Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTown Board Proceeding MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 RECEIVED JAN 1 3 2071 To,' From: Date: Subject: MEMORANDUM Mr. Mark Terry, Principal Planner Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town Attorney January 11, 2011 Meyran/CEM Appeal- SEQRA $ou~hold 'ro~,~n ¢ler~ Attached please find copies of the following in connection with the referenced matter: Application for Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review; and Survey prepared by Van Tuyl & Son, last revised 4~2~93. Kindly prepare SEQRA and LWRP reviews for this appeal. We would appreciate these reviews as soon as possible. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention. JNIk Enclosures cc: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk (w/o encls.) .¢JAN 14,2011'-11:24AM N0.515 P. 1 O ~'~-~CE LOCATION: To~vn Hall Annex 54375 ~f-~te l~oute 25 (cor. Main Rd, & Young$ Ave.) Sout~oId~ N'Y 11971 MAILING ADDRF~S: P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fa~:: 631 765-3136 LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOLTTHOLD MEMORANDUM RFCEIVED To: ScOtt Russell, Supervisor Members of the Town Board. From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator JAN 1,; 2:., Southolcl Town Clerk Date: January 13, 2011 Re: Appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (Town Board) for GLENN R, MEYRAN SCTI~ 1000-99-3-1 'Located: 175 Soundview Ave., Matt/tuck. Lark & FoJts, Esq. on behalf of GLENN R. MEYRAN requests an Appeal to the Coastal Erosion HaZard Board of Review (Town Board) to repair and maintain an observation deck. The observation is located on the top of a bluff; a regulated natural protective feature. The proposed action has been reviewed to the policies of the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) and it is recommended that the application be found as INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. The LWRP has identified a series of common management units. Each area can be characterized by an overriding management ebiective, which seeks to minimize erosion impacts. The common management unit that is affected by the proposed action ts an area of high bluffs. The management objectives within these areas includes: "Development should be minimized within these areas, with 'structures set back from the bluffs, exist/hq houses should be moved back where possible, and native plantinqs used to protect the bluffs." Section 111-14, B. does not specifically permit the restoration and rebuilding o~ a deck within a bluff area, and therefore the proposed action is inconsistent with Policy 6 (below). Po/icy 6. Protect and restore the qualify and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem 6_3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wet/ands. 14.2011 11:24AM N0.515 P, 2 A_ Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Sou'/hold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions The proposed 160+ square foot deck located on the bluff is not a permissible action pursuant to: § 1~'1-14. Bluff area. B. Activities specifically allowed under this section are: (3) New consfruction, modification or restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions ora coastal erosion management permit. The proposed action is not a walkway or stairway under this section, nor is the restoration of an observation deck specifically enumerated as a permitted activity in a bluff area. Figure 1. Subject deck in relation to bluff. Note a bulkhead runs along the entire parcel width attempting to stabilize the toe of the bluff. .. ~JAN~14,2011 11:24AM N0.515 P, B Figure 2. Subject parcel showing deck (solid arrow) in relation to CEHA line (marked by dashed arrow). in addition to managing natural protective features (bluffs) to minimize erosion, policies attempt to guide development to areas where structural loss from storm events would be minimized. 4. l Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards. The foflowing 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. 3. Move existing development and structures as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as practical. Mainfaininq existin~ 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. c. sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical_ The proposed action does not meet criteria 3 a through d, It is recommended that to further Policy 4.1 (above) that the observation deck be relocated to landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line as depicted on the survey dated, as last revised, April 2, 1993. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board shall consider this recommendation in preparing its written determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Martin Finnegan, Town Attorney RESOLUTION 2011-107 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6549 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2011-107 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON JANUARY 18, 2011: WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees on July 21, 2010, denied the application of Glenn R. Meyran (the "Applicant") for a permit to complete work on the observation deck on the premises known as 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York, under the Coastal Erosion Ha?ard Areas Law (the "Law") of the Town of Southold; and WHEREAS, on August 19, 2010, the Applicant submitted an application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as the governing Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review, seeking to appeal the determination of the Board of Trustees, or in the alternative, seeking a variance from the requirements of the Law; and WHEREAS, the Town Board did transmit a copy of the instant appeal to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; and WHEREAS, the Town Board conducted duly noticed public hearings on the instant appeal with an opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and WHEREAS, that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby finds that the approval of the variance application is classified as a Type II Action pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed pursuant to Chapter 268 (Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program ("LWRP")); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby adopt the Findings and Determination dated January 18, 2011. m-antin~, the Annlieation of Glenn IL Meyrnn for a variance pursuant to §111-20 of the Law; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board oftbe Town of Southold hereby finds that the proposed action is classified as a Type II Action and is not subject to review pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations for this action; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board had determined that this action is consistent with the LWRP; and be it further RESOLVED that this Determination shall not affect or deprive any other agency of its properly asserted jurisdiction, separate and apart from the proceedings under the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Law considered herein. Resolution 2011-107 Board Meeting of January 18, 2011 Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Vincent Orlando, Councilman SECONDER: Albert Krupski Jr., Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Updated: 1/19/2011 7:28 PM by Elizabeth A. Neville Page 2 TOWN BOARD COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of the Application of GLENN R. MEYRAN 175 Soundview Avenue Mattituck, NY SCTM #1000-99-03-1 DECISION FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Based upon the application, documents contained in the Board's file, site inspections and testimony received at the public hearing held on November 30, 2010, the Town Board finds and determines as follows: ISSUE Applicant has filed an application with the Town Board, as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (the "Board"), dated August 19, 2010, requesting the following reliefi A reversal of the Board of Trustees July 21,2010 determination denying the applicant's application for a permit under Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas of the Town Code, pursuant to the provisions of § 111-14. In the alternative, and should the Board affirm the Trustees determination, the applicant has requested a variance of the provisions of Chapter 111 of the Code as provided in § 111-20. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Description of the property: The property that is the subject of this application is located on the seaward north side of Soundview Avenue and is between the Long Island Sound and Soundview Avenue. It is approximately 46,000 sq. ft. or, 1.15 acres and is located in the R40 zone, with approximately 120 ft. of road frontage on Soundview Avenue. The lot is improved with a single family residence, stairs to the beach and a partially completed observation deck on a bluffon the property located at the northern portion of the property. As confirmed by the Board of Trustees, and acknowledged by the applicant, the portion of the property from the edge of the observation deck to the Sound is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area as established by New York State in 1991. The applicant is proposing to complete work on the observation deck. B. Trustees Procedural History: 1. Application The applicant filed an application with the Board of Trustees on May 25, 2010 which requested a coastal erosion hazard area permit to maintain and repair the observation deck (originally built in 1974-1975) and a maintenance permit for the existing stairs from the top of the bluffto the beach (originally built in 1972-1973). IL Documentation in the Trustees Record In addition to the completed application, the applicant submitted the following materials in support of the application: 1. A survey prepared by Van Tuyl & Son dated July 26, 1972 and last revised April 2, 1993. 2. A sketch of construction details for the observation deck. 3. A sketch indicating details of the stairway from the bulkhead on the property to the top of the bluff. 4. Dated photographs of the stairway and observation deck. 5. A listing of prior permits/approvals for site improvements on the property. 6. A short environmental assessment form. 7. LWRP Consistency form. 8. Copies of a permit issued by the Ne? york State Department of Environmental ConserVation for a bulkhead located on the property in 1993. On June 14, 2010, the LWRP Coordinator submitted a written recommendation to the Trustees that the proposed repair and maintenance of the existing stairs was consistent with the LWRP and that the proposed repair and maintenance of the observation deck inconsistent with the LWRP stands and that the proposals did not comply with Town Code Chapter 175, Wetlands. Additionally, the Conservation Advisory Commission submitted a resolution supporting the application with the condition that the observation deck conform with current codes and the LWRP. IlL Public Hearing: The Trustees held a public hearing on this application on June 16, 2010 and on July 21,2010 at which time all those interested were given the opportunity to speak. Richard Lark, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented information in support of the application, the relevant portions of such information is summarized below. Mr. Lark, provided information regarding the age of the deck originally constructed on the property, which was cons.t~ cted in 1974-1975, prior to the adoption of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Management program by the State. Mr. Lark also testified that the applicants have performed maintenance on the deck which has been in the same 2 location for the past 35 years and that over that period of time the deck has not caused any erosion to the blnff area on the western side of the property. Mr. Lark also pointed out that the bluff on easterly side of the property has had significant erosion. Finally Mr. Lark stated that in the 1990's the applicant had installed a retaining wall and had invested in significant plantings which resulted in the stabilization of the bottom third of the bluff. The applicant testified that the observation deck has added value to the property and that he had 32 years of experience in the lumber business. The applicant stated that his experience would ensure that the deck was built to present code standards. No members of the public appeared in .support or opposition to the application. However, Trustee Bergen noted that Chapter275 does not permit any decks or platforms on the bluff larger than 32 square feet. Mr. Bergen also noted that while there may have been a pre-existing non-conforming deck in the same location, that deck was removed and replaced, which is not permitted under §111-14 of the Town Code. At the July 21, 2010 hearing, the Trustees and Mr. Lark discussed what was being granted and denied and the applicant was given the option of amending the application to comply with Chapter 275 of the code, which permits the applicant to have a 32 sq. ft. deck in connection with the stairs. IF. Trustees Determination On July 21,2010 the Trustees issued a determination denying the Applicant's request for a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area Permit based upon the following: The observation deck, as applied for, does not comply with the standards set forth in §275-11 (A)(6) and §111-14(A) of the Town code in that no decks or platforms are permitted on or near bluffs; and The Trustees determined that the observation deck, as applied for, would have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of th people of the Town. The Town Board Proceeding On August 19, 2010, the Applicant timely filed an appeal to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review (the "Board") of the Trustees' determination pursuant to Town Code § 111-25 and in the alternative sought a variance from the standards set forth in the Code. The Board held a duly noticed public hearing on November 30, 2010 at which time all interested parties were given the opportunity to present testimony on the application. Richard Lark, Esq., appeared on behalf of the applicant and presented testimony on both the appeal and variance request. The testimony presented on the appeal reiterated the information provided to the Trustees as set forth in Section III above. With respect to the variance application, the applicant hired a real estate expert to establish that 3 without the deck the property would yield a lower sales price on the market. The applicant also testified that the deck was a pre-existing non-conformity that the Trustees failed to acknowledge and that the work performed on the deck qualified as restoration and repairs. Further, the applicant testified that the work performed on the deck did not damage the environment or the bluff and reiterated the arguments made in the application regarding the necessity of variance relief. No members of the public appeared in support or opposition to the application and the record was closed on November 30, 2010. APPEAL OF THE TRUSTEE'S DETERMINATION The Town Board confirms the determination of the Trustee's decision denying the application for a coastal erosion hazard permit for the reasons set forth below· The Coastal Erosion Hazard Area program sets forth a series of regulated activities that require a coastal erosion hazard:permits if such activities are conducted within the coastal erosion hazard area. Regulated activities are defined in § 111-6 as: The construction, modification, restoration or placement of a structure, or major addition to a structure, or any action or use of land which materially alters the condition of land, including grading, excavating, dumping, mining, dredging, filling or other disturbance of soil. The applicant has argued that the work on the observation deck was merely maintenance and restoration and is therefore not a regulated activity. As recited above, "restoration" is specifically listed as a regulated activity, as such the applicant has conceded in its application .submission that the work performed falls within the purview of a regulated activity and therefore required a coastal erosion permit or variance. Additionally, while the applicant argued that the work performed on the deck qualified as "normal maintenance" the record is replete with references to work that goes beyond the 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. For example, the applicant and/or his representative testified: ·.. as he [Mr. Meyran] said even though my old man created out of redwood, did it all by himself in 1975, guess what? It stood until 2010 and l didn 't have to replace everything, l just decided that that was the best thing to do, replace the whole nine yards there. (11/30/10 Public Hearing Transcript, p. 6) ... 1 could have just replaced the two seaward posts and been done with it but I plan to retire here and that is not the way we do things... We felt a four foot deep new footing under the new two new seaward 4x4 posts. Yghen we removed the old seaward posts, 4 we observed the underside of the deck, we saw some rot, but it was still in tact. We decided to do the job right, so we removed the top portion of the declc (Id. ~ p. 9) Article II of the Coastal ErOsion Hazard Chapter of the Town Code sets forth the regulations that apply within coastal erosion areas and requires a permit for regulated activities in § 111-8. Section 111-8 is followed by specific criteria for the issuance of a permit in § 111-9. Article II also sets forth additional regulations that apply in specific areas of sensitivity (structural hazard area (§111-10), nearshore area (§111-11), beach area (§111-12), dune area (§111-13), and bluff area (§111-14)). Ifa proposal is located within a specific area of sensitivity, these additional regulations and prohibitions apply. In this instance, the Board of Trustees and the applicant identified the portion of the property where the construction occurred as a "bluff" area and, as such, the additional regulations in §111-114 apply. Pursuant to § 111-14(A.), all development (any man- made change) within a bluff area is prohibited, unless it is specifically listed as permissible under § 111-14(B). Permissible activities under § 111-14(B) are as follows: 1. Minor alterations ofa bluffin accordance with the conditions stated in a Coastal Erosion Management Permit issued for new construction, modification or restoration of an erosion protection structure; 2. Bluff cuts in accordance with conditions stated in a Coastal Erosion Management Permit issued for the provision of shoreline access if certain conditions are met; 3. New construction, modification, or :restoration of walkways or stairways done in accordance with conditions of a Coastal Erosion Management Permit; and 4. Non-major additions to existing structures on bluffs, pursuant to a Coastal Erosion Management Permit. Since the "restoration" of the deck is not specifically permitted under § 111-1405), it is a prohibited action under §111-14(A). Based on the foregoing, the Town Board affirms the determination by the Trustees. RELIEF FROM CHAPTER 111 A. Standard for Variance Relief. In the alternative to seeking a reversal of the Trustee's denial of a coastal erosion hazard permit, the applicant has requested variance relief from the standards of Chapter 111 pursuant to §111-20. In permitting the Board to grant such relief, the Town has recognized that the "strict application of the standards and restrictions of this chapter may cause practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship. This section goes on to list those criteria that an applicant has the burden of esfablishing that this Board must consider when contemplating the grant of a variance from the strict application Chapter 111: A. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available. B. All responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design ant the property owner's expense. C. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. D. ' The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. E. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. B. Finding of Unnecessary Hardship Prior to proceeding with a determination as to whether or how regulated activities could be conducted on the applicant's property pursuant to § 111-20, this Board must make a finding that an applicant will endure an unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty. The Board is convinced that the applicant will endure an unnecessary hardship given the uniqueness of the circumstances in that the deck structure was present in this location since 1975 and the stability of which was compromised by severe weather in the winter of 2010 and that such hardship does not apply to a substantial portion of the neighborhood. Further, given the location of this deck, in the rear yard, it will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Finally, as stated above, the direct cause of this application was a severe storm event, and the hardship therefore was not self-created. For the reasons set forth herein, Board concludes that the strict application of the standards and restrictions of Chapter 111 has created a practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the applicant. C. Analysis of Variance Criteria Pursuant to §111-20 the applicant had the burden of establishing that he has satisfied each of the criteria listed therein. As set forth in further detail below, the applicant can satisfy each of the criteria: 1. No reasonable, prudent, alternative site is available. The application generally states that there is no reasonable, prudent alternative site because locating the deck further west on the property would not preserve the view; relocating the deck to the east of the property would place the deck in an area where severe erosion has occurred and relocating the deck landward would require filling the property to increase the elevation so that the view could be preserved. While this Board agrees that the location of this deck on the eastern portion of the property in an area with documented and severe erosion, the most compelling and reasonable location for this structure is where it existed since 1975. This will minimize the impacts of the structure to the maximum extent possible. 