplicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of South old ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria, DYes DNot8J Not Applicable gf'll""<liL . . Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section III - Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of South old from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 Nol8l Not Applicable PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of South old. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. D YesD N00 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. DYes D N00NotApplicable O()f'\I"Ql . . Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 No,0, Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of South old. See L WRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 No IZl Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. DYes 0 NoJ8l Not Applicable r-..... ' .. ......>4 " . . PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary June 24, 2005 Southold Town Trustees P.O.Box 1179 Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Lewis Teperman, MD SCTM#1000-021-02-016 Dear President Krupski and Board: In accordance with the last meeting, the existing stairs to the beach require immediate repairs and/or replacement. The house is a summer home and the stairs to the beach are the only access which are used extensively in the summer. We have requested an emergency permit because the stairs are unstable, the stairs sway and the runs are rotten. The stairs are extremely dangerous. Very truly yours, C. Moore cc: Dr.Teperman O()(l" 93 Albert J. Krupski, President J ames King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson . . Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-_lOb'l' BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only JCoastal Erosion Permit Application JWetland Permit Application _ Administrative Permit AmendmentITransfer/Extension _Received Application: Received Fee:$ _Completed Application _Incomplete _SEQRA Classification: Type I_Type II _ Unlisted_ _ Coordination:( date sent) CAC Referral Sent: _Date of Inspection: _Receipt of CAC Report: _Lead Agency Deterrnination:_ _Technical Review: _Public Hearing Held: Resolution: t:mevqeflCCj '?~fl'\ it- - 02orc; Ut1lt:S :I /-I-e/ q / n:e c 3::( 17c1 Sf I 35:"/3 I c2i? Phone Number:( ) jepe.-rrna4'1..> Name of Applicant Address N. '1_ , N. 'I. /00/ b - b3 oCo , 77'1- -;;2..0/7 SUffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - c:2 / - o~ - / ~ Property Location: /o<;J.5- A- cf C/e, VI';'~ A/€nu-e.. , &i ) J mC<.1'I 0 Y> N. '-I (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: R,I-Yc e,t{ (' mOore CZ1' I (If applicable) Address: .~ 6 I 02-0 fYI a Ii"] . /?oe-ic/ '7 bJ--tJ:3 30 onnJ'\!)4 >~1-Cld ^^I //7'7/ Phone: 4Itoard of Trustees APPlicat~ GENERAL DATA Land Area (in square feet): / 28& Ac. Area Zoning: R. - to Previous use of property: ~ ,~~ ~ . /l,/,o:.-d r>ep:1' f- &cz.?A. I/~ - aM Dr Y'Cp/tuem. "f PFl1rs. i-o Juac.t Intended use of property: /,,:r.~ Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date J Oq nOq (,-/0. YJrlOfOU /0 'S (vn~OUNl) '0<1 p" tOY OlN">ILlA; .ycvwIL Salq m6/A{..' 73 )( No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. - Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? ~No_ Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): fi.~frace &Y1'6pcl/'r -O{,;/Wtj 6fy-uch~ - 'fAz:tlrs) IClf7dfl1'j.s , 'SvO()f}-,t~, ~Ir-. :5klfrs Of'{' Un~:uerJ amd w;fJ , I rectO/ 'rv ClM1fl(~t7(e w;-u, dab hcu)r.1.1n9 0:Jcle. . ~i&h.11q 2:>fr1lrs fJ.1'f' t IVI'-.-lukJ\c> ) \NI"oc1 {~ ('c:l-\-m-l I SWQ~ () {'I'" 95 6f\ posts J iNA-e.fc-Y ~94 f.0(().Lc{ I~ Yec[0e>>tcdv lIloard of Trustees . Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICA nON DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: ReOCl'" and/or' ref}!acc ,P/lCf6fz-.nq I ' / (-skirr:, 'Iv /woch. Area of wetlands on lot: L J S-o.nJSquare feet Percent coverage oflot: % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: /0 feet (/l/D c---A-cvt-1J~) Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: /~ feet Does the proj ect involve excavation or filling? y; No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? o cubic yards How much material will be filled? o cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: C> feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: /J /l/fF jiJal1/C. 6 fn/Yldl.uc/ ,8/Y7aL! -E'f ~ hi hood Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: I / / Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): NO1\.{! - -e;y~S4 sf-vuc~ f'-ejJa~-<./ cvnd/ (Jr r-ephLt""rl ,. QS NqU/NCI. (1::-/;5 YJ1(/~1 1/?-eL+. Sf-afe bu-<fc{r;;Cj ccx:;& ) . nbet/s Clv1d aMCfIC ' OOf'f'06 ~oard of Trustees APPlicati~ COASTAL EROSION APPLICA nON DATA I'-'Plau 4;,rI /0 ~ . _ . Purposes of proposed activity: /~a.-t.{ ~'C-d;b?zp .~~ I ,Sm/rs '.k $ClCIJ. Are wetlands present within 100 feet of the proposed activity? No X Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? )<. No Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated? (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? o (cubic yards) Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: J/ /A Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation ofthe project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) m/s~ $!YuUrA_U tt.~ dB)'tJ.., /'ej7 a:u .s t'H1d lev re; ktaflltft by ~.--:=---.a. / .' on{\" 1')'( I PROJECT 10 NUMBER r . SEQR 617.20 APPENDIX C, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORTEN~RONMENTALASSESSMENTFORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION 1. APPUCANT I SPONSOR -- 2. PROJECT NAME !/a,-u.-p U--L{..l-Gd /~p--cA'.-rJ7a...-rL. ~acd ~ct4<./1 3PROJECT LOCATION: 1z /;;L:2!J- /!J; OCt I/;~--t.v /; iT. C U /rI/L Municipality e'-IYle.- 1/J-?1 County - /1// 4. PRECISE LDCA lION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks ete. or provide map / ;J. -::? 5- rf-zrua.u-z-<...<.-<.- /}v-e - ;;2./- SZ -/b /000 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: D New o Expansion ~ Modification I alteration /V1 !?-t;'p' ,;., P let Ie ~C/..U.d 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: ---Cu.-<.L-r- < :f6 yn-L'-7?J' .-V,c. t.:oh4) Sr-vuO!-c.A.-<..f jY1 c. 1/"/ A<.jJti.-i--<..<:> ./}1/J tU:;u' --h er.?-~ !v7L'l .{HUi.e.ft,1/t-.P 7. AMOUNT O~f(;,NO AFFECTED: Ultimately, ~ .'U>b Initially ; l acres, m acres .. 8. WlLL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WlTH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? [S] Yes D No If no, describe briefly: . No U('ct-?VJ1ttY/.- ~j7"~ 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) ~ Residential o Industrial o Commercial DAgriculture D Park I Forest I Open Space DOther (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local) DYes 18 No If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? DYes [)1NO If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT I APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Ges I2J No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant IS~ ~~if~~~cnv~ Date: .;;'.- I-OJ Signature < /~_ udY; &. C /'J1Cf1-zh.-<..- \.........../ If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assess menu n (\ " q 0 . . PART II . IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency, A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY lYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.4? If yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF DYes 0 No 8. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. DYes 0 No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Answers may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels. existing traffic pattem, solid waste production or disposal, rotentlal for erosion: drainage or flooding prO~lems? Explain briefly . .. .: .... ._... .. ... _:' '. _/ C2. Chetic,a.gnCUltural, ar~h..eOlogl~l~hlston~, or.other naturalorcuttural resources; orcom~uni~or nel~h~orhOCd chafficte~ ~plaln bnefly il C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: I..u.. -.-. _u....._.....u.u ........ ..._...._..... . n] C4.1~~~un'~s..x'st;ng ~~ns or goals a:~~lcla~..adOPled, or a Chao~'~ useoc 'oteOSl~Of~se.OflaOd ~~her oalural reso~ces? &Plal~bCI~ftY ] C5. rvAh' S~bSeqUentdevel~pment,.or rela~d. activities Hk~ to be Induced by the proposed aellon? EXPI~n bn~flY : .' . ....-: .. .1 C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1-CS? Explain briefly: I u.',... .. _. . _ _ ] C7. o(er;mpaCls(lnCIUdlngChangeSlnUseofeit~erqUantl~or~peof energy? ~PI~;nbneflY:.. '. _ .. ~... ., D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL D':::"ct.:r~I' '''~..."'~'' ~.. .... ] c D"~ D::r~" ro ~'~'~=",~ff"ro""'~,~^W'~ '~"'~~~:""~' "'""] PART III. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determinewhelher it is substantial, large, important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (Le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes, the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FUL EA.F and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined, based on thE! information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed actio WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons. supporting Ihi determination. Name of lead Agency Dale Pnnt or Type Name of ResponSIble Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) . . Board of Tru~tees AppLication AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) .' I, i e({)( 5. -;;;i/li'f--r'Y1n~ (print owne 0 property) residing at 200 r;;, 3:.2 Ad Jf-- (mailing address) 3s- /3 . N.Y. IV,V /uD! b ) / do hereby a.u'thorize 21v'/-<A <. C fJ7 0 ~ ('\gent) to apply for permit(s) from the Southald Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. 8 O()('100 T . d 810910 S91. 189 60~J..fO me, ..3..JOO\.-l dloO: 100 \;0 60 q~~ . . ...---"---- / "\ ("." I',' , \,-"F"'. J " I ''"----.----/ PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary February 28, 2005 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Re: Lewis and Helaine Teperman 1225 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY Dear Neighbor: My clients, Lewis and Helaine Teperman, are seeking approval from the Southold Town Board of Trustees for repairs to an existing beach house structure located on their property at 1225 Aquaview Avenue in East Marion. A copy of the survey is enclosed. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for Wednesday, March 23, 2005 at 7 p.m. If you have any questions, or wish to support this application please do not hesitate to contact me. Very trli)?y ~d l--/p~tricia C. yours, Moore cc: Lewis and Helaine Teperman PCM/vc encs. o () {\ 1().1 ev..II",/:rrcs 1I.,()ICAtn) >/CRC ON ~"" RVN O'<lr T{) TI-i( PfffSON TGI1 I<f<<N fHf S(P\l["Y /!PfiCp..r;c{). ~()Nr<JSBEJ/AlJ:ro 'l-Jf. "mE r::y.,PAJ<~. COVf;R"MPo/f",( "CF:~C'f, LI)"DoN(; ItlSnrv'[l'()N. IF US1CD ~U)ll. ...1'0 rOTHE...5SlGN'EE"scrTI-IElE/'IOJN(;,}jSrlTtJlION (;:J.o"-"#TUS ARf. 'lor rr:i.NSr(;N1l6L( TO "O()!~IONAL INSrlwnONS Ofl Sl./SstWEnr O~{RS. l~NG . ISLAND SOUND us"'... ,,"OPllW "'L ~R'" T'ON OR "O/'JiTlO# To r>tr5 S(;R'-'f~IS" ..:0l.....T1CJrlr;YJ;€CT/ON1Mior rue Ne'" I"O'i'K sr..rr roUCATlOrJ L.411" S 87"57'35"E 40.01' A""'QOlt.k\ft.IHlSo.o.r( \D-~~I'f!~"'" . Df.~~ 0\1(11 UIK _ 0.8" q .. en '" o '" coP<H Ol" ""S SQJ;\"f"l' ~AP Il:)T aORING rl'f.Uo"IOSVRV(l'(o/:$tMBOSSEOsr....LSh'....l /Jor ~ C:'''SlQfRfD ro Br.. V"UO IRVC C~r. OLO< CIVl:~ ... ~ Jf Z 5.3' 0 -, , ~ '" . 0 o. 'if ,~ HOCK.OOC 'Dice wOOO ST[PS ~DrtHCC _............1' :J.g' ~ 8.6' ~ 32.3' ..OOOOtt" .../lI.AIlIllG 7 <' O. ,~ i;...; 1': . , il ~ 1_S1"OIft" lI!j;IO~HCt ~ ~ .~. ~ ~ ~ \ ~ o " " .. '" Cn l1'. "",,, ",,, 1.2 ~ g 'l ~ ~ Tlf"T 200 / ' .,. - 80'J c{)OlC AQUA VIEW510 w 62.6 '':;'" A VENUE'<' [,<Rl1I/~'OI'E OAfYtW)i N l1' -.J ." "'. SURVEY Of DESCRIBED PROPERTY SrrlJAT( EAST MARION, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. SURVEYED FOR: JOANNA GIANNOPOULOS SURVEYED: 5 APRIL 2004 SCALE l~"" 40' AREA = 12,4.57.7 S.F. OR 0.286 ACRES GUARANTEED TO: JOANNA GIANNOPQUlOS LEWIS TEPERMAN HELAINE TEPERMAN OMSE MANHATTAN BANI{ ROYAL ABSTRACT 29 APR 04 CORRECT SiRE(1 NAME SPELliNG SURVEYED BY STANLEY J. ISAKSEN. JR P.O. BOX 29~ NEW SUFFOlK N. Y 631- r-.5B35 L~&t1u; 'C- ~URV 0 n ('11 '12 ~YS Lie. Nu. 49273 TM/I 1000-021-02-016 Ot1RJ 3, J . NEIGHBOR LIST: Lewis and Helaine Teperman: 1000-21-2-16 1000-21-2-15: 1000-21-2-14 Richard G. Moeller 59 Idell Road Valley Stream, NY 11580 Albert Palumbo PO Box 602 East Marion, NY 11939 . onn1f\3 o ~ :> -..to ;;) .0:.. -ll <0 f11 !r -ll I"'- f11 ru U.S. Postal Service", CERTIFIED MAIL" RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) '. '. USE Postage U"l o o CJ Relum Receipt Fee (Endorsement RequIred) o Restricted Delivery Fee .....