2. ,,IH responsible means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity's design at the property owners' expense. The applicant has taken all responsible measures to mitigate the impact on natural systems and their functions. First, the applicant is merely restoring a deck structure that had been on the premises since 1975, as such the Board finds that if there are any adverse impacts caused by the restored structure, such impacts will be minimal. Second, the applicant, as part of the design of restoring the deck has placed vegetation on the bluff with sand filled burlap bags and beach grass plugs, as well as an erosion control mat, to prevent any further erosion to the bluff in the event of a severe storm in the future. 3. The development will be reasonably safe from flood and erosion damage. The applicant has presented photographs of the westerly area of the property spanning over a thirty year period illustrating that this portion has not suffered from extensive erosion damage and has testified that, typically, the area where the deck is located does not encounter erosion. According to the applicant, the reason this portion of the property eroded in this instance was a severe rain event over a 5-day period in the winter of 2010 which brought approximately 14 inches of rain to the area. This evidence and the statements made by the applicant, coupled with the additional erosion control measures including the extensive plantings and the installation of an erosion control mat will mitigate any potential erosion in the area where the deck is located. 4. The variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difftculty or hardship which was the basis for the requested variance. As previously discussed, the Applicant's proposal allows for the restoration of a deck that was in existence for 35 years in its exact location, with a smaller footprint. Because of the unique circumstances and negligible impact on the surrounding area, as well as the extensive erosion control measures taken by the applicant that will prevent, to the maximum extent possible, any future erosion to this portion of the property in a future major storm event, this Board believes the resultant variance requested is the minimum necessary. 5. Where public funds are utilized, the public benefits must clearly outweigh the long-term adverse effects. Since no public funds are at issue in this application, this criteria does not apply. 7 CONCLUSION Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants the applicant relief from Chapter 111 of the Town Code. The granting of this relief is subject to the conditions of such other permits as the applicant has already acquired or may otherwise have to acquire for final approval of the proposed project. Furthermore, this Board finds that the proposal is classified as a Type II Action not subject to review pursuant to SEQRA Rules and Regulations, 6 NYCRR, Section 617. Finally, this Board finds that this project is consistent with the LWRP pursuant to Chapter 268 of the Town Code, Waterfront Consistency Review. Dated: January 18, 2011 8 SOUTHOLDTOWNBOARD PUBLIC HEARING November 30, 2010 9:00 AM Present: Supervisor Scott Russell Justice Louisa Evans Councilman Albert Krupski, Jr. Councilman William Ruland Councilman Vincent Orlando Councilman Christopher Talbot Town Attorney Martin Finnegan Deputy Town Clerk Linda Cooper This hearing was opened at 9:00 AM SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: I have a motion to open the Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal. Would anyone like to address the Town Board? Mr. Lark? RICHARD LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. Basically it is my intention to make this presentation to you this morning on behalf of Mr. Meyran and after I am finished, I want to call on Andrew Stype who will make a short presentation and then conclude with Mr. Meyran who will give you his remarks on what he has done and what the application is all about and how it concerns him. I note fi.om the legal notice establishing this hearing, they talk for a proposed observation deck on the applicants property at 175 Soundview Avenue in Mattituck. Just for the record and for reasons and facts which will be presented to you, this application if for the restoration of a pre-existing (inaudible) observation deck that exists, not a proposed observation deck. Semantics but you are going to see that as we get into this presentation, there is a lot of semantics because of the codes that are involved here and the lack of standards that we suffered from there on these particular codes. Mr. Meyran, I am going to ask the Board, do you have his original application? Was that given to you. in the packet fi.om the Trustees that they were supposed to give as a return to the Board, May 25m? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, we do. MR. LARK: Because that contains, rather than be repetitive, all the attachments, photographs and everything else that were taken back in the spring and before. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes, this actually, the Board is familiar with the application. Actually some of the Board members went out and looked at the site. Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 2 November 30, 2010 MR. LARK: Okay, that is good because and did you, the Board in their package did the Trustee's give you the minutes of the June 16th and the July 21st heatings so that you have those for your review. Because I will be commenting on those and because I haven't seen the return, that is why I am asking these questions and did you have, obviously then you have the decision that the Board of Trustees rendered on July 21, the Board of Trustees. Okay?. Curiously enough, does your record contain the memorandum of the LWRP coordinator, Mark Terry, dated June 14th? SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Yes. MR. LARK: Okay. Thank you. And then of course, obviously you have Glen Meyran's application which is before you today in August, okay. And you said, have all the Board members been to the property? Because that would be kind of nice for me to know when I am making this presentation? Has anybody not been to the property?. Okay, alright. So that might be a little laborious then, to those, you have been there. Okay. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No, because actually even though I have been there, I was thinking after the heating and hear what you have to say, it would probably be beneficial to go out and take another look, just because you might bring something up that we didn't see. MR. LARK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Krupski, because I was going to ask the Board to reserve decision today to read all of the stuff that I just gave you because it would appear on the surface that this is just a slam dunk, a simple application but due to what happened here which is in the history and I won't go into that but due to what happened, when he ended up applying before the Trustees, he ended up applying not only to Chapter 111, which is why we are here today, but under 275 and they are very parallel but they also have differences to them and it is a nightmare because I have been trying to concentrate the presentation today under 111 and I can't do it. Especially when you compound the law of non-conforming uses on top of it. The case law. Okay. If we were under the zoning code, this would be easy because there are standards set forth. It is very clear what you can do and not do in non-conforming uses. But it is not clear at all and then when you put the consistency law, the waterfront consistency law on top of it, it is a great big headache in how to make the presentation to focus this thing. Okay. I am glad that you have got some understanding of it, okay, like I said, it looks simple but it is not when you consider 111 and 275 and then 268, not to mention the case law that I just referred to. This heating today though is all about 111. Chapter 111 and paraphrasing it, if the strict application in 111-20 of the restrictions imposed by the Trustees and it creates practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship, then this Board, sitting as a coastal review board can grant relief from those restrictions. But unfortunately, as with me and as with you, you just can't look at 111 all by itself and its actions, you have to look at what is around you, 275 and the coastal 268 alright, but the ultimate legal issue really on all of them is whether or not the Trustees denial of this request to strengthen and restore this pm-existing, non-conforming deck, was an arbitrary and capricious decision. That is really the key issue when you cut through all of it, whether you are going to 275 or 111 or even the consistency. I submit to you that their decision was arbitrary as well as unfair. The initial issue which is really interesting and when you have to read those minutes, it was clear to me five minutes into that so-called public heating, that the Board already made up its mind. That was kind of shocking to me but they are elected officials but they had Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 3 November 30, 2010 already made up their mind. At least the record is clear that the President and Mr. Bergen had made up their mind. They are the only two that talk. You will see that throughout it, they are the only ones that talked. And it was just obviously that they had made up their mind because right at the initial start of the hearing, it didn't even really open yet, he said, we looked at it, it was inconsistent, LWRP said it was inconsistent and we have never granted anything forward or on the coastal erosion hazard line so therefore, that is it. During the presentation, the President obviously got bored, she not only interrupted the presentation once, she interrupted it twice by saying get on it. Basically with the facial expressions, you are wasting our time here. And it was (inaudible). And you will hear Mr. Meyran, he just couldn't get over the whole thing. So you do have that unfairness concept of it and because Bergen kept come back to it and saying that you are trying to do a new deck here and we are not going to allow it. And he just completely ignored the pre-existing status of the deck and there was no point even talking to him about his own rules and regulations that are in his codes that he was applying. And it was kind of interesting as you read it because the two of them operate as a tag team operation. He kept setting her up and he set her up by saying the non-conforming structure was removed and therefore he is applying for construction of an non-conforming structure and then she chimes in and says since it was removed, the black and white, can't be rebuilt. Well, first of all, it is not black and white. Second of all, it was not removed and when you go see it, you will see what they should have seen because it hasn't changed since they were them in June. Okay. And even if it was removed, the law of non-conforming uses allows it to be rebuilt, as long as it wasn't abandoned. The law is clear on that, you can get advice from the town attorney on the case law because we don't have standards on these things. I mean, I have got to go back to the basic case law. Again, it is not black and white because chapter 111 does not prohibit decks on the bluff. And it is interesting, that section, because when I first received this case in late May when they couldn't get their application filed and they were being threatened with fines, I looked at the definitions in 111 and it was an interesting one after I had looked at the property and what Mr. Meyran had done when he was trying to complete, when he was stopped by the constable. And it says periodic replacement and repair of same, this is normal maintenance, of same kind structural elements or protective coatings which do not change the design, size or function of a functioning structure, you are allowed to use normal maintenance and the key was, without a coastal management permit. And that is exactly what Mr. Meyran had been doing and had been doing for the previous 15-20 years, he had been constantly maintaining both the deck and the stairs. And when I made the application, I made it for both the stairs and the deck. They had a pre-existing DEC and Trustees back in 93 for that when the bulkhead was installed but the way they were acting, the Meyran's what they were doing, I applied for both the stairs and the deck at the same time. Well, they granted the stairs said that was consistent but the deck wasn't. So that is why we are here, we are here just strictly for the deck. But that was an interesting thing because when I looked at 275 which they required him to apply on, that clearly prohibits decks on the bluff or near the bluff. Clearly. The section is very black and white on that, that is black and white but then there is this definitional section in 275 that says pre-existing non-permitted and non-conforming structures, a structure or use that is not otherwise permitted, our case, but which is allowed to continue solely because it was lawfully existing prior to the effective date of the original law or ordinance or prior to any subsequent amendment as the case may be, any determination. Then it says that any determination of lawful existence must be reviewed with the laws of that time, which is standard. It was clearly established before the Board that the stairs were built in 73, the deck in 74, it was completed in 75 and it existed since 1975 until Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 4 November 30, 2010 today. Okay. So as I said, really not black and white when you review what we had to review under the statute or the codes rather. So, it was interesting when I analyzed what Mr. Bergen was attempting to do, create a fiction saying it was removed and new construction is not allowed. When you do go out to see it, you will see what is there and so I won't have to dwell on that anymore. Third, the case law on non-conforming uses, which they totally ignored, allows a non- conforming structure to be restored, altered, maintained, made stronger if there are no changes which would change the non-conforming status of the structure, which the structure enjoyed. Now this structure came non-conforming under chapter 11 in 1991 when it was adopted by the Town Board. It became non-conforming under 275 in 2004 and under the consistency law in 268, 2004. From that point on, this has been a non-conforming deck. Prior to that, it was okay. But now it is non-conforming. So the law of non-conforming (inaudible) is somewhat fairly complicated and I will defer to the Town Attorney to brief you on that if you get involved in it later on when you are making your decision. But basically, you will find when you read the cases, each case has to be judged on its own facts. That is what is interesting about the law of non-conforming uses. You can read 100 cases but you had better look at two things, the facts of the particular case and what the ordinance that they are applying existed at the time that the court has to apply. So you have two factors going on there, what does the ordinance say or the code say and what are the facts of the case and you really can't end up with an establishment of precedence where you can just quote you know, without anything because you have to look behind what was the decision in each case because they are really kind of refined because a lot of times the court will allow certain things which the boards, municipal boards, didn't allow and other times they will just throw the whole thing out. So it is an interesting law to follow. When they got around to amending our town code on the zoning, they did a good job because whoever did it basically did a (inaudible) of all the laws and really set it forth there, pretty good standards, so you know what the heck you are doing. But we don't have that here and I submit to you and you are going to hear some thoughts from Mr. Stype that what the Board did in denying Mr. Meyran's application basically in toto was confiscatory and therefore, they (inaudible) now you are saying, what's the big deal, an observation deck? Well, it tums out that Mr. Stype will detail it, after he did his analysis without the deck on that particular property and that particular location, his expert opinion that the propeay is worth $200,000 less than if it had the deck that it had the moment before. What can I say? Facts, facts to back that up, so it will be interesting to hear his presentation. I haven't heard it but that is what his conclusion was. What makes this completely confounding and that is why it is not a slam dunk this evening, that we don't have criteria in this 111,275 and 268, we just don't have the criteria. So you are probably going to end up relying a lot on, after you hear Mr. Meyran's presentation, that he didn't do any damage to the environment, to the bluff, of the law of non-conforming uses, that is why I am kind of stressing it here. I think that becomes very, very important because it was completely ignored by the Trustees and that is why we are here. Completely ignored. Now, what we are here for today is 111-20 and it sets forth where the hardship has been created by the Trustees in this case, which create a practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, there is a relief valve here. Providing the applicant can make to you today the four, five, there is no money, public money involved so that is eliminated, the four criteria that are before you. No reasonable, prudent alternative site is available. That is specified pretty particular and I will just review it very briefly, what Mr. Meyran is saying and apparently what Mr. Stype is going to say, you have got to locate it, if you are going to have it at all, where it is and where it has been since 1975. because if you move it further to the west as the Trustees tried to intimate by adding a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 5 November 30, 2010 (inaudible) to the landing and if you look at the photographs, it is about 15 feet removed to the west, there is a landing going to the step which also overhangs the bluff, but if you add it over there, we will consider granting it. But putting it there gives you nothing, it even restricts your view further because when you look to the west you can't see anything because of the shrubbery and the adjacent property and the way their deck is set up. There are decks on both sides of these properties by the way. So it is the way it is set up. So that was that. So you say, okay, move it to the east so you can see further to the west. Well, the problem is when you move it to the east on that particular property, the way the topographical layout of the land is, that is where all the washouts and that is where the severe erosion occurs and has occurred over many, many years that they have owned the property. They tried to mitigate it but when the land becomes supersaturated, as it did in this last spring, forget about it. That is where it is going to go and Mr. Meyran can probably address that since he has lived on that. Mrs. Meyran is here, she will tell you all about it. Interestingly enough, when the father put this thing in 75, the bluff is still in the same place as it was. And the proof in the pudding of it is, if you look at it when you go there and you look at where the landing is fight next door to the west, the same spot. So the codes say well, you should put the observation decks backward, now, you know, landward, towards the house in this case. That would be great except on this particular piece of property, as you go south, the land goes lower. So you can go back 15 yards, stand there in the middle of the yard and see virtually nothing because you are depressed. It rises up into the bluff. So the only place to leave it as a practical matter and where it stood for the past 35 years is where it is today. That is the first thing, to move it, you are wasting your time. Now the next criteria that you have to consider is all the reasonable means and measures to mitigate adverse impacts on the natural systems and their functions and values have been incorporated into the activity design at the property owners expense. Basically we are dealing with erosion here, that is the main enemy here, erosion. There is really nothing else. The property has been bulkheaded and all of that, so you are just dealing with erosion. Alright. Those forms took place in late March and early April when 14 inches of rain, that is a historical factor. You have seen yourself in your functions as members of the Board what happened on the Sound side there, even on the property that I have, it eroded tremendously. So what happens here was, when you look at the pictures, the deck stayed. Nothing happened. Nothing happened to the top of the bluff. That was interesting. But right below where the two seaward posts were, it was just like somebody took a saw and just dropped it down. It just dropped nine or ten feet. Like making a sheer cliff. So he had to, when he went in there to see what he was going to do, he got estimates and he will talk about that, all he had to do was replace the two seaward posts because they basically were just sitting right on the surface there. There wasn't much there. I mean, way up and down yeah but that was about it, okay. And he said, this can't be, just to dig a hole and bury them deeper, that isn't going to accomplish anything because it is all just going to fall away and he will talk about and I explained it to you and you see it in the pictures and he will tell you what he did, how he made this erosion situation which was very interesting. Sand bag built up to the contour, making a contour and then filling the sand bags with beach grass plugs which would then come out and then putting an overlay on the whole thing of an erosion mat. So it will just slip down gradually to the water and it will protect it from the wind and all the ravages as we lose the bluff in the wintertime. So he will talk about that. So he has done, I think, a wonderful job in doing the mitigation in preventing this thing from happening, again, because he was concerned about the future because he wants to live there permanently in the next few years and he will explain what he did on the construction and it is detailed in the application before you. And that ties into the Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 6 November 30, 2010 next criteria that you have to consider, will it be reasonably safe and cause erosion damage. With the research that he did and the experience that he had, it is pretty ingenious because it was inexpensive to do sand bags, burlap bags filled with sand and then with the beach grass plugs and the way he did the erosion mats and then hydro-seeded the whole thing. It is pretty ingenious and you can see what happens since he did that in May as to what has been going on today. Because you will see, it is not almost a full course, it is a season. We are almost into winter now. Alright. So that will be interesting to see what you say because I thought it was a wonderful thing. And what the next criteria which is key, is that the variance requested is the minimum necessary to overcome the practical difficulty or hardship which is the basis to restore the pre- existing deck, the thing. And it was interesting that the Trustees weren't interested that the thing was up since 1975, they just weren't interested in the whole thing but when he did his restoration plan, which he tried but was unsuccessful in presenting it to the Board although it is in the papers if they care to read it. He reduced the size of the deck because he came to the conclusion with his experience that if I make the deck just 20 feet, reduce it from 24 to 20 feet at the top and use 20 foot length of decking if it has the floor joists and I cantilever it back and the way he did the sonartubes dug them down and put the 4 x 4 posts on, which are there today, you can see that for yourself, he said this thing won't move and yet any percolations (inaudible) that will come through the spaces of the decking, it will still be structurally sounder than it was and even though, as he said even though my old man created out of redwood, did it all by himself in 1975, guess what? It stood until 2010 and I didn't have to replace everything. I just decided that that was the best thing to do, to replace the whole nine yards there. So I don't want to go through all the detail, leave that for him to discuss with you as to why he did it and how he did it. I adopted the view that it would be facetious to say this was normal maintenance so therefore I thought a permit for the restoration would be but it is interesting when you read it because and I think that is why they didn't violate him or fine him or try to bring any criminal proceeding against him because when they really started to look at it, he had been doing that for the past 20-30 years, you know, minor repairs. Doing various things, replacing planking without a permit never thinking he needed one, you know, that type of thing. And it was only until this happened that he learned the sad lesson. So the other thing the Board has to consider other than those four criteria which you really have to dwell on, you have to dwell on the consistency issue which is interesting under the waterfront consistency law. You do have to look at that because if the LWRP which was adopted by the Board of Trustees says that what is proposed here and I am saying what it proposed here, not build a new deck but to restore this one, is not consistent then this Board if they grant the permit to him to give him the variance to do it, also have to deal with the consistency issue. And that really gets a little bit grey because where do you go for standards on that and but I did search and I did take what Mr. Terry put down there and then I did find out that on the consistency issue in the policy 4 A number 2 says, it is not cited anywhere but I will point it to your attention. It said, avoid reconstruction of structures damaged by 50 % more of their value in coastal hazard areas. So there is a little bit of a standard there. Okay? And but notice it says avoid, it doesn't say prohibit. Because that was the first thing. And then when you will see here, Mr. Meyran is going to give you testimony that the actual damage what it was going to cost him if he just did a minimum job was $2,000 so, you know, forget about it because who knows what it would take to do a new deck and everything. I will let him dwell on that, I won't get involved in that because he personally did it. And that is mainly the two seaward posts because that is really what got weakened, if you would. Now policy 4 A 3 (inaudible) of the LWRP also has maintaining existing development of structures in hazard areas may be Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 7 November 30, 2010 warranted, interesting language, may be warranted for structures which functionally require location on the coast, an observation deck on the coast, that's pretty clear. And sites where the relocation of the existing, relocation is not practical, so that is why I dwelled on that east-west business, it is not practical. So there is relief there but you really have to search for it to get a consistency pattern. And what befuddled me and I am going to defer to your Town Attorney when he gives you advice, when you put on the gloss of non-conforming uses, they are all non- conforming uses on top of all of this, where do we stand? You know, that type of thing. There is no standard. That is the interesting aspect of that. Except I did find those things for you to look at. Okay. So, where the strict application, alfight, and practical difficulties you can get relief. Alfight, to sum up then, real quick, the point of all of this is the town Trustees have created the unique hardship for Mr. Meyran in that this pre-existing observation deck built in 75, admittedly located in the coastal erosion hazard area, is allowed to be maintained, restored and modified providing its pre-existing size in use is not increased. I think that is alear under the law. And they should have allowed the maintenance and restoration and modification of this pre-existing deck because if it were smaller in size and he had done real serious mitigation erosion impacts. The other interesting thing is under 111, the issuance of a permit, the standards for issuing a permit under 111-9, I say this fits the, the restoration fits for a permit and is consistent with 111- 9 because 111-9 says is the reasonable as the restoration of the pre-existing deck was functional when the renovation and maintenance commenced and this observation existing in this shoreline since 1975 without any problem and due to the procedures employed in the maintenance and restoration, there will be no increase in erosion at the proposed site. That is very important, there will be no increase in erosion because otherwise we would just be defeating the whole purpose of what we are doing and the erosion protection structures installed will in fact minimize any future erosion. Now, as for the general gloss of non-conforming uses which I keep bringing up, (inaudible) in several cases has said that where a non-conforming structure is no longer permitted, which is the case here before you, it can be rebuilt and restored in the existing footprint and its prior existence as non-conforming did not create an undesirable or detrimental effect upon the neighborhood. As I said to you, the neighbors on either side and down the road or down the sound also have similar type structures which overhand the bluff. And as noted that this has never caused a problem with anyone before and why the Trustees did what they did has totally befuddled me. With that, I will turn it over to Andy Stype and he can talk about how, what he did on his analysis of the situation. Andrew? ANDREW STYPE: Scott, I have a copy for you. Andrew Stype from Andrew Stype Realty. Certified appraiser. I have been an appraiser on the north fork since 1971, we are licensed general in New York State. Dick had asked me to have a look at the property and he wanted to know if there was a difference in the value if he had the observation or did not have the observation deck on the subject property. From the back of the house as you are looking towards the Sound, there is an approximate 60 degree waterview and the water you see is like the upper half of Long Island Sound basically but as you go to the observation deck which is fight on the cliff, it is an 180 degree view. It is absolutely panoramic. You can see well to the east, the west and the north. So what I did, the only way to really describe and to place a value on this observation deck was I went to the MLS site which our office is a member of, and we had 12 sales of waterfront properties that have 80 degree views and observation decks and we looked at sales of properties that don't have an observation deck or just a 60 degree view of the water. We went to the total of eight sales that were chosen, half those sales have the observation deck. Sale Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 8 November 30, 2010 one is at Route 48 in Greenport, a two story home, one acre on the water. They have an observation right on the cliff. This house was sold for $1.5 million. All these sales happened within the last year or year and a half. Sale two with a waterfront deck was on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Laurel, a ranch home, .75 acres on the water; that sold for $1,417,000. Now the third sale was up at Camp Mineola Road in Mattituck, a two story home, .2 acre on the water, has an observation porch right on the waterfront, 180 degree view. That sold for $1,875,000. The fourth sale was up in Nassau Point in Cutchogue, two story home, .75 acre on the water, that sold for $1,685,000. The total values come to $6,447,500. The average price of the waterfront home that has a waterfront home that has a waterfront deck was $1,619,000. We also looked at four sales that are on the water but have a very limited view. You have a sale on Soundview Avenue in Southold, 1.3 acres on the water that sold for $1,470,000. Sale number two was on Lighthouse Road in Southold, two story home, .53 acres on the water that sold for $1,475,00. Sale three was on Sound Drive in Greenport, two story home of .7 acres on the water, limited view and that sold for $1,300,000. The last sale was up on Northview Drive in Orient, two story home on 1.6 acres on the water that sold for $1,350,000. Now the total value there comes to $5,595,000. And the average price comes to $1,398,000., so that made a difference of $220,000. which I rounded off to $200,000. just to make a conservative figure out of it. So we feel there is a huge loss of the value if the subject is not allowed to have an observation deck. Any questions? (No response) SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Andy, thank you very much for that. GLENN MEYRAN: Good morning. My name is Glenn Meyran, I live at 53 Morris Avenue West in Malveme. That is in Nassau County. First of all, I would like to thank this Board for hearing this appeal. I own the property located at 175 Soundview Avenue Mattituck. I will be brief. This Meyran family has owned waterfront property before we moved to Mattituck. We lived in the East Bronx on the water where the East River ends and Long Island Sound begins, in the area of Whitestone bridge. We had a 100 foot single plank dock which we built over the marshland, we had a deck with stairs and benches at the end into the Sound. I started working with my father on this dock when I was approximately eight years old. Each year the dock would be damaged during the winter, we would repair it each spring and get it ready for the summer use. Each year, through trial and error we learned the repairs that worked and the repairs that did not work. We enjoyed the fishing, boating and swimming from this dock. My dad was a great fisherman and he heard about Mattituck from his father who owned a boat large enough to travel to Mattituck (inaudible), that's how we heard about Mattituck. So we drove to Horton's Point in Southold and we fished at Horton's Point, we also observed the stairs that led to the beach there. My mother and father loved the area and in 1960 they bought the property at 175 Soundview Avenue, it was a wooded acre. We cleared the land ourselves, dad was very handy, I helped him from the beginning with the work. I was the first bom, I am their first bom. After the house was built, we built stairs to the beach. We used a lot of ideas from the stairs at Horton's Point. We built decks, planted on the cliff, using all types of erosion control methods. My mother contacted the extension service, we found out what plants to use, what not to use, at that time in was Japanese black pine which has been changed since. And we made our own rock jetty from the beach so we could swim and launch our small fishing boat in spite of the rocky beach. We did all this and maintained all the above without permits. We had no idea that we ever needed permits for any of this work. We never needed them for any of the other similar Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 9 November 30, 2010 work that we did in the Bronx. We maintained our stairs, deck and cliff area with the same trial and error technique that we used in the Bronx. In 2009, I bought the property from my mother. Dad had died in 2002. In March and April of 2010, we had approximately five days of heavy rain and I called mom to see if the observation deck was affected. We knew fi.om past experience that the heavy rains over a four or five day period caused erosion. Some years earlier, I had sistered new, sistered means putting two pieces of wood together, I had sistered two new 4 x 4's to the seaward post of the observation deck. This deck was made of redwood, it was built in approximately 74, 75. Mom, who is know 90 years old, told me over the phone that the deck seemed okay to her. I wanted to see for myself, after the years of working on that cliff and deck I developed a kind of a sixth sense. I sensed something was wrong. I went to Mattituck the next day and observed the deck. The deck was intact but I felt it no longer safe for my mother to use. The heavy rain had exposed more of the two seaward 4 x 4 posts and mom used the deck daily all year round, weather permitting. She would go out there with her friends, watch the sunsets or feed the seagulls. This deck is and always has been the focal point of this property. I saw the work that had to be done. I could have just replaced the two seaward posts and been done with it but I plan to retire here and that is not the way we do things. The drop in front of the deck was too steep for safety. We needed to slightly contour the top edge of the cliff so my son Michael and I, who lives in Mattituck, decided to use sand bags, beach grass; we had used sand bags earlier, before we had the bulkhead to no avail. We decided to use sand bags, beach grass, soil erosion and control mats. We felt a four foot deep new footing under the new two new seaward 4 x 4 posts. When we removed the old seaward posts, we observed the underside of the deck, we saw some rot but it was still intact. We decided to do the job right, so we removed the top portion of the deck. Now we could re-contour the top portion of the cliff and use erosion control mats under the deck. Prior to that, I had dumped a lot of soil. Before we had the bulkhead, we lost a lot of land and the DEC wouldn't give us the permit. So the cliff, it kept eroding, so we put a lot of soil down below so we could kind of control the top portion, so the angles would line up and we would have something stable. We were in the process of rebuilding the deck on the same footings when a town official, the constable that Mr. Lark mentioned, came on our land. He told my mother that someone had complained. We have no idea who complained or why. People on both sides of us have the same deck and we are friendly with them. We must stop working immediately because we needed a permit. He also said we would be fined. We stopped work and returned all the building materials to the lumber yard. We had everything there for the deck to build it. Not a big deck, not a big deal. We applied for the permit, mom tried to get the permit but the application was very complicated and I decided to hire an attorney. So I hired my mother's attorney Mr. Lark, he had represented my mother when I bought the house from her. I could not do this myself because I live in Nassau county and I work in the Brooklyn Queens area. And after listening to all these things that Mr. Lark mentioned, you see why I hired an attorney. It appeared to be a very involved process and I could not get that much time off from work. We applied for the permit for both the stairs, the bulkhead area and the observation deck. The Town Trustees approved the permit for the stairs and the bulkhead area and denied the permit for the observation area. As Mr. Lark mentioned, they offered us what is the equivalent of the size of this table, a 4 x 8 sheet, 32 square feet extension to a 24 square foot top of the stairs to the beach, the little platform there. They said you could put another 32 square feet there. This 24 square foot platform is a few feet away fi.om the, in the same location as the observation deck. The said the law was black and white. They called our lawyer. They did not want to hear family history. I tried to explain to them that we Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 10 November 30, 2010 heard this type of talk earlier when the DEC would not let us get a bulkhead to stop the massive erosion to the cliff that we were experiencing. They said it was black and white. And that our land should feed the beaches, is the term that they used. The DEC reversed its position 180 degrees after we got hit with the three nor'easters in the early 1990's. we lost so much land that they actually allowed people to do it and my mother was able to get a small business loan from the government. The Trustees did not want to hear this either. They cut me short, the same way they did Mr. Lark and they repeated their offer, 32 square feet or nothing. I tried to tell them that this deck is on the survey from 1993 and it is the crown jewel of the property which was proved by what Mr. Stype here said. This deck lasted for 35 years, the replacement or refurbished deck will last longer and be slightly smaller. The reason I made it smaller was I noticed the rot, you can't get 24 foot long pieces of lumber, so you have to butt them together. That is where a lot of the rot started, I observed over the years, so if I get a continuous run of 20 feet, there will be less chance for the rot to start there. We are hopeful that this Board will give us the permit we need. That is all I have. Any questions on anything? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: What year was your bulkhead put in? MR. MEYRAN: 1993. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: After 93, when the bulkhead was put in, did you do any plantings on the bluff?. MR. MEYRAN: Yes, right away. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Did you suffer any more, once it was stabilized, did you suffer any more erosion? MR. MEYRAN: Yes. It was such a shear loss that the angle was there that was constantly eroding. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. MR. MEYRAN: Down below, so we had to build it up from the bottom to the top. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: No, no. I mean after, I understand that. I was on the Board of Trustees in 1993, I am sure I signed your permit. MR. MEYRAN: Right. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: So I understand that. MR. MEYRAN: Rambo did the work, yeah. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: But after it stabilized, did you ever get anymore erosion from the top? Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 11 November 30, 2010 MR. MEYRAN: Some. Also, like he said, to the eastward side where there was more drainage of the water. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Yes. MR. MEYRAN: Yeah. But not, to the west it was solid. We have actually cherry trees growing there for whatever reason. Some of them are this big. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Right. MR. MEYRAN: The other side, you know, I guess it is where the wind hits it the most. It doesn't allow the heavy trees to grow there. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I was out there in the summer. It was hard to see. Did you ever suffer erosion that badly, like you did this spring? MR. MEYRAN: Yes. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: You have? MR. MEYRAN: Yes. I had, like I said when I maintained this, I had actually built, we tried retaining walls, we tried the hay bales, we had the (inaudible) with the rain. I put 17 yards of dirt there myself with a wheelbarrow over the top and made a retaining wall but I couldn't get deep enough. The top of that cliff is, down below it is sand but at the top it is a clay and gravel mixture that I hit with a pick. You could go down so far it was actually sparking the pick. You couldn't get down any further without a machine. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Mmmhmm. MR. MEYRAN: So yes, we have done. That is where a lot of those, so what it was that we had put top soil down, so you would have good growth coming up and now what we did when you look out here, you should have this thing, hopefully, you never know what nature has in store but we did the absolute best we could. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: And the, I am sorry, the neighbors, they have bulkheads on either side. MR. MEYRAN: To the east of us, she had it before us. And her land is actually a little higher than ours because we were waiting to get it. People to the, if you go there, look at the people to the west of us. They got the bulkhead after us. They waited a lot longer and they actually put gavians (sp?) down there trying to control these. There deck is a shear, it is hanging .... COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: But they have one now? The neighbors to the west have... MR. MEYRAN: It is just hanging and the cliff is like straight down. Very dangerous. Any other questions? Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 12 November 30, 2010 SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: No. Thank you very much. MR. LARK: I want to thank the Board for heating the complete application and when you do review it, particularly since we are here under chapter 111 and 111-9, I can't see why the issuance or granting a variance for the issuance of the permit under the ABC of that 111-9, I think what he has done here and what is presented to you, I think it does meet that criteria. I realize it is brand new, never there, couldn't do it, that is because it is a prohibition but since it has been there since 1975, I see no reason why, where the coast, I know, I know you are going to amend (inaudible) as a result of this but the way that the codes are written right now, I see no reason why that can't be restored in that location. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Board on this public heating? COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: I would just like to make one correction to what Mr. Lark said. He said that the Trustees adopted the LWRP, that would have been the Town Board in 2005. MR. LARK: Excuse me. COUNCILMAN KRUPSKI: Okay, I just wanted to make that clear. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And we will clarify that was a previous Town Board. No current member adopted the LWRP. Just for clarity. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I just have one comment. Looking at some of the pictures in the file, there is one dated the spring of 1999 after a storm and particularly looking at the railing that is on the edge of the bluff. I was thinking that if I went there as a building official or even a Trustee, did anybody ever come near falling off of that deck? MR. MEYRAN: No. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Because the railings obviously don't meet code today's standards, so if you had wanted to repair that, you probably would have to bring that up to code to today's standards... MR. MEYRAN: I understand what you are saying. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Even this thing was built to code back then but yeah, this thing would have to be modified to today's standards. We might not allow you to do it. MR. MEYRAN: There are a lot of things. . ..but my father just had those 4 x 4's in sand. They were only 12 inches down, I am putting sonartubes down, so we are going to do it all to code. COUNCILMAN ORLANDO: He was talking about the railings. What were you going to do about the railings? Meyran Coastal Erosion Appeal 13 November 30, 2010 MR. MEYRAN: I know what he is talking about. The railings were horizontal .... COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Yeah. MR. MEYRAN: And you have got to have them vertical and they have got to be to code, they have to be four inches on center and all of that stuff. I understand all of that. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: So my point is that I am wondering if you could have even gotten a permit to bring this thing up to today's standards code wise. MR. MEYRAN: (inaudible) He told me that the deck was there when a lot of these inspectors would go around... TOWN ATTORNEY FINNEGAN: Can you speak into the microphone? MR. MEYRAN: Can you ask that question again? COUNCILMAN TALBOT: I am just making that comment that I was wondering if you could have even gotten a permit if you wanted to install railing to code now, you may not have even been able to get a permit on it. MR. MEYRAN: That is probably correct. But it should have been permitted in the beginning but all the inspectors passed a lot of this stuff and they never put it down. We had this trouble when I bought the house. The garage was there, it was never permitted although it was, I had to get a permit for that. They didn't do things in those years the way they do them now, that is the problem. But yes, you are right on that issue. COUNCILMAN TALBOT: Thanks. SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Okay. Would anybody else like to comment on this particular erosion appeal? (No comment) Well, what I would like to do is get a motion from the Board to close the hearing, we are going to reserve our decision today. This hearing was closed at 9:55 AM. Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk North Fork Real Estate Experts for three generations 11/29/10 Mr. Richard F. Lark, Esq. Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 Re:Meyran; 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattimck, NY 11952 SCTM 1000-99-3-1 Dear Mr. Lark: In accordance with your request I am submitting a before and after appraisal of the subject home referenced above. The before and after values concerns a wood observation deck 8' x 24' located at the edge of the bluff to the soundfront. The values will concern the estimate of market value of the subject property with and without the observation deck. The subject observation deck offers panoramic 180 degree views of Long Island Sound. Without the deck the views are limited to a 60 degree view from the rear of the subject home. A search was made on the Multiple Listing Site to determine if there is any difference in value. A total of 8 sales were chosen from a list of waterfront homes in the township of Southold. The difference in value will concern the 60 degree waterviews to 180 degree waterviews. The MLS sites contains pictures of the most salient features of the listing such as waterviews. 4 Homes were chosen to represent the homes sold on the water with a waterfront deck or porch with 180 degree panoramic waterviews and 4 homes were selected to represent the values without a waterfront deck or porch and limited waterviews. The home total values will be added together and divided to determine the average value - the difference will indicate the market value of the subject deck if any. 12985 MAIN ROAD. P.O. BOX 63, MATTITUCK, NEW YORK 11952-0063 PHONE: (631) 298-8760 FAX (631) 298-5779 www. stype.com stypere(a~optonline.net Meyran - page 2 Sales With Waterfront Deck Sales Price 1) 57305 Rte. 48, Greenport, 2 story home on 1 acre on water $ 1,500,000 2) 6760 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel, ranch home on .75 acre on water 1,417,500. 3) 3945 Camp Mineola Rd., Mattituck 2 story home on .2 acre on water 1,875,000. 4) 7325 Nassau Pt. Rd., Cutchogue, 2 story home on .75 acre on water 1.685.000. Total Values $ 6,477,500. $ 6,477,500. / 4 = $1,619,375. Average Price Waterfront Home With Waterfront Deck Sales Without Waterfront Deck 5) 18075 Soundview Ave., Southold, ranch home 1.3 acre on water $ 1,470,000. 6) 3400 Lighthouse Rd., Southold, 2 story home .53 acre on water 1,475,000. 7) 3300 Sound Drive, Greenport, 2 story home .7 acre on water 1,300,000. 8) 1060 Northview Dr., Orient, 2 story home 1.6 acres on water 1.350.000. Total Values $ 5,595,000. $ 5,595,000. / 4 = $ 1,398,750. Average Price Waterfront Homes Without Waterfront Deck Final Reconciliation $1,619,375 - $1,398,750. = $ 220,625. $ 220,625. round off to: $ 200,000. Loss of Value Without Deck The value difference for the loss of the waterfront deck is a reduction in value of $ 200,000. for the subject home. Thank you, please let me know if I can be ~rthe~ askance. ' Veryi~~ PmpertyAddress 175 Soundview Avenue ~nde~i~ii~nt Ri~r~ ~ Lark, Esq. L~dersAddre~ ~in Rd., ~tch~e, ~ ~ Subject Home Subject Waterview from home ~ttituck c~un~ Suffolk New York lipO~e 11971 ~?~'Cl~!Ri~h&rd F' Lark, ESq~ ~Id~sAddls~Main Rd., Cutchog~e, NY 1!735 A~mis~AndrewD. St!r~e ^~ai~s^dd~ PO Box 63, Mattituck~ NY 1~952 Subject North w&terview from deck Subject West waterview from deck Photograph Addendum Pro~erb/Ad~re~ 175 Soundview Avenue s~ ~e~ ~rk z~pc~ ~71 ~en~;~i~ ~ar~ F. Lark, Esq. ~rai~ ~-~ S%~e Apprai~e~sAddre~ PO BOX 63, ~ttituck, ~ 11952 Sale #1 57305 Rte. 48, Greenport 1000-44-2-3 10-5-5.5 I acre on LI Sound $ 1,500,000. sales price 7/17/09 sale date View from deck Addendum Ebr~ower Meyr~ P;0~^dd~ 175 Soundview Avenue ~ende~/Cii;~i~char& F. L~; ~S~] ~;~;~;~; ~ ~d., Cutcho~e, ~ 11935 Sale #2 6760 Pec. Bay Blvd., Laurel 1000-126-11-30.1 8-3-2.5 .75 acre on bay $ 1,417,500. sales price 8/7/09 sale date View from deck ~ws Meyran P~]Address 175 Soundview Avenue [~r/C;ie,t~ch~rd ~] ~ Esq. ~¢sAddr~in Rd., Cut~o~e, ~ 11935 Sale #3 3945 Cax-.pMineola, Mattituck 1000-123-5-3 7-4-3.5 · 2 acre on bay $ 1,875,000. sales price 7/26/10 sales date View from deck Borro'~er Meyran Pi0~Add~s 175 Soundview Avenue $~ New York ~p¢~e 11971 ApWaiserAndrew D. St~pe Ap~ai~sAddress POBox 63, Mattituck, NY 11952 Sale #4 7325 Nassau Pt., Cutchogue 1000-118-4-10 10-5-4 .75 acre on bay $ 1,685,000. sales price 11/18/10 sale date View from deck Zip 0~e 11971 tende;i~ii~i ~chard F. Lark, Esq. te~de~'$AdOmss ~ Rd*, Cu~s~?gue~ ~ 1~735 ~Fes~~-~YP~ ~i~Add~ ~0 Box 63, Mattituck, NY 11952 Sale #5 18075 Soundview. Southold 1000-51-1-8 9-3-3 1.3 acres on LI Sound $ 1,470,000. sales price 11/19/09 sale date No deck on beach P~pe~yAd~s 175 Soundview Avenue ~i~ ~titu=k c0u.~ Suffolk ~prais~ D Stl~P~ A~praise~Addre~ PO BOX 63, Mattituck, NY 11952 Sale #6 3400 Lighthouse, Southold 1000-50-2-2 10-4-3.5 .53 acre on LI Sound $ 1,475,000. sales price 1/28/10 sale date No deck on beach Photograph Addendum proge~Addre~ 175 Soundview Avenue Ci~ Mattituck ¢~n~ Suffolk State New York ZJpCOde 11971 ~e~der/CliemP~chard F. Lark, Esq. ~en~{sAdd~in Rd~ Cut~?~ Sale #7 3300 Sound Dr., Greenport 1000-33-1-6 7-3-3.5 .7 acre on LI Sound $ 1,300,000. sales price 9/9/09 sale date No deck on beach City M~ttituck County Suffolk $~a~e New York ZipC~de 11971 Le~i~ii~iii~ Fi ~k, Esq. LendeCsAddr~in Rd., Cu~c~0~e, ~ 11935 Sale #8 1060 N.View, Orient 1000-13-1-20 7-3-3 1.6 acres on LI Sound $ 1,350,000. sales price 12/30/09 sale date No deck on beach CERTIFICATION BY THE APPRAISER I hereby certify that I have personally inspected the property that is the subject of this appraisal report. That to the best of my knowledge and belief the statements contained in the appraisal herein set forth are true and the information upon which the opinions expressed therein are based is correct; subject to the limiting conditions therein set forth. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only to the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this appraisal report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analyses, opinions, or conclusions, in, or the use of, this report. My analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared in accordance with the standards and reporting requirements of the Appraisal Foundation, New York State and the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER I, Andrew D. Stype, NYS Certified General Appraiser//4600022831, age 61, certify that I have been in the appraisal business for fair market value since 1971. Since that time I have completed over 3,750 written, certified real estate appraisals for residential properties, farm properties, lots and business properties. I am currently the president of Andrew Stype Realty, Inc. (formed in 1998) formerly Stype Brothers Real Estate, Inc. and I have been in this position since 1983. The business was purchased from my father, Val W. Stype, who had started the real estate and appraisal business back in 1964. I have personally engaged in the purchase and sale of real estate on the east end of Long Island for investment. This experience has helped me to determine market value. Currently, Andrew Stype Realty, Inc. is an active sales office involved in the sale of all types of residential properties, farm properties, vacant land and commercial property. We maintain a full-time sales office, and in addition offer consultation and management services. Currently our office covers Calverton to Orient for sales and the towns of Southold, Riverhead, Brookhaven, Southampton, East Hampton and Shelter Island for appraisals. I have competed all educational requirements for the current license term. ~- continued New York State Licenses, Designations, Memberships - New York State Certified Real Estate General Appraiser since 2/6/95. Identification # 46000022831. - New York State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser since 12/2/91. License # 0691. - Member Columbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers - Member of the New York State Association of Real Estate Appraisers - Member of the Suffolk County Board of Realtors - Member of the Hampton and North Fork Board of Realtors - Designated Approved Appraiser by Suffolk County Real Estate Department - Licensed Real Estate Broker 1980 - Licensed Insurance Broker 1972 - Licensed Real Estate Salesperson 1971 - Past Board of Director Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors - Past Board of Director Suffolk Co. Board of Realtors - Designated Approved Appraiser Town of Southold - Member - Long Island Board of Realtors - MLS service ~ - continued - Education - Successfully Completed Art of the Addenda 11/17/08 - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed - Successfully Completed Appraisal Trends 11/22/08 7-Hour USPAP Update 10/17/08 FHA & VA Appraiser 10/3/08 New York Fair Housing 9/15/08 Vacant Land Market Value 12/07/06 7 Hour National USPAP Update Course 10/26/06 5 Hour Fraud Acts Course 10/27/06 - Successfully completed 3 Hour Ethics Course - LIBOR 12/9/04 - Successfully completed 7 Hour National USPAP Update Course 11/17/04 - Successfully completed Appraisal Standards of Practice and Ethics 5/2/02 - Successfully completed Residential Real Estate Investment 3/14/02 - Successfully completed Residential Construction Course 11/7-14/2000 - Attended Report Writing & Analysis Seminar 2/1-2/5/99 - Attended Argus commercial software seminar 1/99. - Attended Discounted Cash Flow Seminar 12/97 - Successfully completed course 420 Standard of Professional Practice Part B on 5/18/96 - Successfully completed course 410 Standard of Professional Practice Part A on 5/11/96 - Successfully completed G-1 Introduction to Income Property Appraising 6/4/94 - Successfully completed G-2 Principles to Income Appraising 6/11/94 - Successfully completed G-3 Applied Income Property Valuation 6/18/94 - Attended New URAR Appraisal Report Seminar - 10 hours - 12/93 - Completed seminar income approach sponsored by Appraisal Institute 1992 - Successfully completed N.Y.S. residential real estate appraiser certification requirements December 1991 QUALIFICATIONS - continued - Successfully completed SPP professional practice course November 1990 - Completed Appraisal of Farms and Leashold Interest sponsored by the National Association of Real Estate Appraiser - 1989 - Completed Appraisal Guidelines for Right of Way/Condemnation Appraisal Assignments sponsored by the National Association of Real Estate Appraiser - 1989 - Successfully completed Society of Real Estate Appraisers SRA course 102 October 1988 - Successfully completed Society of Real Estate Appraisers SRA course 101 February 1988 - Successfully completed seminar in real estate sales sponsored by N.Y.S. Assoc. of Realtors 1985 - Successfully completed seminar real estate management sponsored by Eastern Suffolk Board of Realtors 1983 - Successfully completed Part I Appraising Real Estate at Southampton College 1981 - Successfully completed Part II Appraising Real Estate at Southampton College 1982 - Successfully completed Continuing Education Course in accordance with NYS license laws 1981 - Successfully completed Real Estate License Law Course 1979 - Graduated Burdett Business College - Degree in Accounting 1971 ~ - continued Consultation and Appraisal Work - Township of Southold - Township of Riverhead - Richard A. Winters Associates - New York Telephone - Suffolk Co. Water Authority - The North Fork Bank & Trust Co. - Southold Savings Bank - Suffolk Co. National Bank - EAB - Long Island Savings Bank - Household Finance Corp. - Lenders Service, Inc. - Suffolk Co. Dept. of Real Estate - Relocation Services - Residential Mortgage Bank, Inc. - Biltmore Mortgage Corp. - Wickham, Wickham & Bressler - Attorneys - Scheinberg, Scheps, DePetris and DePetris - Attorneys - Raffe & Corrigan - Attorneys - Caminiti & Gibbons - Attorneys ~- continued - Twomey, Latham, Shea & Kelley - Attorneys - Village of Greenport - Bridgehampton National Bank - Centerbank Mortgage Bank - Nature Conservancy - Chase Bank - Flatbush Federal Savings - Par East Mortgage - Peconic Land Trust - Pindar Vineyards - Hargrave Vineyards - Peconic Bay Vineyards - Jamesport Vineyards - Duck Walk Vineyards - Gristina Vineyards - Pugliese Vineyards - Village of Sag Harbor - Southold High School - Riverhead High School - Town of Southampton - Galluccio Estate Vineyards 10002 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that 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 11th day of November, 2010. Principal Clerk day of ~ Sworn to before me this 2010. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold the Towu Meefin~ H~an 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a onblic henrin*_~ NOTAP"' r, ~" 'C ;-;~T, OF NEW yORK Nc, , ' ''~05050 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, RMC, CMC 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.north fork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 22, 2010 Pete Grannis, Commissioner State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233 Dar Commissioner Gmnnis: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the "Appeal of Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Glenn R. Meyran, 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York 11971, SCTM# 1000-99-3-1. It is being sent for your information in accordance with Southold Town Code, Chapter 111, Section 111-25.B. This matter has been assigned to our Assistant Town Attorney Jennifer A. Andaloro. You may contact her at 631 765-1939 for further information. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Cc: Town Board Town Attorney Town Trustees NYS DEC Region I office ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.nor thfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 22, 2010 Pete Grannis, Commissioner State of New York Department of Environmental Conservation 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233 Dar Commissioner Grannis: Transmitted herewith is a copy of the "Appeal of Denial of Coastal Erosion Management Permit of Glenn R. Meyran, 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, New York 11971, SCTM#1000-99-3-1. It is being sent for your information in accordance with Southold Town Code, Chapter 111, Section 111-25.B. This matter has been assigned to our Assistant Town Attorney Jennifer A. Andaloro. You may contact h~- at 631 765-1939 for further information. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Cc: Town Board Town Attorney Town Trustees NYS DEC Region 1 office STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) LINDA J. COOPER, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York being duly sworn, says that on the :d~/a'~ day of ~7- ,2010, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a tree 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. Re: Meyran Deputy Town Clerk Sworn before me this Notary Pb~- BO~INIEJ. DOROSKI Nefa~y Public, State Of New Yo~ Ho. 0ID06095328, Suffolk Coun~ Term Expires July 7,20 ~ 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 O~/'- , 2010, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a tree 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. Re: Meyran Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk Sworn before me this __ day of 2010. Notary Public Town of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 10/18/10 * * * RECEIPT * * * ReceiptS: 93263 Transaction(s): 1 Application For Appeal Reference Subtotal 99-3-1 $250.00 Check#: 2839 Total Paid: $250.00 Name: Meyran, Glenn & Mary Jane 175 Soundview Ave Mattituck, NY 11952 Clerk ID: LINDAC Internal ID: 99-3-1 Page 1 of 1 Cooper, Linda From: Sent: To: Subject: Cooper, Linda Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:33 PM 'LarkandFolts@aol.com' Legal Notice of PH for Meyran Attachments: Meyran PH 11-30-10 9 amdoc Mary Lou: Per my instructions from Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville, attached hereto is a copy of the legal notice to be published November 11, 2010 in the Suffolk Times. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions concerning this notice. Please confirm receipt of this email. Thank you. Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Town of Southold 631-765-1800 Life may not be the party we hoped for, but as long as we are here, we might as well dance! If you really want to be happy, nobody can stop you 10/13/2010 Page I of l Cooper, Linda From: Cooper, Linda Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 11:19 AM To: Reisenberg, Lloyd Subject: Meyran PH 11-30-10 9 am Attachments: Meyran PH 11-30-10 9 am.doc Please post on our web site, Thanks! 10/21/2010 F, IJZABETH A. NEVII,LE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hail, 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 October 20, 2010 Glenn R. Meyran 53 Morris Ave West Malveme, NY 11565 Re: Coastal Erosion Appeal Dear Mr. Meyran: Enclosed herewith is a copy of the resolution and Legal Notice of Public Hearing announcing the hearing for your appeal will be held by the Southold Town Board on Tuesday, November 30, 2010 at 9:00 A.M. in the Meeting Hall at Southold Town Hall. Very truly yours, Linda J. Cooper Deputy Town Clerk Enc (2) cc: Lark & Folts w/enc LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold set November 30~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Glenn R. Meyran~ relating to a proposed observation deck located at 175 Soundview Avenue~ Mattituck~ New York~ SCTM #1000-99-3-1. Dated: October 5, 2010 BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville Town Clerk PLEASE PUBLISH ON November 11, 2010 AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO ELIZABETH NEVILLE, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, P.O. BOX 1179, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times Land Preservation Glenn R. Meyran Town Board Members Comptroller Lark & Folts Town Attorney Town Clerk's Bulletin Board RESOLUTION 2010-794 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6255 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-794 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 5, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets November 30~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meeting Hall~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Glenn R. Meyran~ relating to a proposed observation deck located at 175 Soundview Avenue~ Mattituck~ New Yorl~ SCTM #1000-99-3-1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER: Christopher Talbot, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell Page 1 of 1 Cooper, Linda From: Legals [legals@timesreview.com1 Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:30 PM To: Cooper, Linda Subject: RE: Meyran PH 11-30-10 9 am Hi Linda, I have received the notice and we are good to go for the 11/11 issue, Thanks and have a great afternoon! £andice From: Cooper, Linda [mailte:Linda.Cooper@town.southold.ny.