=I (Endorsement Required) U"l ru Certlfled Fee Postmark Here Total Postage & Fees $ ;0- o nl 0 Richard G. Moe ller '00''' ~ ~;t,(~':~imn5,9"id~l"imR~:~~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,:"nm Ci6-;S;';;';:Z/P+4n'~~l'i'~;"'~'~~'~;m, NY 11580 " " ~ ~ ~ -ll .-'l ;0- !r -ll I"'- f11 ru U.S. Postal Service"" CERTIFIED MAIL", RECEIPT (Domestic Mail Only; No Insurance Coverage Provided) . OFFIC-AL us IJ) o o CJ Return Receipt Fes\ r (Endorsement RequIred), -f"; CJ Restricted Delivery Fee M (Endorsement Required) IJ) ru Certlfled Fee Postmark Here ;0- ~ . ;~;~~~':'~n,:,~,~.~~'~'::n2n.m--mm.nh'h"'hmm'__hmn. ",PO_No. PO Box 60 . hm'mhm'm'mn Ci6-;'SiSi.:Z/i'>4mEa's't,ni-j'iiri'ci'ii;'--N"Y'Ti 939 . :11 " . . Receipt No. 67'(50 TOWN of SOlJTHOLD OFFICE OF BUILDING INSPECTOR Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 e Dote ......{):::.~:.9..s:............................. -~'- R~"~'~(IYlm}f....t..........A1ir....................................................................................................... .~~;::::....::::::::::::::::::e:R:::::;S~:Q::::::.................::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::......................::::::::::::::::::::::::::<.1.~..~.:~~~~:. Fee for Fee for Fee for o Sign 0 Flood Development Pmt. 'P- Building Permit Fee for Certificate o of Occupancy o o Cash d? ~ Check if- L.L~ 300 '='-' $................................................................. ...........................................gQ.................................................................... Building Department O()1"1"5 . (V) w b w N ,~ q .,. 0 .. ~ .. '6 Q ~ o IL o w ~ <t~ I-' ~o a ro \L6\\ "J,:N 'PI04l"oS P"oll U!"OVt 960\:9 010H.LnOS ;j0 NMO.L S33.LSn1:l.L NMO.L ;j0 01:1'908 ~-HlSl:l8 . 00f\11"\6 , . Albert J. Krupski, President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda Peggy A. Dickerson Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 21, 2005 Patricia C. Moore, Esq. 51020 Main Rd. Southold, NY 11971 RE: LEWIS & HELAINE TEPERMAN 1225 AQUAVIEW AVE., EAST MARION SCTM#21-2-16 Dear Ms. Moore: In regard to the above-referenced property, the following is a summary of the application fees paid vs. application fees due: Fees paid: Wetland Permit application (as-built) $500.00 Fees due: Coastal Erosion Permit application (as-built) $500.00 Total fees due: $500.00 Please don't hesitate to contact the office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Jih,$l? ~'0.. Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees AJK:lms fc~ ct~~ -f:i L{&'~ 5 :3 0<<:> 4 &, i. L} s-o 0 LJIO~ !ioD n n n.. "'i' u.s. Postal Service", ct:Fltl "l "'" RECEIPT (i e' ~ ranee Coverage Provided) LJ1 .-'I ~ ~ , '\I ."11. 1'.'" ~r:m!::j'j ~.~,&j,..': ,.llIll, ~.. ~ lI~ iL____ ciTI-lA.-- '" I',;;l, l'o';tl~le _::.____-'-Y.. ~ C,rt,ac"'". ____a_.~1 D CJ Retum Ace ept 1=08 I I (Endorsamtlnl R, ,quller:!) L_ ._~-L...: CJ Restricted Deliverv :=oe ! M (EmJorsflment Rnqilire,j) ! .-'I i---n- rn Tolal Postage & Fees ! $ m o ntTo . ri ~ Si"-';i,-APfNO~\-C~->"\--.-.---QOr.~-----~----------------------- O'."-O_"-"".No:.__.Sl_O'~On_.rD_l9_ih_____D@,&_____n___ City, Stats, ZIP..4 I '" o ~ ~ r- ~";, Jlm~l2~ ~ . ell \:: ~~" LJ1 ______ ____ '" U.S. Postal Service"" C:ERTI' I jj iVl); l", RECEIPT (Domesttt; I Q ;:N surance Coverage Provided) our webslte at www usps.com~, "" -2-,_ 0 Certi'ie1Fse 0 0 Retum Rec'cpt Fee (Endorsament R<~qujrad) 0 Reslricted Delil'ery Fee "" (Endorsament Rsquired) "" rn $ Total Postage & Fees --"'-- rn 0 0 r- I'C.n.l[l8 S