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:28 pry1 To: Suffolk Times Legals Subject: Meyran PH 11-30-10 9 am Hello, Attached hereto is a Legal Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the Nov. 11, 2010 edition of the Suffolk Times. Please confirm receipt ofthis notice. Thank you and have a great day. Icoop 10/13/2010 Neville, Elizabeth Page 1 of I From: Sent: To: Subject: Neville, Elizabeth Friday, October 08, 2010 4:52 PM 'LarkandFolts@aoLcom' Meyran CEA Attachments: Printout-6255-1034-M20182.doc Mary Lou, The attached resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at their regular meeting held on October 5, 2010. You will receive a copy of the legal notice prior to the public hearing. Betty Neville Elizabeth A. Neville, RMC, CMC, MMC Southold Town Clerk PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Tel 631 765-1800 Fax 631 765-6145 10/8/2010 RESOLUTION 2010-794 ADOPTED DOC ID: 6255 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-794 WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ON OCTOBER 5, 2010: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold sets November 30~ 2010 at 9:00 AM in the Town Meetln~. Hali~ 53095 Main Road~ Southold~ New York 11971~ as the time and place for a public hearing on the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of Glenn R. Meyran~ relating to a proposed observation deck located at 175 Soundview Avenue~ Mattituck~ New York~ SCTM #1000-99-3-1, and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice of such appeal in The Suffolk Times not less than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (30) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant by first class mail. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Louisa P. Evans, Justice SECONDER: Christopher Talbot, Councilman AYES: Ruland, Orlando, Talbot, Krupski Jr., Evans, Russell MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro@town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse@ town.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~?~CEiVED MEMORANDUM 20]0 To: From: Date: RE: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk So:.~:: ;:. T~ ~! Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney September 27, 2010 Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal/Meyran, Glenn R. For your records, I am enclosing a copy of the Trustees' Minutes dated July 21, 2010, in connection with the referenced matter. This document should be incorporated into the record of the Applicant's appeal to the Town Board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. /Ik Enclosure Board of Trustees 23 July 21, 2010 TRUSTEE KING: Mean high water is ten foot seaward of the bulkhead. MR. MCGREEVEY: If we could make that part of the language then as far as the Conservation Advisory Council request because it may be language you might want to use consistently where it applies. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would rather not start that language until it's discussed with legal. And this shows mean high water ten feet below the bulkhead, so that will be the plan that will be stamped. So they'll have to abide by that. Thank you. MR. BOWMAN: Chuck Bowman, Land Use Ecological Services. I just want to agree with the Board. This is pdvate property. We are getting into all sorts of liability questions if you have people coming up over the bulkhead, walking on private property and going down. It's a real can of worms and certainly not acceptable for this particular project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay; Thank you. Jay?. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Any further comments? '(No response). I'll move to close the hearing in this matter. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll make a motion to approve this project subject to no treated lumber in the sheathing aspect of the bulkhead. So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And it has been deemed consistent under the LWRP, as part of the resolution. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Lark & Folts, Esq., on behalf of GLENN R. MEYRAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. This was an application that was considered last month. It was tabled just for review. A part of this was found consistent under the LWRP. That part of the application found consistent was the stairs, to repair and maintain the existing stairs. What was found inconsistent under the LWRP was the repair and maintain the observation deck. The Conservation Advisory Council last month supported the application with the condition the observation deck conforms with current code and the LWRP, and the stairs are constructed with enough strength to support and accommodate erosion control devices at the base of the support posts. Board of Trustees 24 July 21, 2010 Again, there was considerable conversation about this last month. And unless, correct me if I'm wrong, fellow Board members, but we didn~ have an issue with the stairs. It was the observation deck on this property that had been removed and reconstruction had started and was stopped for the applicant to come in with an application for this, and so what we had recommended to the applicant last month was consideration for expanding the top deck of the stairs to the maximum allowed by code, which is 32-square feet. And that would then enable them to have an area to sit on to observe the Sound from. So that was our recommendation. And again, this was tabled from last month. So is there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. What you stated, Mr. Bergen, is correct. It's my understanding that you were going to grant the administrative permit to maintain and repair the stairs where necessary, and then deny the permit for the application for the deck, the observation deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. That's where we got to, I believe, also, last month. And to correct, you said administrative permit. It's a full Wetland Permit. Just for the record. MR. DOCK: All dght. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So that is what we are again proposing tonight is to grant a permit for the existing stairs to the beach. Now, again, we offered the opportunity for that top landing of the stairs to be increased and you discussed that with your client. Is that an option? MR. LARK: I would just assume you deny the permit and then we'll take that further as necessary and then bifurcate it by granting the Wetlands Permit for the stairs to repair and maintenance of the stairs. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Would you like to change the description of the stairs and make the top landing 32 square feet? TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what he just asked. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's not what the description said. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct me if I'm wrong. You asked for us to deny this permit tonight and give you the opportunity to come in and re-apply. MR. LARK: I thought you were going to bifumate it. That's not my understanding. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I misunderstood. That's what we recommended and I thought you just said no, you prefer us to deny this permit to give you the opportunity to come back in. MR. LARK: No, for the deck. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So I go back to - TRUSTEE DOHERTY: He wants us to approve the stairs and deny the Board of Trustees 25 July 21, 2010 other. That's what he is agreeing with. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jill, why don't you restate your question, for clarity. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. If we move to approve the stairs, the description of the top landing is not quite 32-square feet. Do you want to change the description now of the stairs to have the top landing 32-square feet? MR. LARK: No, just what it is for present. That's what was there when the odginal permits were granted by the DEC and this Board back in -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. And we are just saying the code allows you to make it bigger, if you would like to do it at this time. MR. LARK: No, just leave it the same. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Is there anybody else who would like to comment on this application? MR. MCGREEVEY: The Conservation Advisory Council would like to have a comment from the Board as a matter of record in regard to our suggestion, a recommendation, that stairs be strengthened so the erosion control devices can be adapted to the supports. We would like something on the record. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I believe that was discussed last month, so it's already, that discussion has already been in the record in the discussion that occurred at last month's public meeting. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? Any comments from the Board on this? (No response). TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll make a motion to close the public headng. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: With regard to the application on behalf of Glenn Meyran at 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, I'll make a motion to approve the repair and maintenance for the existing stairs from the top of the bluff to the beach, and in doing so we are denying that part of the application for the repair and maintenance of the observation deck as per plans stamped May 25, 2010. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). MS. HULSE: So for the approval you are approving both the Coastal Erosion Permit and the Wetland Permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Thank you, very much. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And the denial is denied under both. But the deck you do, the top -- all in favor?. Board of Trustees 26 July 21, 2010 (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I was not sure, because we were interrupted. I wanted to make the record clear. TRUSTEE KING: MICHAEL & NANCY FOLEY request a Wetland Permit and a Coastal Erosion Permit to restore the bluff face by installing a row of rocks at the toe of the bluff and at the midpoint of the bluff. Add approximately 200 cubic yards of fill and replant bluff with native plants and grasses. Final grade shall be in line with existing adiacant slope. Install a berm along bluff top to catch excess rainwater. Located: 62675 County Road 48, Greenport. The Conservation Advisory Council resolved to support the Wetland and Coastal Erosion permit applications. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Excuse me, can you just identify where this property is located? Where on the bluff~ MS. HULSE: I'm sorry, you have you step up to the microphone and identify yourself by name. MS. NORTON: Melanie Norton, Greenport. Where on the bluff is this property located? You are giving a county road address. TRUSTEE KING: It's off 48, on the north side of 48 on the Sound. MS. NORTON: But where on the Sound. TRUSTEE KING: I'm trying to give an easy answer here. (Perusing). I'm trying to see where a landmark would be. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It looks like it's west of Moore's Lane in Greenport and east of San Simeon. Between San Simeon and Moore's Lane. MS. NORTON: Okay, thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Okay?. It was found consistent with LWRP and it was recommended the Board require a planting plan be submitted which includes species spacing and survival requirements of planted vegetation. Is there anybody here to make any comments on this application? MS. FOLEY: My name is Nancy Foley, I live at 62675 CR. 48. I have a planting list with me, if you wanted one. TRUSTEE KING: Sure, great, we'll put it inthe file. I'm just looking at the plans here. I would like to see a profile drawing of the bluff. They usually have it in most of the applications. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought we had it. TRUSTEE KING: No, that's what's on the survey. Is there a profile? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I thought in his drawing - TRUSTEE KING: We need to see - you know what I'm talking about. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, the side-view. I thought we reviewed this with Mrs. Foley in the office and said this would be fine. TRUSTEE KING: We should see something like this, recks, back down and then rocks on the beach. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we move subject to receiving. MARTIN D. FINNEGAN TOWN ATTORNEY martin.finneganCWtown.southold.ny.us JENNIFER ANDALORO ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jennifer.andaloro(~town.southold.ny.us LORI M. HULSE ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY lori.hulse(Wtown.southold.ny.us SCOTT A. RUSSELL Supervisor Town H~I Annex, 54375Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1939 Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Date: RE: MEMORANDUM To: Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk From: Lynne Krauza Secretary to the Town Attorney September 24, 2010 Coastal Erosion Hazard Appeal/Meyran, Glenn R. For your records, I am enclosing copies of the record of the Trustees' proceeding in connection with the referenced matter. These documents should be incorporated into the record of the Applicant's appeal to the Town Board. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention. ilk Enclosures Board of Trustees 15 June 16,2010 place outside the boundaries of their property. I feel we do need that survey in order to proceed further with this. Again, I have no problem with the project. MR. BOWMAN: I have no problem getting it to you. If you want to withhold or keep it open. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We can approve it subject to receiving a survey. If the survey doesn't jibe, then we don't give him his permit. If you want to wait -- MR. BOWMAN: We don't even have the DEC permit or Army Corps permit yet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: i would be more comfortable tabling it until - MS. HULSE: As long as it's dependent upon a survey that -- he can't really articulate what the survey should show dght now. So, like Dave said, it might be better just to wait. MR. BOWMAN: This Board certainly is not holding the project up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. It's for safety of the property opener as well as everyone else. MR. BOWMAN: All the other times, I have a different argument here, but we don't, so, it's not a problem. The next meeting you'll have the surveys and hopefully if you just, you won't need me here, or anyone, you can just look at them and hopefully approve it. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Jill, point of order. Do we close the heating at this point? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we should table it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: Just table the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, just make a resolution to table it. TRUSTEE BREDEMEYER: I'll take a resolution to table this matter. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number three, Lark & Folts, Esq., on behalf of GLENN R. MEYRAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. The Board did go out and looked at this. It was reviewed under the LWRP and the repair and maintenance of the existing stairs was found to be consistent under the LWRP. The repair and maintain an observation deck was inconsistent under the LWRP. And it was found inconsistent because the size of the deck is greater than what is allowed in code, and also it's recommended that the deck be relocated landward of the coastal erosion line. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition the observation deck conforms with current codes and the LWRP and the stairs are constructed with enough strength and support to accommodate erosion control devices at the bases of the support posts. As I said, the Board did go out and looked Board of Trustees 16 June 16, 2010 at this. is there anyone here to speak for this application? MR. LARK: Richard Lark, Main Road, Cutchogue, New York. I would like to start by handing up the last mailing that came in. It just came in today. I think all the others were delivered to your office. That was the last one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. MR. LARK: Okay, the application, Glenn Meyran is here tonight, he will speak to you shortly. What you have before you is to repair and maintain the observation deck and the stairs on the property. It's fairly straightfonNard, the application, and I think it's fairly self-explanatory, but a couple things I should probably point out. The stairs were originally built in 1972-1973 timeframe and having existing permits that were issued by both the DEC and the Southold Town Trustees in 1993. That was done at the same time that the retaining wall for the bulkhead was put in. But it's unclear in those permits whether the repairs mentioned, they allowed the repair and rebuilding at that time of the stairs, just focussing on the stairs here at the moment, but it was unclear whether or not those permits were ongoing. And in reseamhing the wetlands and shoreline laws as well as coastal erosion hazard area law, I believe reading the intent of it and the language of it, that the maintenance of the stairs is okay. But it felt it best in this application to include it, for at least an administrative permit, to continue to make the repairs. The photos that you have before you, although they were done digitally with the computer, it's fairly clear looking at them that they do need minor repairs throughout various, whether it be the steps or in some cases they are a little askew. So there is -- and they have been done on a continual basis up to this year. But this year, no repairs have been made on the steps per se. The observation deck, which is the other part of the application, was built in 1974-75, a year after, fight about a year after when they got a CO for their house. They had a summer house there, Mr. and Mrs. Meyron did, and that observation deck was built. And I'm told that where the footings are today is where they were originally when it was built in '74-'75. At that time, if you are aware, they didn't need any type of permit. But today to complete the repairs and the maintenance on the deck, which Mr. Meyron will speak to, we need a permit for it to remain in this area. The interesting thing is, with the exception of minor repairs that have been made throughout the year, this deck stood in this spot for 35 years, and during this time has not caused any problems as far as erosion and so on and so forth. In fact, I'm told from photographs that the Meyron's have, and Mrs. Meyron, Virginia Meyron, who is here today, that the bluff line has not really changed at all in this particular area. Now, that's not true on the easterly side of their property. But in that area, all the way over to the westerly line, it really has not changed. And the repairs, Mr. Meyron, Glenn Meyron will inform you of what he intends to do with the type of material and so on and so forth, Board of Trustees 17 June 16, 2010 so that you can prevent any type of erosion from being in that area. Now, just a few minutes to discuss some of the historical data. As I said before, the applicant's father and mother, William and Virginia Meyran, bought the property in 1960. January of 1960, to be precise, and the only thing we had up there, if any of you remember, was the firing range. That was it. And basically they used the property on the weekends. They came out and camped on the property. And it was not until 1972 when they started to build their house. And it was during the '72-'73 timeframe that they started to construct the stairs so they would have access to the bleach. And as I said, the observation deck was built a year or so later. Originally, as the Board members are aware, in that timeframe when they were doing the construction, there was very sparse vegetation on the bluff, all that area on Long Island Sound with the exception of our good friend poison ivy. There was hardly anything growing there at all. And there was no bulkhead. So the toe of the bluff constantly eroded. It was just a repetitive thing, and all they would do is lose property, repair the stairs, lose property and so on and so forth. And it was only after a series of storms in the early 90s when a large boulder, which you see in the photographs, slid down on the easterly side of their property and finally came to rest where it is today, that the DEC started to relax all their permits, whether they were going to use revetment, whether they were going to use bulkheading, whatever they were going to do, and in fact they encouraged the Meyran's, because there was other bulkheads in the area, or retaining walls in the area, and they helped them get government financing through the small business administration and they endorsed it so they could construct a retaining wall. Once that authorization, and at that time they came in to the town and got a coastal management permit, for the retaining walls, and to repair the stairway. In fact, it was interesting to note, in reading the history, Mr. Bredemeyer was President of the Board at that time when they granted those approvals. The big thing was, as soon as that thing was in, the retaining wall, and they repaired the stairs, the bottom third of the whole bluff really started to stabilize and the vegetation that they were constantly putting in started to take root and not erode. And really since that time, I would stay the bottom, good bottom third, 33% of that bluff has been stabilized. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If I could interrupt you, Mr. Lark. I appreciate the history of this property, but I would like to just kind of focus on what you are here for. So if we can discuss the issues that we have. M R. LARK: Okay, we'll get right there. The deck that was built was originally 24x8 and had an overhanging pemh, as you saw in the photographs, that was actually over the bluff line. That six or seven feet was actually over the bluff line. And when we had the spring -- the hammering that we got of the spring rains this year, that those posts that withstood there all those years Board of Trustees 18 June 16, 2010 actually became airborne and that's when Mr. Meyran decided to, really started to investigate and look at it and what he found was the entire deck had really retted out. The redwood underneath, it's all redwood footings, although he did put in, in 2000, he did put in some (:;CA. I think what he did was sister the CCA footings and attached them to the redwood, but the redwood has all given way. They all decayed. And he declared himself the deck was unsafe. And he didn't want anybody to go on it. So what he did was he made it unusable, if you would, by taking it apart. And then he started to, after he put some mats down and promotes some vegetation on where, I guess a slight, a foot or two had ereded, and then he used sona tubes to where you see there, those two tall 4x4's, they are buried and they'll be cut off, obviously. But they have been buded in sona tubes so you get good footings. Then he came threughout and did the same thing all over, but what he did is he decreased the size of the deck. He made it down to 20 feet. And the reason for it is, the decking came in 20 foot lengths. He's in that business, he'll tell you, and he could build a little bit of a cantilever landward back, so it would tilt back and also it would be stronger, it would have a strenger body to it. So that's what he did. And it was in the process of that, that somebody complained, and when the inspector came he immediately stopped work and just continued with the vegetation that he did there. He didn't do any other work. And so that's when he was, he was more surprised than anybody because he found that he needed a permit to the do that. Whereas ali the years they have been doing little repairs here, little repairs there, never getting a permit. And that's why I did the stair permit with this, because I felt it should be clear so there would be no further preblem. So that's basically what it is, is just to do the minor repairs on the stairs. They are pretty good except for certain areas which you saw in the photos. And I'll have him explain how he came to, in the diagram, to locating in this area the observation deck. Glenn? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: If we can just interrupt you for a moment. Ill let Dave explain. Go ahead, Dave. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. First off, again, kind of separating out these two structures here. With the stairs, we didn't have an issue with the stairs part of this application. MR. LARK: I explained why i did that application. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. The challenge we are facing is obviously the deck. This Board, we have the town code to work with and also the practice of this Board. And we have not appreved any structures fom/ard of the coastal -- and when I say fom/ard, I mean seaward of the coastal erosion hazard line. It's also specifically in the Town Code it says decks and platforms -- and I'm reading from 275-11(a)(6): No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet. And what we have here is a pre-existing, nonconforming structure Board of Trustees 19 June 16, 2010 that was removed and now they are applying for construction of a nonconforming structure. And this Board has a practice and a history of not approving that. So we have some options and certainly we are welcome to hear more comments on this tonight, but we have some options. One option is moving the entire deck back, landward of the coastal erosion hazard line, and in limiting in size as per code, the 32 square feet. That's all the code allows. Another option is to, in the repair of and maintenance of the stairs, to allow for a deck limited to 32 square foot in size at the top, where people could sit and essentially the function would be the same, to look out over The Sound. So those are a couple of options we thought of. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I just want to make clear, under the coastal erosion hazard code, once a structure is removed, it cannot be rebuilt. And this was removed. So it's pretty black and white in the coastal erosion hazard code, that it cannot be rebuilt. MR. LARK: Okay. Then we can get down into quibbling, which I didn't want to do. What is "removed." Because the odginal footings are still there. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's kind of like when we go out and look at a house and someone comes in and applies for a renovation of a house and we go out and find it's gone except for the foundation. And we said that's a demolition. They demolished that house. This deck has been removed. MR. LARK: So nobody would get hurt, that's why. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And I understand why. It was done for safety reasons. You even said in your presentation, the challenge that the applicant had was erosion had taken place to the point where the structure, the front portion, was unsafe. This is exactly why this Board wants all structures moved landward of the coastal erosion hazard area. So to say even quibble, I think this Board is already been out, we have looked at it, we have the code in front of us. And that's the situation. So, again, we are welcome to hear other comments that other people might have. MR. LARK: Glenn, do you want to say anything? While he's getting ready, so under the coastal zone law, we have to get a variance then, wouldn't we. That does provide for a variances in that law. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. The way the process works, correct me if I'm wrong, Lori, we would give you a denial, and then you would have to go to the Town Board. MR. LARK: As I read the law, is that right. MS. HULSE: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's the process. MR. LARK: Okay, that's an option also, then. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. MR. LARK: I discussed that with them. That's why I wanted him here tonight so he could hear what you all had to say. Go ahead, Glenn. MR. MEYRAN: Glenn Meyran, 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. I Board of Trustees 20 June 16, 2010 understand the law. We were asking for some consideration. Based on the fact that the deck, had we left the deck there then you are saying we could have maintained it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, it was not a permitted structure. MR. MEYRAN: Okay, the consideration we were asking is it was built before permits were necessary. We didn't understand that fact. The fact that it's on survey, when we went to sell the house, the real estate told us that that deck is the crown jewel of the whole property. The fact that it's on your survey means that it can be maintained and it belongs there. So all we are asking is for a little consideration. The deck that was there was not to code. This one will be to code. As Mr. Lark stated, I'm in the lumber business. I've maintained these decks and these stairs. We've done all our own work since 1960. I worked for the same lumber company for 38 years. So I know the fight things. We have been good stewards of that land and the bluff. My mother planted, at that time, the Japanese black pine, which was told by the extension services, that was good. Now they changed, they've done a 180 on that. Just like the DEC, when we were losing ail this land, they would not let us put a bulkhead in, and then they did a 180. So we are asking for some consideration. Not all the laws are black and white. This deck here will be done to code. The other one was not. These footings are secure. We put erosion mats down to control, the things you were worried about won't happen, and we are asking for that consideration. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Anybody else wish to offer comments on this application? MR. LARK: I understand the dilemma you are faced with, so I guess their best bet would be at least to try, with the Town Board, which is the procedure to try to get a variance. And then come back. What would you do, hold this in abeyance then, or just issue a denial? MS. HULSE: They would have to issue you a denial for you to have standing to go to them. MR. LARK: Okay. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Any other comments from any Board members? MR. LARK: But will it be separated so we don't have to go on the stairs? I just did that because it was unclear to me. It was a gray area. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I want to get in that direction here. MS. HULSE: Just, if I could add, Dave, that the Trustees don't have discretion to deviate from the terms of the code. The coastal erosion laws are really quite black and white and the Trustees really have very little discretion. Actually no discretion when it comes to that. Sorry. No discretion. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. And again, I just want to ask, as an option, would the applicant consider amending the stair application to include a deck on the top of the stairs that complies with code? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Extended to 32-square feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: in other words a maximum of 32-square foot. MR. LARK: I understood that, yes. Board of Trustees 21 June 16, 2010 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Just so you are clear with this, it's an existing deck and under the coastal erosion code you can expand it to 32-square feet. That's why we are letting you do it on this one but we can't let you do it on the one that is not there. Just so you are clear. MR. LARK: Did you understand, Glenn? MR. MEYRAN: Yes. MR. LARK: Do you want to respond? MR. MEYRAN: I think we should talk it over. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your other option tonight, too, is we can table this for you to discuss all your options. MR. LARK: That would be fair. MS. HULSE: It's up to you. If you want to take what you can get now with the stairs and come back and re-apply, you can do that as well. If you think you might come to a quick decision it might behoove you to just hold it over for one more meeting and add it, if you want to add it. It's definitely the path of least resistance. MR. LARK: And your next meeting is when? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: July 21. MR. LARK: Okay, and can that be done in wdting to you, that they will or they won't or just come in here on July 21. TRUSTEE BERGEN: No, what you can do is come into the office to amend your application, to refiect, on the stairs, to reflect an addition of a platform up there. Then that would be considered next month. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We would table the headng and then continue. MR. LARK: Table the hearing until then, then continue. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Right. TRUSTEE KING: They can do the stairs with an 8x4 platform now. It doesnl mean they have to build it. MS. HULSE: I think it would be better to wait until next month. MR. LARK: Just table the whole thing. From your perspective, I do understand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. If there are no other comments from the audience? MR. MCGREEVY: Is the Conservation Advisory Council recommendation for erosion control devices being consider in any construction or reconstruction of the stairs? DEC was concerned about using erosion control devices if the stairs were strong enough to be able to support these devices, so we are going to make the recommendation of stairs each time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. It is something for the applicant to consider whether they want to add erosion control. Do you understand what he's talking about with erosion control measures? MR. LARK: No. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's a tough issue. It's a tough issue. What they are referring to is putting, basically, cress-section underneath each support area to help prevent land or bluff from eroding down. But in fairness to the applicant, the DEC have Not accepted those. They have been denying those. So just in fairness to you, I want to let you know it's something that we have considered but the DEC has been denying in the past. MR. LARK: And those stairs have not moved at all, that way, Board of Trustees 22 June 16, 2010 since the bulkhead was put in down below. And they really do hug the land there. They do follow the contour of it, all the way up. As can you see in the diagram that he did. It's just mainly the treads and a few places where they've had a couple of -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: They'll have to maintain it. I understand. MR. LARK: That's it. But there has been no real movement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay, being no other comments, Ill make a motion to table the application, number three, Lark & Folts on behalf of Glenn Meyran. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. All in favor?. (ALL AYES). TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Costello Madne Contracting Corp., on behalf of HENRY & LINDA STEFFENS requests a Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit to remove 92' of existing offshore bulkhead and construct new bulkhead inplace; construct two new six-foot ratums; backfill void areas with approximately 150 cubic yards of clean trucked-in fill; revegetate area between new bulkhead and existing retaining wall with Cape Amedcan beach grass. Located: 4522 Great Peconic Bay Boulevard, Laurel. MR. COSTELLO: John Costello. TRUSTEE KING: This should just be a wetland permit, I believe. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know why it's coastal erosion. Did they apply for -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, it says -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: John, do you know why a coastal erosion application was applied for on this particular property? MR. COSTELLO: We applied for both. Wetlands and this Board. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's not in the coastal erosion hazard area. MR. COSTELLO: I know. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think we can refund you that fee for the coastal erosion. TRUSTEE KING: The LWRP finds it consistent. MS. HULSE: Actually, if you ara removing it from coastal erosion, you would have the applicant formally withdraw that and then make a motion to change this item to the wetlands permit section of the agenda. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. COSTELLO: I formally do so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Mr. Costello, you would like to remove the coastal erosion application? MR. COSTELLO: And place it in the wetlands, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: So we can just continue on. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so this would be under wetlands. So now we'll move on to wetland permits only. WETLAND PERMITS: (Continuing with number four, Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of HENRY & MNDA STEFFENS). OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY 11971 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 To: Jill Doherty, President Town of Southoid Board of Trustees From: Mark Terry, Principal Planner LWRP Coordinator LOCAL WATERFRONT REVITALIZATION PROGRAM TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM JUN 1 4 2010 Southhold Town Board of Trustees Date: June 14, 2010 Re: Proposed Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit for GLENN R. MEYRAN SCTM# 1000-99-3-1 Lark & Folts, Esq. on behalf of GLENN R. MEYP, AN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-1 The proposed repair and maintain for the existing stairs has been reviewed to Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency Review of the Town of Southold 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 CONSISTENT with the policies of the program and therefore is CONSISTENT with LWRP. The request for a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to repair and maintain an observation deck is INCONSISTENT with the below noted policies of the program and therefore is INCONSISTENT with LWRP. Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of SOuthold ecosystem 6.3 Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands. A. Comply with statutory and regulatory requirements of the Southold Town Board of Trustees laws and regulations for all Andros Patent and other lands under their jurisdiction 1. Comply with Trustee regulations and recommendations as set forth in Trustee permit conditions The proposed 160+ square foot deck located on the bluff is not a permissible action pursuant to: 275-11 Construction and operation standards. A. General. The following standards are required for all operations within the jurisdiction of the Trustees: (6) Decks and platforms. No decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs. Platforms associated with stairs may not be larger than 32 square feet. [Amended 10-11-2005 by L.L. No. 17-2005] It is recommended that to further Policy 4.1 (below) that the observation deck be relocated to landward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line as depicted on the survey dated, as last revised, April 2, 1993. 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: Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 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 prbtective 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. c. Provide sufficient lot depth to allow relocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. 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. Pursuant to Chapter 268, the Board of Trustees shall consider this recommendation in preparing its wdtten determination regarding the consistency of the proposed action. Cc: Lori Hulse, Assistant Town Attomey Town of Southold Board of Trustees Application Office Use Only ~oastal Erosion Permit Application .3~'Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit __~endment/Trens fer/Extensi~o. _ · ./~eceived Fee:$~5 I~ __~ompleted Applicetion _~Incomplete __SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination:(d.l'~ sent). ---~WRP Consistency Assessment Form ~'~ ~'~ [0 __----c'Ac Referral Sent: ~_'~l [0 · -q~ate of Inspection:~!'q ! [0 Receipt of CAC Report: __Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: ---,'l~blic Hearing Held: ~_n ! ilo f ~ Resolution: MAY 2 v 20]0 Name of Applicant Glenn R. Meyran Address 53 Morris Avenue West, Malverne, New York 11565 PhoneNumber:( ) (516) 593-1473 SuffolkCountyTaxMapNumber: 1000- 099.00-03.00-001.000 Property Location: 175 $oundview Avenue, Mattituck~ NewYork approximately 200 feet east of Lloyd's Lane on north side of Soundview Avenue (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: Lark & Folts, Esqs. (If applicabb) Address: 28785 Main Road, P.O. Box 973, Cutehogue, New York 11935 Phone: (631) 734-6807 Board of Trustees Application Land Area (in square feet): Area Zoning: R-40 GENERAL DATA 46,000~ square feet (1.15 acres) Previous use of property: Intended use of property: Covenants and Restrictions: If "Yes", please provide copy. one-family dwelling Yes x No Does this project requke a variance from the Zoning Board of Appe~s __ If"Yes", please provide copy of decision. Prior permits/approvals for sir improvements: Agency Date SEE ATTACHED PAGE FOR PRIOR PERMITS/ APPROVALS Yes X No __ No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? X No Yes If yes, provide explanation: N/A Pr~ect Description(use atmchmentsifnecessary):.0btain maintenance and repair pemits for the observation deck (originally built 1974-1975) and maintenance permit for existing stairs from top of bluff to beach (originally built 1972-1973). Attached hereto: survey of Van Tuyl & Son; sketch #1 - deck construction details; sketch #2 - details of stairway from bulkhead to top of bluff (contains two pages); and dated photographs of stairway and observation deck. BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPLICATION GENERAL DATA Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date Town of Southold 1/19/73 Building Department Town of Southold Building Department 11/17/87 Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees 6/24/93 Town of Southold Board of Town Trustees 6/25/93 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 8/16/93 Town of' Southold Building Department 7/31/09 Certificate of Occupancy one family dwelling (summer occupancy), attached hereto Certificate of Occupancy 2nd story addition (including garage and breezeway), attached hereto Coastal Erosion Management Permit - construct 106 1.f. of timber retaining wall, repair and replace stairway from beach to top Of bluff, attached hereto Authorization to construct 106 1.f. of timber retaining wall,. repair and replace stairway from beach to top of bluff, attached hereto Permit to construct 106 feet of retaining wall and repair stairway, attached hereto Certificate of Occupancy to year round one family dwelling, attached hereto Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: to repair and maintain stairs from bluff to beach on a routine basis as required and to replace and maintain wooden observation deck that became rotted and unsafe during recent Storms, Area of wetlands on lot: 0 square feet percent coverage of lot: 0 % Closest distance between nearest existing stxucture and upland edge of wetlands: 0 feet (stairs) Closest distance between~earest proposed structure ~nd upland 1 - edgeofwetlands: 10- feet (along bluff, deck) Does the project involve excavation or filling? x No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? How much material will be filled? 0 0 cubic yards cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 0 feet %r~.posed slope th~.ou~hout the area of operations: stairs generally conform to existing slope. ope to remaxn %he same. - Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: All rotted and replaced wood material will be removed from property and taken to Southold Town Landfill. Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed opemtinns (use attachments if appropriate): Board of Trustees Applic~ ~n COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes ofproposed acti~dbf: For safety purposes the rotted wood on the deck and support posts were removed and t'he ~ x ~ posts were replaced and the decking is waiting to be installed. Presently, stairs to the beach need minor repair, in the future stair treos anu supports W1AA have to ~rep~aqed on a cpB~inuou~ basis. weuanas present v~thm 100 ~et of the proposed activity?. x No Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? x No Yes If Yes, how much matedal will be excavated? N/A (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? 0 (cubic yards) Manner in Which material will be removed or deposited: Existing rotted and . and damaged wood on deck h~been removed as well as the rotted 4 x' 4 support posts and they will be taken to the Southold Town Landfill. Describe the nature land extent of the envimnm~tal impacts reasonably anticipated resulting f~om implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) None LARK & FOLTS Attorneys at Law 28785 MAIN ROAD PO BOX 973 CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 Tele. No. (631) 734-6807 Fax No. (631) 734-5651 E-mail: La rkand Folts@ aol.corn RICHARD F. LARK MARY LOU FOLTS June 14, 2010 Ms. Lauren Standish Southold Town Board of Town Trustees 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Glenn R. Meyran and Mary Jane Meyran (SCTM #1000-099.00-03.00-001.000) Dear Lauren: In connection with the above-captioned application, I am enclosing the following: Notice to Adjacent Property Owner with Proof of Mailing of Notice with attached certified mail receipts and green signature cards. 2. Affidavit of Posting. If there is anything else you need, kindly give me a call. Enclosure~ ~[ :' ~ i!J 14 2o o Very truly yours, Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (631 ) 765 - 1892 Fax (63 I) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Application of GLENN R. MEYRAN COUNTY OF SUFFOLK} STATE OF NEW YORK) 1, GLENN R. M_EYRAN New York 11565 AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING , residing at /dba 53 Morris Avenue West, Malverne, being duly sworn, depose and say: That on the29tlday of May ,2010, I personally posted the property known as 175 Soundview Avenue, Mattltuck, New York by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held Wed.~ June 16~ 2010 on or about 6:00 PM. Dated: June 12, 2010 (signature) Glenn R. Mey~l~n Sworn to before me this 12thday of June--200 2010 Notary Public NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF $OUTHOI n In the matter of applicant: JUN 1 4 Glenn R. Meyran YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: J c~ r'mm..+~,i 1000-09 ~ :~,~.;rO0-001.0~ 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of mmaees to: repair and maintain observation deck and stairs to beach area o 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located' adjacent to your property and is described as follows: -175 Soundviev Avenue, .Mattituck~ New York. 3. That the project which is subject'to Environmental Review under Chaptem 96,111 and/or 275 of the TownCode is open to public COmment on: DATE: . June 16, 2010 6:00 p.m. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees 'of the Town of Southold and does not referenca any other agency that might have to review same proposal. PROPERTY OWNERS NAME: Glenn R. Meyran · MAILING ADDRESS: 53 Morris Avenue 'I~est~ Malverne~ New York 11565 PHONE #: (516)' 593-1473 AGENT: Lark & Folts, Esqs. MAILING ADDRESS: P;o. Box 973, Cutcho§ue, I~ 11935 PHONE#: (631) 734-6807 Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS NarIle; Anne Marusevich Charles M. Cappellino Louise Cappellino George Kouvaras Elizabeth Kouvaras Glenn Ferraiuolo Address: 285 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY 11952 65 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY 11952 80 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, N~f 11952 200 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY 11952 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK BARBARA DIACHUN ,residJngat 875 School House Road, Cutchogue, New York , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 8th day of June ,20 10, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth, in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the em'rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutcho§ue, New York , that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (m~ma~k) mail. Barbara Diachun Sworn to before me this 14th Dayof June ,20 10 ! Notary Public : ,~o'rAp. y PUBLIO. 81~1~ OF ~ NO 1i~,4~417t 2UALIFIED IN 8UFFC3t,K ~ coi;iMISSION El~PI888 NOV al, APPLICATION OF ENN R. MEYRAN 1000-099.00-03.00-002.000 JUN 1 6 2010 $outhold Town Board of Trustees APPLICATION OF ' " ~.,,NN R. MEYRAN 1000-094.00-01.00-001.000 ~ (En~reement I~ciulmd) 1000-099.00-03.00-002.000 1000-100.00-01.00-001.000 USE Re~m'~ed Del~ive~ Fe Total ~a~e & Fee [~'"'"r80 .............. Soundview [~-~-~ .................................................................... Page 1 of 2 APPLICATION OF ENN R. MEYRAN 1000-100.00-0i.00-025.000 (~ (E~oraement ReCl~md) 8~t TO 0 / Glenn Ferratuol ~-~ .................................................................... [~.~.~.......~9~...~ s~.~y3~..~.~ ..................... Page 2 of 2 APPLICATION OF ENN R. MEYRAN 1000-094.00-01.00-001.000 · G0~:, :l~te'ltel~s 1~ 2~a~ 3, Nso complete · Print yo~r.l~..e anti addres~ en the reveme '-~S0 ~tmt we ~-teturn the card to you, - · Attach this card to the back of the maIlplece, or on the front If space permits. 1Anne Marusevick ~85 S o~ndv ± c~'~'~e '~attituck NY 11952 3. Se~e lype [] Carried Mai~ [] Registered [] Insured Mall [] E~prees Mall [] Retum Re~aipt fo~ Men~gendiae [] C.O.D. 4. Rest~cted Dailve~? ~a Fas) []Yes 2.~l~N~:~t I h l~ F 71}06 n%nn nnn~ 4,071 5177 PS Form 3811, Februaly 2(}04 Dome~d~ Return Race[pt 1000-099.00-03.00-002.000 1000-100.00-01.00-001.000 · Complete trams 1, 2, and 3. A~O ~orflp~te Item 4 If Rash'feted DellveP/ · Print your name and address on the mveme so that we can tatum the card to you. · Affaoh this ~ to the back of the mallpiece, or on the front If space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ~George Kouvaras ~Elizabeth Kouvaras [80 Sotmdview Avenue Mattituck NY 11952 (Printed Name) D. Is delivery address different ft~m item 17 [] Yes if YES, enter delivery addreaa below. ~ [] Registered [] Return Recaipt fbr Merchand[es J [] Insured Marl [] C.O.D. 14. Restated ~./? (E~a Fee) nyes ' · ~i, 7006 0100,,,BO04 4'075 5184 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102~ ?age 1 o~ 2 APPLICATION OF,~ENN R. MEYRAN 1000-100.00-01.00-025.000 your name and address on thp revers~ ~o t~at-v~e ~an tatum the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mallplecg, _. ~*~%h'~t~e'f~nt if space perm;ts. ~ ]~enn Ferraiuolo 00 Soundview Avenue a~ctitu~kl~f 11952 D. rs delivery address different from ite~ If YES. enter deliver, addmas below: [] Addressee [] No [] Ineured Mall r-I C.O.D. 4. 2. A~tJdeNuh'ib~[ i i!!~ i~ i[[, ~ 7[306 [~1D0 [30[34 4§71 3. Sen4ce Type r'l Registered [] Return Receipt for Memhandlse r~yes 5191 Page 2 of 2 PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION 1. APPLICANT I SPONSOR Glenn R. Meyran 3.PROJECT LOCATION: MunicJpelity Mattituck 617.20 PROJECT ID NUMBER APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNUSTED ACTIONS Only ( To be completed by A ~licant or Project Sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME Application of Glenn R. Meyran Suffolk SEQR 4. PRECISE LOCATION:S~etAddessandRoad In~resc~oes. Prominent landmass e~-~ provide ma= 175 Soundvtew Avenue, Mattituck, New York (SCTM #1000-099.00-03.00-001.000) Approximately 200 feet east of Lloyd's Lane. ,S~PROPOSED ACTION: [] New [] ~pen~lon [] Modiflna,m l a~mtlon L 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT B~EFLY: The existing 24 x 8 foot wooden deck with an observation perch which was constructed in 1974-1975 has become rotted and due to the recent northeast storms the support posts have become unstable which requiredreplacement. The replacement is a 20 x 8 foot deck with an observation perch supported by 4 x 4 CCA posts in four foot concrete Sonotubes. The existing stairs to the beach need minor repair which will be continuous. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 200 ~ sq. ft. U~ma~ly 200 meamc sq. ft. L ~Nt~.L PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WtTH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? []Yes [] No If no, desc~ibebrieity: Tow~ of Southold Board of Town Trustees per~,it needed. 9. WHAT. IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) r~lResldential r~lndustrlal []Commercial OAgricuiture'[]ParklForestlOpenSpece ]Other (desc~ibe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, Stateor Local) ]Yes ['-~lNo If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? []Yea ONo If yes. Hstagency namaa~pennitlapproval: Existing stairway has Southold T~ Boa~of Town Trustees and N.Y.S. Department of EnvirOnmental Conservation permits and authorizations. 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? [:::]Yes ' I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant ! Sponsor Name Glenn R. Meyran Date: 5/24/10 ~.j If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Lead Agency)- IA. DOF-8 ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I 'I¥1RESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 If yes. coordinate the renew procees and use the FULL EAF. I-I171"o' IL WlLLACTION RECENECOORDINATEDREV1EWA8 PROVlDEDFORUNUSTEDACTIONSIN6NYCRR, PART617.67 IfNo, anegallve C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSO(Y~TED I/WTH 11-1E FOLLOWING: (Answem may be handwrltlen, if ~) C6. Lengte~m,s~ttemLcumulative,~'o~hereifectsnotlde~i~edinCl.CS? Expla~bdeft~. NO O. ~ THE PRGECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTIC~ 'I'HAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A B'*MRON~ENTAL Na, F_A (CEA)? (if yes, exXOn bder, F. . I-1Y- IZ]"0 I E. 18 ~;~_~ OR IS 1HERE UKELY TO BF~ CONI'ROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIROf:~_"~%'TAL IMPACTS? If },es · PART Ig. ~a=, r'=rm"dA'11ON OF $1GNIRCAN(~ (To be completed by Agency) II~TRUCtI10N~; F~reachadversee~ectiden~i~edabeve~determinewhetherRi~ub~tantiaL~arge~ni~.tant~the~n~ Ead~ efl~t should be assessed in connection wllh its (a) se~ng (Le. urban or rural); (b) probability of occuntng; (C) dura~e; (d) ~ (e) geograpl~s~oe;and (f) magnitude. If -nece~---'-~,add at~achmentsorre~ee, ce~rppo~ matedab. Er~um~hatexplanatkma co~aln determlnatkm. · . ~' ar~n,~a verse elwlr~lmental ~nkoam AND prelh~de, o~ at~ aa _lle~,~L~____,y, the ~ suppolllng ..Beard of Trustees Name of Lead Agency Jill M. Doherty P~t or Type Name of RespoNsible Officer in Lead Agency President Title of Responsible Officer Board of Trustees Appli~tion County of Suffolk State of New York GLENN R. MEYRAN BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT ~ IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BF.I.1EF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES~ THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTRRS HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND AI.I. DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING · ~UNDEK ORBY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPI.F~TING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(~) OR REPRESENTATIVES(~), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE 'PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. SWORN TO BEFORE ME' THIS Glenn R. Meyran 24th DAY OF May Sigmature ,20 ~o No~y Public APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics nrohib~ c~nfl;~,~ of inter~t on the tort of town this form is to movide infor/nntton which can alert lbo town of~lMe en~fl;~ oftntm~t and allow it to ~ wl-..~c:;~ action i.~ necess~v to avoid san~. YOURNAME: Meyr~n~ Glenn R. (Last nnme, flint nnme, ~niddle inltinl, unless you ~o applying ~n the name of someone else or ~ ~i~y, such ~z person's or coml~,/'s name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Chock nil flint apply.) Variance Change of Zone Approval of plat Exemption from plat or official map Of'Other", name tho nctivity.) TnmteeBuilding C. ozs~ Erosion Do you pen~onally (or through ymn' company, q:ouso, sibling, parent, or child) havo a relationship with nny officer or employee of the Town of ~outhold? "Relationship" includes by blobd, marrin~ or ~ iht:rest "Business interest~ menns n business, including a pam~rship, in which the town officer or employee has oven ~ partinl ownership of (o~'~.mploymont by) a corporation in which the town officer or employoe owns more tlum 5% of tho slu~. YES NO X Ify0u answer~l "YES", complete thc balan~: of this form and da~ and sign where indicated. Name of perSOn employed by the Town of Southold Title br position of that person Describe the relal~onsh~p between yourself(the applic~at/ag0nt/repm~ntative) and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, ct child is (~ ali'that apply): __.A) tho oymer ofgm~'than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the (when the applicant is a eoqmration); : · B) the legal or beneficial owner, of any interest in a non-coqxm~ entity (when th~ applicant isnot a corporation); . iC') an office~, di~:tor, partner, o~ employee of the applicant; or · __D) the actual applicant: DE~iPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Form TS I Subm~edlhis24th dayof .Hay 21~ 2010 Signature ~_~_.~, ~ ~~, ~ntN~e Glenn R. Meyran~ S~ature Prat N~e LARK & FOLTS Attorneys at Law 28785 MAIN ROAD PO BOX 973 CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 Tele. No~ (631) 734-6807 Fax No. (631) 734-5651 E-maih LarkandFolts~aoLcom RICHARD F. LARK MARY LOU FOLTS May 25, 2010 Southold Town Board of Town Trustees 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of Glenn R. Meyran SCTM #1000-099-.00-03.00-001.000 Gentlemen: In connection with the above-captioned matter, I am enclosing the following in triplicate: 1. Board of Trustees Application with attached sketches and photos. 2. Authorization. 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form. 4. LWR? Consistency Assessment Form. 5. Applicant Transactional Disclosure Form. As previously stated in my letter to you dated May 14, 2010 my client's mother, Virginia Meyran, previously gave the Trustees $500.00. If possible, I would like to have notice when the Trustees will visit the property so I can arrange to be there or have someone there to explain and answer questions. If you need any other information, do not hesitate to contact me. Kindly let me know the date and time of the hearing as soon as it is scheduled. Very truly yours, RFL/bd Enclosures LARK & FOLTS Attorneys at Law 28755 ~ ROAD PO BOX 973 CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935 Tele. No. (631) 734-6807 Fax No. (63T) 734-565! E-mail: LarkandFolts~aol.com RICHARD F. LARK MARY LOU FOLTS Ms. Lauren Standish Southold Town Board of Town Trustees 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 May 14, 2010 RE: Glenn R. Meyran and Mary Jane Meyran (SCTM #1000-099.00-03.00-001.000)' Dear Lauren: Fursuant to my conversation with you today, be advised I am r~presenting the owners, Glenn R. Meyran and Mary Jane Meyran. They have authorized me to withdraw or to have held in abeyance the current application before you. Mr. & Mrs. Meyran have instructed me to file a new wetlands and coastal erosion application which I am in the process of preparing. It is my understanding Mr. Meyran's mother, Virginia Meyran, gave the Trustees $500.00. You can hold that amount in abeyance until this matter can be straightened out. Very truly yours, Richard F. Lark RFL/bd F]:LE NOTES (For Office Use Only) bATE & 'rN'rT]:AL5 ~oo/too~] Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Brederncyer Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone (63 I) 765-1892 ' Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ Office Use Only  astal Erosion Permit Application etland Permit Application Administrative Permit __ Amendment/Transfer/Extension l/r/Received Application:~.~JZ~ ~ Received Fee:$ -,~00 ' ' ~ ,...'~Completed Application~3J/:O~ Incomplete SEQRA Classification: Type I Type II Unlisted Coordination:(date sent). ~L'WRP Consistency Assessment Form .,.,CAC Referral Sent: · ,~J~te oflnspection: ,~l~--[lO' Receipt ofCAC Rel~t: Lead Agency Determination:__ Technical Review: .~l~blic Hearing Held: Resolution: Name of Applicant Address Phone Number:( ) Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 9?-3 '_/ Property Location: 1')3" $00eldV~e~j (provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: b) ]~ (If applicable) Address: Phone: F rd of Trustees Applicatio Land Area (in square feet): Area Zoning: . R ff-.,q Id Previous use of property:_ Intended use of property:. Covenants and Restrictions: If "Yes", please provide copy. GENERAL DATA Yes Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspen~ by a governmental agency? Has v No Yes If ye% provide explanation: Project Description (use attachments if necessary): P rd of Trustees Applicatio: WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: Area of wetlands on lot: square feet Percent coverage of lot: '~ d ~ % Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: / c~.~-- feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of Wetlands: ~0 feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? )~ No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? How much material will be filled? n2/.A cubic yards / Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: cubicyards Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: feet Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by mason of su?h proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): ~ rd of Trustees Applicatio; COASTAL EROSION APPLICATION DATA Purposes ofproposed activity: ~©dS~'~f~uo~'~^/ o~ Are wetlands present within 1 O0 feet of the proposed activity?. No ~( Yes Does the project involve excavation or filling? ~ No Yes If Yes, how much material will be excavated.9 ~ (cubic yards) How much material will be filled? (0 .(cubic yards) v Manner in Which material will be removed or deposited: ]Y/~,4 Describe the nature and extent of the environmental impacts reasonably anticipated resulting from implementation of the project as proposed. (Use attachments if necessary) IPROJECT ID NUMBER PARTI-PROJECTINFORMATION ;1,APPLtCANT/SPONSOR 617.20 APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 2. PROJECT NAME SEQR 3,PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map I"~S" ~ed~d¥1e[d ~a/E.. I~.lhl'uc~:::,l~l.'~'-Ile~-"'~ 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: [] New F~ Expansion ~ Modificationlalterstion 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially acres Ultimately acres 8.~POSED ACTION COMPLY VVITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? IV~ Yes [] No If no. desc~be b~ieify: 9. Wr~. IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Chooseas many as apply.) L.~ResidenUal []Industrial []Commercial [~Agricuiturs []ParklForest/OpenSpace ]Other (describe) : 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal,.~i~te or Local) ]Yes L.~rNo If yes, Wist agency name and permit / approval; 11. DOES ANY~ AScBECTIf[~o OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? yes. list agency name and permit I approval: 12. AS A RESUL/T OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name Date: w'/' L/ If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment PART II -: IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~1'o be completed by Ee~ A~enc~ · A. ~d~-~ A~ ~-rOi4 ~--A.v,.,c.t:~ At, IY TYPE .I T14RESFK)LD IN 6 NYC~ PART 617.47 ff yes, coordlnaM Itle re',dew pfoce~ and use the FULL EAF. r-I,- 1'71.,, B. WLLAGTIO~ f'~,;~VECOORDINATED REVtEWA$ PROVIDED FORUNtJST~. ACTiON$1N6 NYCRR, PART 617.67. ifNo, s ne0~' Town of Southold / LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 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. 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 Waterfxont Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes" or "no", then the proposed action will affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus~ each answer must be explained in detail~ listing both supporting and non- suooorting facts. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP 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 Southold ' s website (southoldtown.nortlffork.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 scm# PROJeCt The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): TownBoard ~ Planning Board ~-] BufldingDept. ~ Board ofTrustees Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate'response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital constm~ion, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Location of action: Site acreage: Present land use: Present zoning classification: If an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Nameofapplicant: C/-~ l~l~ (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) (d) Application number, if any:. Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? oO' Yes If yes, which state or federal agency? ~ //~, C. Evaluate the project to the following policies by analyzing how the project will further support or not support the policies. Provide all proposed Best Management Practices that will further each policy.. Incomplete answers will require that the form be returned for completion. DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy I. 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 LWRP Section IH - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes ~-] No ~N0t Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - P/olieies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria Yes [] No ~X~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria [] Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES POlicy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section iii -Policies Pages 8 through~16 for evaluation criteria ~-] Yes [~ No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in .the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section Ill - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria Yes No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessavy Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Apph~,ble Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. [] Yes ~-~ NO1-~-1 ~[:~ 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 Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria' ~ ~ YeJ~ No '~NotApplicable 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. [-] Yes ~ No [~q Not Applicable Attach additional sheeta ifnecessaD, Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes ~ No ~ Not Applicable Al~ach additional sheeta if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Yes No Not Applicahle Attach additional shee~ if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section HI - Poliei,es; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. ~ Yes [] No ~ Not Applicable PREPARED BY TITLE ~oard of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT lIE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH.IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING .UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE 'PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS Signature ,20 Notary Public FLIBLIG, State No. :30-481a~0 trd of Trustees Applicatic AbT~ORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) (print owner of property) residing at (mailing address) do hereby authorize (Agent) to apply for permit(s) from the SOuthold Board of Town Trustees on my behalf. (Owner's signature) 8 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Soothold's Code of Ethias orohibito conflicts of interest on thc oart of town Officers and emnlovanz. The ouroose of this form is to movlde information which can alert the town ofnossible conflicts of inter~ and allow it to take whatever action t a oid san~. YOURNAME: ff~ev/'an. 8/enn. ~ (L,~t n~¢, fir~ n~ae, ~diddl¢ initial, ~l~,s )'on an~ applyi~ ia the n~ae of ~or~onc ¢1~ or oti~r catty, ~uch ~ · ceml~W. If an, iu(licato~ ~h~ o~er person'~ or cemp~ay'~ NA~E 0P APPLICATION: (Ch~k ~11 ~ apply.) Tax g~iovance Building Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption f~m plat or official map Planning Other (lf "Other", name the activity.) Do you personally (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent; or child) have a ~lationship ss4th any officer or employee of the Town of Soothold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Busioes~ interest'~ means a business, including a parmemhip, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (o~' employment by) a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO ~ ' lfyou answered "YES", complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of porson employed by thc Town of Southold Title Or position of that person Descrihe the relationship betwocn yourseif (the applicanl/ag~nt/~prasentative) and the town officer or employee. Either chock the appropriate line A) through D) and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, o~ ~hild is (check all tlmt apply): __A) the owner of greater than 5% of thc shares of thc corporate atock of the applic0a~ (wheh the applicant is a corporation); B) thc legal or beneficial ownO' of any intereat in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, partner, or cmpioyce of the applicant; Or __.D) thc actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Form TS I SubmRted this Signature Print Name $outhnlU Town '~ : ....... A~PPROYE'D-BY .......... _____B_O. ARD-QF-TR.U.STE ES ........... ..... '"?OWN-OF-SOUTHOLD ' ' Z, Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 July 21, 2010 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Richard F. Lark, Esq. Lark & Folts, Esqs. 28785 Main Rd. P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: GLENN R. MEYRAN 175 SOUNDVlEW AVE., MATTITUCK SCTM#99-3-1 Dear Mr. Lark: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on Wed., July 21,2010 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Richard F. Lark, Esq. applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the $outhold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance, and Chapter 111 Coastal Erosion Management, applications dated May 25, 2010, and, WHEREAS, said applications were referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation that the applications be found Consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program policy standards, and, WHEREAS, Public Headngs were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said applications on June 16, 2010 and July 21, 2010, 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 structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 275 and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, and, 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, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees has found the applications to be Consistent with the Local Watefiront Revitalization Program, and, BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees APPROVES the applications of GLENN R. MEYRAN for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach with an attached 4'X 6' platform at the top of the bluff, as depicted on the plan stamped approved on August 5, 2010. 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.) Fees: None Very trulyyours, Jill ~1. Doherty, President BoaYd of Trustees JMD/Ims Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COASTAL EROSION MANAGEMENT PERMIT Permit #7355C Date: July 21, 2010 SCTIvIg99-3-1 Name of Applicant/Agent: Richard F. Lark, Esq. Name of Permittee: Glenn R. Meyran Address of Permittee: 175 Soundview Ave., Mattituck Property Lecated: 175 Soundview Ave., Mattituck DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Existing stairs from the top of bluff to beach with an attached 4'X 6' platform at the top of the bluff. CONDITIONS: N/A INSPECTIONS: None The Coastal EroSion Management Permit allOws for the activities as indicated on the plan stamped approved on August 5, 2010. JMD:lms Jill M. Doherty, President James F. King, Vice-President Dave Bergen Bob Ghosio, Jr. John Bredemeyer Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 · Telephone (631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 July 21, 2010 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Richard F. Lark, Esq. Lark & Folts, Esqs. 28785 Main Rd. P.O. Box 973 Cutchogue, NY 11935 RE: GLENN R. MEYRAN 175 SOUNDVIEW AVE., MATTITUCK SCTMt~J9-3-1 Dear Mr. Lark: The Board of Town Trustees took the following action dudng its regular meeting held on Wed., July 21,2010 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Richard F. Lark, Esq. on behalf of GLENN R. MEYRAN applied to the $outhold Town Trustees for permits under the provisions of Chapter 275 of the $outhold Town Code, the Wetland Ordinance, and Chapter 111 of the Southold Town Code, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, applications dated May 25, 2010, and, WHEREAS, said applications were referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, the LWRP Coordinator recommended that the proposed applications be found Inconsistent with the LWRP, and specifically Inconsistent with the following coastal policies: Policy 4.1 -Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards, Policy 6- Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystem, and Policy 6.3 - Protect and restore tidal and freshwater wetlands, and, WHEREAS, Public Headngs were held by the Town Trustees with respect to said applications on June 16, 2010 and July 21, 2010, 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 observation deck, as applied for, does not comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 275-11 (A) (6) of the Southold Town Code, and Chapter 111-14 (A) of the Southold Town Code, in that no decks or platforms shall be permitted on or near bluffs, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the observation deck, as applied for, will have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, and, NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, for the foregoing reasons, and based upon the application's failure to meet the standards contained in Chapters 111 and 275 of the Town Code, that the Board of Trustees deems the proposed project to be Inconsistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program pursuant to Chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town Code, based on size and location of the proposed observation deck, and, BE IT FUTHER, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DENIES the applications of GLENN R. MEYRAN to repair and maintain on observation deck, as applied for. This is not a determination from any other agency. Very truly yours, nt, B s JMD/Ims Peter Young, Chairman Lauren Standish, Secretary Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd. P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Telephone {631) 765-1892 Fax (631) 765-6641 Conservation Advisory Council Town of Southold At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Wed., June 9, 2010, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Doug Hardy, seconded by Peter Young, it was RESOLVED to SI~PPORT the Wetland Permit & Coastal Erosion Permit applications of GLENN R. MEYRAN to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#99-3-1 Inspected by: Peter Young, Doug Hardy The CAC Supports the applications with the Condition the Observation deck conforms with the current codes and LWRP and the stairs are constructed with enough strength and support to accommodate erosion control devices at the base of the support posts. Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carded Jill M, Doherty, President lames F. King, Vice-Presid~nt Dave B~rgen Bob Ghosio. Jr P.O. BOx 1179 Telephon~ (631) 765-1892 Fax (6311 765.6641 Southold Town Board of Trustees Field InspeCtion/Worksession Report Date/Time: dvlJ GLENN R. MEYRAN requests a Wetland Permit and Coastal Erosion Permit - to repair and maintain an observation deck and for the existing stairs from the top of bluff to the beach. Located: 175 Soundview Ave., Matfituck. SCTM#99-3-1 Type of area to be impacted: j Saltwater Wetland Freshwater Wetland --'"Sound Bay Distance of proposed work to edge of wetland P ~:t~of Town Code proposed work falls under: .~LChapt,275 Chapt. 111 other Type of Application: '~Wetland /~C'~oastal ErosiOn __Administrative__Emergency Pre-Submission Amendment Violation Modifications: Conditions: B.Ghosio, __ D. Dzenkowski other Form filled out in the field by Mailed/Faxed to: Date: APPLICATION OF GLENN R. MEYRAN Family and friends relaxing on observation deck (summer 1994) Joan Meyran's wedding on observation deck (May 22, 1999) APPLICATION OF GLENN R. MEYRAN William Meyran and Virginia Meyran on observation deck (summer 1991) Virginia Meyran on deck (summer 1991) FOP, N NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Buildlng Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NO: Z-33868 Z tc: ,07/ 1/o. THIS C~,,~T'IF,~q ~hmt'~h, bU/18~ng HEATING SYSTEM Lo~a~io~of Pro'~ert. y: 175'SOUNDVIEWAVE MATTITUCK (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) (HAMLET) C°untyTaxMa~No. 473889 ~e~ti~ 99 Block 3 Lot 1 ~divisi~ Fil~ap~o. Lotto. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated O--U'LY 157 2009 ~'="t tow ! l/Ch BU~]Wi~ Per, lit No. 34870-Z dated JULY 157 2009 was' issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is "AS BUILT" HEATING SYSTEM TO CONVERT SEASONAL DW~T.LTNG TO Y~AR ROUND ONE FAMILY DWELLING AS AppT.T~ FOR. The certificate is issued to VIRGINIA S MEFRAN (OWNER) of ~he aforesaid building. UUF~I~COI~F~YI~P~OPm~ALT~APP~OVAL N/A NO. 10715 (~TIPICATIO~DA-&-~u; N/A o7/2 /o Rev. 1/81 FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Town Clerk's Office Somhold, N. Y. Certificnte Of Occupancy confor~ subst~fiaBy ~ ~e Application for Build~g ]Permit heretofore filed in this office dated ..... ~e...~ ....... , 19 ~ p~uant ~ which Building Pe~it No..~11 ~. dated ........ ~e~...~1 .... , 19~., was issued, ~d conforms to all of ~e r~u~e- men~ of ~e applicable pro~sio~ of the law. The occupancy for which ~ certificate (owner, lessee or tenant) of the afores~d b~lding. Suffolk Co~ty Dep~ment of He~th Approv~ .~...~...~7~...bY. ~ .7~la UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE No.. ~.1.7829.... ~ .3,. J.972 ........................ HOUSE NUMBER...]~. ..... Street .... ~. ~- AV~ ............................ Building Inspector FOP~ NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: Z-16408 Date: 11/17/87 'hms ~TI~]]~S ~t ~he ]~ld~-g ADDIITONS I~.atio~ of P~uT~.rty: 175 SOUNDVIEW AV~ (HOUSE NO.) (STREET) (HAMLET) (k~ult~ax~l~No. 473889 ~ti~ 99 · Block 3 ~ 1 MATTITUCK conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office date~ ~IU~Y 9f 1986 ~ar~,~nt to ~F~c~ Buil~-g Per~it No. 15138-Z ~ated JULY 25, 1986 was issued, and conforms to allof the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is 2ND STORY ADDITION AS APPLIED FOR. (8/4/9f CORRECTED TO INCLUDE GARAGE AND BREEZEWAY ADDITION. TO DWELLING.) T~ certificate ia issue~ to VIRGINIA S MEYRAN (OWNER) of the aforesaid building. PI~]~}EP.~ ~IFIC~tTI0~ DAt.'am 11/03/87 N/A N 788162 01/13/87 EAST END PLUMBING Rev. 1/81 ' Hemy P. Smith · Jolm B. 'lh~ll '~l~pho~e (~16) 76~-1892 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPERVISOR SCDTT L HARRIS P.O. Box i179 Souti~ld, New York 11971 COASTAL E~OSION MANAGKM~qT PEP~IT Permit NumBer: 99-3-1 Name of Applicant/A~ent: Name of Permittee: Virginia N~Fran Address Of Permittee: 175 Soundview Avenue, ~attituck Property Located: same DESCRIPTIC~ OF ACTIVITY: to construct 106 1.f. of timber retaJn4-g wall plus 20' return on w/s. the e/e wall will connect to adjacent hulkhAad. Approx. 3?5 c.¥.. of 'eleau sa~ will ~e trucked in Via ~ail/e Beach Road to west. A 3: wide sta/~waF frc~ west 'of bluff to ~each will be repaired/replaced as appropriate. Date of permit is'sUa~Ce: Ju~e 24, 1993' This permit is valid for a ~eriod of two .years frc~ the date of tssuanee. SPECIAL CC~qDITIONS: NA Bluff restoration through a.re-vegeta~/on agreement is' attached hereto a~d 'is a necessary special ~on of ~ ~t. NA A reloca2ion a~nt is atica. ~r~o. ~ ~ a necess~ s~cial co~on of ~h.~ s ~t. NA' A ~n~e ~t is at~c~ he~ ~. is a n~ess~. ~1 co~on of ~s ~t. John bi. ~redemeFer, III President, Board of Trustees 'BOard'Of oUthold' To n Tru tee SOUTHOLD, NEW.YORK ISSUED.TO; .. Viz-~.-,,i.~ M'.e.L~-.a~ ' ...... · - ........ ~. .............. . -.-.-~.-...] ................... ~.. ......................................... Authoriza ian · the axere ~ New Yed~ 1~3. a.d C:beld~r 404 eF ~e Law~ ee tim. Stale. e~ New' Yerk. '19S2; cad ~he So,timid Tmon (:l~li~aeee ~a- ~m.a "e~eut~ ~ mE etAONe OF ~U~ IN ~D ~ TO~ WA~ ~D'~B~ ~ a~ ~ R~MOVAL ~ S~D, G~ OR 0~ MA~ 19..._~.: a,d i, mn~d~afl~ ~ ~ mm ~ $....~.~0. ...... ~id by ....... L.~.~a.~a_ a~ .~eh~ o~ V. M~ .. ' ~ · ....................... ~ .............. L... N, y. and ~ ~ ~ and ~difl~ ~d on ~ ~ ~, . ~ ~ ~uo ~.z. O~ ~b~'r~tni~g ~ pl~.~O~ ~ on w/s. the els w~ ~ co~ect ~ ~jac~t. b.)~h~d. App--. ~ ~st of b~f ~. ~e~ch :~ be r~e~/r~l~ed 0~,/y-0:$9 FAX 6312~-~$135 EN-CO~ISULTANT$, IN¢ ~oo~ I ~ ~ ~ "- , , ~ ~ ~/~,-o / ~ ~EF~'z~ ~ , : , ~tfffo. t{mfl 0 ~ticLe 27, TitLe T; ~l ~f 0 Artiole 15. TitLe 15: ~ter ~}id ~te 0 Article 15, Title 15: Viler ~ ArtioLe 19~ Air Poit~im h~ ~te 0 Article ~, ~ ~lcim 1S. Title 15i Lq ~ ArtfoLe ~. Title 27{ N{~ L~ ~t ~ Article 15. Till, Z~i Mild ~ ~tlcie ~f F~m~ ~i~ _Er~C~r~uLtmt,, 1~9 North ~ lid., IIAWE ANO ~ ~{r PIIOdECT/FACILITY I~rm ProperS, 1~ Ikx~vlew Argue LOCATION O~ PROaEGT/FAIILITY IMttituck ~UNTY Llflll filled {M~d MT{'N COONllINATE{ Cm~truet IM feet of retaining u~il ufth ;~O foot return, bockfiil. #itl 3~ cudmfc ylrd~ of Oleeh gpla{~ ~. ~ ~lr D~vid OeRi~er J Bide_ ~ ~ ..... ~ ~- '- z.~ .~ ' - { DATE ._ ~~ ~,~ I A~t ~, ~ ] ~' ~ - . ~ge I ~ 5 ],~: za/~uu~ lu: 59FAX $312~ m$135 EN-CONSULT&NTS, j~ ~ ~ ~oo4 I ~ ~ITI~ e or f~ll,ty, {~l~i . *~ti~ at retie ~rs *~ rel~t r~rds, ~s ~'~t t~ ~ inte~als a · J to tati~'~'~~ ts.~lyi~with ~his-' "~ ~r~tl t~ ~te~i~ ~ Ot ~his ~t ,Z_~~ ~,~ m ~ ~.~ ----~r~ t~ pro~ I _ _ .,~tim~ t~ ~. ~la.I Z. ~r~t r~s t~ rl~t to~i , sus · a ..... ~- '* ~ or a viola i --. or of t of: ' ~, .~ ,a r~, : ~ ~ ~rti~t r~Ula l ~'~'~ ~terially c~ a{~ t~L-~'. ~J~le I~ or/ ~t ~ ~. l ~~ fo~, f~ o · ' ~ t. ~ Il · * a) 1~ ~m ~fore ~X~~,,.~t~ at I~t: E ~ a[,~ or ~e~ts for ~ate -~ ~ oelore ~lratim of all ot~r ~lt t~. J 5. ~1~ ~r~sly prwi~ for'~ t~ ~ar~t ~t ~ify~ $~r~ Or rescJ~ ..... ~ ..... ' ~ of t~is remit t~ ~r~t or of t aF u,w~ or ~e~lMtl~ p:r~l~l is or~r or ~te~Mtl~. t ~ or r~!r~ts ~ta~ In ~r ~1 ~l {~ti~ of ~tte: prul~T. ,r ~ ~orlpti~ r~ultl~ fr~ thi is I~ermi. t does not convey to the Pe~,ittee any right to trespass t 7. i~ands or interfere with the riparian rl-~qts of ...... upon he pem~tted V~rk nor does it -,,.~--,-- -~i ,---. uT_ne_rs jn omer .to perform the interest in reel or personal''''~'''''~ u.~ -q~m~nt' ct any rights, title, or the permit, property held or vested in a person not a perty to 8. The permjttee is respe~.Sible for obtain{~.3 any other Permits, approvals, lands eese'mnts and rlghts-of-vmy that rmy be required for this project. 2of 5 9 Tiaa! if fVluce opera ;~nS by the State of New York re<au.~e an wate~ or ~ fl~s or endange~ {he ~alth, sa~e~ or R~lfare · elo~ without ex~n~e to the S~ate, a~ W. u~n the ~iratJon repletion ~ thl~ pe~mtt, the structure, fill. e~cevaU~ or othe~ m~ificatlon of ~ watercourse he.by aut~dzed shall n0: be com. ofet~, the ~r~. ~hall[ wit~ut e):pense to t~ S~te. and to ~pt a~ In such ti~ a~ mann~ as ~ ~a~nt ~ Envito~ental Cons~a~ may ~u h~. mm~e all or any ~ ~ ~ uncomple~ and.fl~ ca.city o~ the wa~rc~. No claim ~hall he made a~l~l 10 That the State of New Y~ ~ll in no ca~e be liable for any damage or I~u~ ~ ~ t~u~ ~ wo~ ~rein aue~rlzc~ ~kh may ~ caus~ by Or mSuk from ~ture O~ratlom u~e~aken by ~a State fo~ the con--etlon or imBt~e~t ~ nevi~at~n, or ~Or ~her pu~. ant 11 Ctantin~ of thll ~lt ~s not ~lieve the a~licant of th~ res~nsL bllity of obtaining a~ 8t~r ~is~i~, con~e~t or aflo~al ~ U.S. Armv Co~s ~ Engin~. U.S, Co~t Guam. N~ ~ork Oflice o~ Ge~ral S~ic~ or I~al so~m~nt which may ~ ~ulr~ 12 All ~sa~ amCauttons ~11 ~ taken to oreclude con~mlnaUon ct any weHa~ or watt.ay ~ suspe~ed sol~. sediments. ioJv~t$, I~rlcants, ~oxy coatings. 0alnts. concrete, leacha~ ct any 07,~3/2009 10: 59 FAX 8312~'t$136 EN-CONSULTA.TrS, INCl ~ 005 ADDITIONAL ~ENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICt/S 15 [TiOe SL 24, 2~ ~ a~ ~ NYCRR pa~t~ (, ) ~mject. ' 13 Any matatial dredlled In the prosecution of the work herein permitted :;hall be removed evenry, without leavi~ large refu~ piles. Kd~-.es across :he bed of a waterWay or floodplain or deep holes that may have tendency [o cause damase te navigable channels or to the banks of 14. 'fhe~'e sha~l be no unreasonable interfe~ence with navi&afio~ by the work ~ereln autht~ized. 15. t upo.n the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby authorized has not been completed, the :o the 5tats, and te such extent and in such tlme and mamler as the :)eDartment of E nVtloemental Con~rvation may require, remove slier my portion of the uncompleted structure ~r fill and res[Ore the site :o its former condition, No claim shall be made a~alnst the State ol ,new York on account of any such ~,movaf or alteration. 16 f granted under & NYCRR Pa~t 608, the NYS Oeparb~ent of I:nvWon- :'nental ConservatiOn hereby cenlfJe~ that the subj.*et plolect will riot :ontraveee effluent limitations or other limitations or t~tanda rds under 5ectiom 301. 302,.10.1, ~ and 30~ o~ the Clean Water ACt at 1977 iPL 95.217) p~ovlded that all of the condit nol listed horein ate met. 17..RII activities authorized by thi~ pe~mtf mu~t be in st¢ict confo~mam:e with the approved plans submitted by a. applicant or his aKe-t as pan =f the pe~mlt application, Such apt)loved pian~ were prel~ared by ~]~ C0LqOZTZ0a ! ~ SEL0~ SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1, . .Prio~ to commencement :o~ a~y regulated a~Civit the appl~Lcant shell submit t~ -~ ........ , .... Y, ' -- - · - :~- ~e~arcanen~ s o~vxsxon[ of Regulal:o~y a~£azrs 3. copies of a new.~ded plan and orOss,se~io ~[~a} ~hgwin~. ~e re~ired, 1000 lb. ~n4m~,- ..___ n for . ~za=er t~rlc a~ong ~e en:[re bulkhead fa~--' a.~ne a~r ~ 2. The applioah: shall s~ure all applicable Permits n authorization and/or ~e~a~ss~--~ ~, ...... · ..... ' unicipal .,.~,-, a.&~.m pra.v,ar.e .LezlGo'bm.e~ nQoeseal-~ 3. ~e o~at~on or storage of cons~on ~i~t s~ll ~ confln~ to wi~n ~e pro]sci work sl~ and/or land~ of ~e spr~ng high wet~ l~ne. 4. Bel:weell October 15, 1993, a~d April 15, 1994, the applicant shell replant the eroded bluff face with Ca ·Amer ~Fass on 12# centers. P ican Beach or ~ . There shall 'be no disturbance to the vegetation her~n~.ograpny seaward of the crest of the bluff unless authorized 5. There shall be n_o discharge of runoff, d~rectl.¥ or lnd~Lrs~clY, on the race of the bluff or beach. 6. Ail fill shall consist of "oleaa~ gravel~ stone, s.and or soil (not asphalt, slag, concrete, t'lyash, or other demolit.~on debris). There shall be no tel~pora~y storage of the f~11 1-4738-0079~/0000 I-0 Page _ 3 of _~ ~oo$ 0~/13/2009 11:00 FAT 631;~836136 ' '.~.ere shall be nc mining, exca~Ltton o~redg/ng cf t he beach ~r a sOurce of sand or stone. ** 8. Equi~ment operation below appar~mt highwater ia strictly forbidden, ' 9. All bulkheads shall be completed prior tO the placement of a~y fill ~aterial landwardof such e~ttucturee. 10. All repairs to existing struct=.es shall be confined to replacement of exist/rig struotural elements withno change n design, dimension, or materials tmless specifically aUthorised herein. supplementary special Conditions (A) thru (F) attached. 1-4738-00794/0000 I-0 ,,I 4 al5 0~/13/~00~ 11:00 FAI ~12~q-~61~ EN-CON'SULTA~!~TS,INC. ~007 ~e~hom~ (51G) ~4-036S. a~ ~e ad~se on ~ge one ~ ls~ae, ~ ~t~ee shall :su~ for an~val b- the ~ ....... ~ =~-~* ~ m&~ C~gee a~rov~ f~ ~he ~ivis~n of ~d Utilization, O~ce o~ ~ Se~oe~, ~= Bu$ld~, ~p~ $~a~o Plasa, ~F, ~ 12242 (Sl6) 47~-2195, which ~ ~ ~i~d ~o~ ~ encroa~n~ ~fl S~ac~ la~s ~de~atec. 07/13/2009 11:01 FAI 6312~61,36 F-~-CONSULT~'~TS,INC. [~009 IQew York State Department of Environm,entfil Conservation · Building 40--SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11'/'9(~-2356 Former Permit ~ (if any): Thomas C. Jixtlng Permit No. & Location; · ~ Your recent request ~o ex, end the above permit has been reviewed.: pursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 621. The expiration date is extended ,-~ Your recent request to modify the above permit has been pursuant to 6NYCRR, Part 521. !I~ has been ~etermined t~at the proposed' mod}~icatlon~ will not subst~ntiall~ change the sCoge o~ the permitted ac~xons or the existing permlt~cond~tions. Therefore, ~he permi~ is amended to authorize: This letter is an amendment tothe origlnal permit and as such, shall be ~osted at the j~b site. Ail other terms and conditions' remain as written in the original per, Lt. Ver~ truly .yourS,. vid DeRidder Deputy Regional Penner Administrator £N-CONSULTM~rS, INC, ~)010 ,I