Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutKostoulas, TonyHARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney MATTHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM SCOTF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Scott Louis Harris, Supervisor Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Board ~ Matthew C. Kiernan, Assistant Town Attor March 18, 1993 Tony Kostoulas - Coastal Erosion Review. Annexed is a copy of a letter received today from Bill Moore with regard to the above-referenced matter, which I am forwarding to you for your information. William D. Moore Patricia C. Moore MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Margaret Rutkowski Secretary March 15, 1993 Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Southold Town Attorney Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Coastal Zone Management Appeal of Kostoulas Dear Harvey: In confirmation of our discussion at the close of the hearing in the above matter, it is our understanding that the Town Trustees and the Appellants are exploring possible disposition of the matter which would render the Appeal moot. I will keep you apprised of any progress we make with the Trustees. Thank you for your courtesies in this matter, and if you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ~. Moore WDM/mr cc: Mr. & Mrs. Tony Kostoulas HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 18, 1993 4:00 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF TONY KOSTOULOS, APPEAL TO THE TOWN TOWN BOARD, DESIGNATED AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW. Present: Absent: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilman Joseph J. lizewsk~ Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Deputy Town Clerk Elizabeth A. I~leville Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff Assistant Town Attorney Matthew G. Kiernan Justice Raymond W. Edwards TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would be in everybod~v's best interest for the Board to accept any comments, any that were made by anyone else, that who might be here by, for example, Mr. Moore's clients, or some other representative of the Town. But, it must be in the confines of the record, not matter that has not been already determined. The appeal is itself as a matter of law. All appeals are limited to the record, as it exists, nothing new. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Just as a point of clarification. I'm not entirely familar with.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's okay. We're informal. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I do mostly administrative, where I come from. There are conditions though, that might relate to application, llke engineering, or conditions since then, as far as rainfall storms, or conditions that he might have in his structure now. It's been for inspection. Whether that should be brought in. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: You can bring them up. The Board can either reject them, or nott So, can Mr. Moore. Bill? WILLIAM MOORE: Thank you all. I'v~ been doing two things in the Town Hallt as a first. This is another one. My wif~ did the first bed and breakfast application with the Zoning Board, when that was the new law. I represented people doing the first affordable housing subdivision, when that was a new law. So, here we go again for a first. Thank you, Harvey, for spelling out some, Pg 2 - Hearing - Kc ~los what I hope, will be a very informal process of describing the situation, explaining the small area of disagreement we had with the Trustees' decision, that was made on this one, and see if we can't resolve it. I'm going to make reference, for convenience sake, I hope, I think the packet has a cop,v, to a survey of the property as it existed before the renovations. It's in my packet of papers as exhibit D, and hopefully, I'll be able to speak clearly enough, that we can see what we're talking about. TOWN ATTORNEYARNOEF: Bill, it would appear that there's two surveys, one date November 15, 1990, and another revised June 12, of '93. You're talking about the one that has November 15 of '90? WILLIAM MOORE: That's right, Harvey. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Bill, I don't think the members of the Board have the Exhibits. We can run out and make some copies real quick. TONY KOSTOULAS: I have a packet with all of them with that survey in it, if you would like mine. WILLIAM MOORE: Whether it helps you, when you're listening, I don't know, but here goes. That's one of each. Anyway, Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas bought the property 1990, went to the Zoning Board, and got permission to do substantial renovations to the property. Please feel free to interupt with questions, as we go along. In the course of reconstrution, if you look at that survey, there's an area that butts out, that waterfront people call their front yard, but the rest of us call it backyard, 14 by 8 feet in size, alcove area. That was taken out in the course of renovations, and in it's place there are footings, and cement block, and poured foundation. The Building Department came down, and granted a C.O. for the house, and in inspecting that open area, said, you got to cover that. So, a deck was put out, and the deck was put across that area, and tied out to that existing wood deck, which is shown here 22 by 10. The next survey shows, that deck continued out covering the, what had been an alCOve that was taken out, and tying into an existing deck. It was then that the Building Depart- ment advised the builder, that, whoops, we need a CZM permit, and a variance for that. So that application was made to the Trustees, and Mr. Kostoulas on their own, in conjunction with their landscape person proceeded last summer. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Before you get lost in this, you have an Exhibit D, and Exhibit E. My Exhibit E shows a wood deck. I can't exactly read what's on it, but it looks like something 590. WILLIAM MOORE: That's the elevation. COUNCILMAN PENNY: You're saying, that the Building Department told them to put this out there? WILLIAM MOORE: As a covering, if you look back on the prior Exhibit D. MARIA KOSTOULAS: The existing stairs and deck had to be repaired, as per the Building Department, when we purchased the house, it would be in moderation. So, that was repaired before the house was built. Between the two, there's an empty space, and we proceeded to connect the deck, and the Building Department came out, and told us that we needed a permit for that~ ~o the only tl~ing tl~at was left uncovered was the cement footing. So, when we came to speak to the Pg 3 - Kostoulos he; pg Buildling Department, they told us to cover it, and they just said, because we had to two young children, and another one on the way, so said, cover that, and make it safe. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, am I to understand then, that footings ran from the house all the way out to the thing that says wood deck? WILLIAM MOORE: No. They're under that area, that shown.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Just under the little alcove area, so the open area, which existed from the water most point of the house to the other side of the wood deck, as it pre-existed, was a lawn, or some type of natural vegetative substance, which you have covered up. There was soil inbetween. WILLIAM MOORE: Beyond the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Beyond the alcove, and it would look to be about, I guess, about 15 feet, maybe, 15 to 20 feet at it's closest point. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Harvey, this alcove you're referring to is the rectangular projection at the front of the house? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's correct. COUNCILMAN PENNY: That is known as the alcove. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That is known as the alcove, that says 7.9 and 14, and 7.9, do you see that? COUNCILMAN pENNy: Yes, I do. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, what I'm doing is taking the nearest point on the alcove to the deck, and l'm estimating, I don't have a ruler here, but it would appear that it's roughly twice the 7.9, as I look at it with my eyes, I'm saying roughly 15, 20 feet. WILLIAM MOORE: Do you want to scale it, Harvey? COUNCILMAN LIZEWSKI: Out from the house? COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Square the house off? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. I'm saying, you take the nearest point. You go from this point here to this point here, it's probably close to 15 to 20 feet. That's what l'm saying. I just wanted to be sure we're talking about the same thing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Now, the wood deck that's marked up there, that's 17 on one end, 24 of the other, you were told to put that in by the Building Depart- ment? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We connected. . well, it's not really a deck. All it is, is wood planking on the ground, but what we did is, we started to connect. The Building Department came out. We had no idea we need a permit to do that. They came out in mid-stream, and told us to stop, to get a permit, but all that was left, that was not done at that point, was the concrete alcove. That was left, ' Pg 4 - Kostoulos h g so at that time, when we came to speak to the Building Department, they said cover that, make it safe. WILLIAM MOORE: They were building out from what was the existing wood deck, back toward the house, and had left open that alcove area. They said cover that, but you need a permit, so you did. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This alcove area now, you're referring to, is where the three steps are? MARIA KOSTOULAS: No, beyond the three steps, there is cement footing. Those steps are now covered up. It's extended beyond the steps. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Is the house the same size, because it appears that it's not? It appears that the original drawing of the house is 30.2 by 26.3, and the other is 30.2, and it looks like 36.1. Am I correct? MARIA KOSTOULAS: What happened was, we built on the exiting foundation. What we wanted to do was square off the back, where that alcove is, but the Zoning Board of Appeals refused to give us the back that way. They gave us the eight feet to the front. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Correct. I read that decision, so that means you extended it. MARIA KOSTOULAS: That amount of feet. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And loped off, so to speak the alcove? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Correct. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: And that was the last thing, that you covered up, was the alcove. WILLIAM MOORE: Now, we're asking wood planks on the.. COUNCILMAN PENNY: On the ground is a structure. WILLIAM MOORE: That was a misconception ed their part. They will cover up the alcove, and go get the permits. Since then they've been working with the Trustees. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't build an elevated deck out of the house. It was on the ground. You walked down the steps, and it was on the ground. TONY KOSTOULAS: Most of the planks were not even nailed on. They told us not to any nailing, just put the planks down. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Anything after that point, we didn't even nail down. WILLIAM MOORE: What we're talking about is approximately, I'm going to use the Trustee's decision on this one, is about 670 square feet. What we're really talking about is 470 square feet, because you could have up to 200 feet of decking as an insignificant structure under the regulations, that would not even require CZM permit. In my opinion 470 feet of decking is of issue here. , Pg 5 - Kostoulos hearing TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Bill, just to interupt, is there a side yard problem with the deck? It looks like the deck is built literally to the side yard on both sides. WILLIAM MOORE: Well, we haven't got a C.O. for it, so that may well pose to be yet more problems. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It would appear that the structure is literally on the property line without a variance from the Zoning Board. WILLIAM MOORE: There is an application before the Zoning Board right now. It's been put on abeyance pending, you know, one of our problems was.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I didn't know if that had been addressed within that application. WILLIAM MOORE: I have not reviewed that application to see if, in fact, that includes side yards on that one, or not. I don't know. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Bill, can ask questions of you, or are we.? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: It's up to the Board, if we have any problems with that. I don't. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The Board would like to get all the information, we possibly can. If it's okay with the Counsel, we'd like to get all the information. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The question on my mind, and the question I wanted to surface here, on unrelated activities, the curved piece to that in terms that led the Board of Trustees to believe, that the 200 foot exclusion for a permit, that if you're accessing the beach, or directly accessing where structures would result in going to or from the water, so that this area that you..200 square feet, you seem, you say, okay, fine, the area we calculate it out, but under the definitional section of the Code on unr~ulated activity on page 3710, it says, unregulated activity, excepted activities which are not regulated by this chapter include but not limited to elevated walkways, or stairways constructed solely for pedestrian use, and built by an individual property owner for the limited purposes of providing noncommercial access to the beach, docks, piers, wharfs, structures built on floats, columns, open timber piles or other similar open work supports with a top surface area of less than two hundred square feet, or for which are removed in the fall of each year, and that goes on to talk about normal beach grooming, and cleanup. WILLIAM MOORE: We can agree, or disagree, as to the interpretation. I'm glad you brought that up, I'II have to go back and read it again, and rethink, but in any event we're arguing about a 670 square foot deck. So be it. I think that there might be an arguement, that we're talking 470 square feet, but that's not critical to the point we're trying to make here. The only issue we take exception with, the Trustees have granted permission to have the deck put there, is the restriction on the decision and request, asking us to cut back that deck by either four feet, or eight feet. We were given the choice. Cut it back by four feet, and if you do that, and please reduce that existing wood deck, which is down on the bluff, or cut it back by eight feet, and leave that existing one alone. Essentially contention, or problem, we have with that is getting from, what we're allowed to have as a deck to that existing wood deck. That existing wood deck Pg 6 - Kostoulos hea~g is not an issue before the Trustees, and Jay would immediately acknowledge that. We're talking about getting from, what the Trustees allow as a deck, across this yard area, which is at the top of the bluff to another exiting wood deck. We're not saying, do these people get access to the bay, or to the sound rather, or not? They have it. There's going to be traffic across that property. COUNCILMAN PENNY: For the purpose of clarity, would it be possible that we number, you keep referring to a wood deck, now, we have three different indivi- dual areas on a map here, marked wood deck. Can we start with the one on at the top, where it says elevation 54.94, and call that deck number one, next one deck number two, and the third one deck number three, so that we're not totally confused at the end of this? If we find a fourth one, then we'll go on. WILLIAM MOORE: Fine. The real contention we have here, it doesn't make sense to allow a deck. We're going to have to access to an existing deck, and have pedestrian traffic across the top of the bluff. Two points we want to make, ~Ar. and Mrs. Kostoulas have two children, and Mrs. Kostoulas is expecting a third one. She's having contrations right now, so we'll talk faster. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: We've covered. Mrs. Kostoulas can relax. WILLIAM MOORE: That would be another first. The real point we want to make is, we're going to have pedestrian traffic across this way anyway. We're talking about, what will be three young children, and regular normal family activities, going back and forth to those steps. It's our position simply stated, it make more sense to have the deck continue up, and tie into what was allowed to be an exisiting wooden deck, and it really doesn't matter if we cut this deck number one by four feet, or by eight feet. We're recreating that traffic pattern over the bluff and down the hill to the beach. That's the point we're making. Now, I appreciate, I think I understand the underlying goals of the C7M Ordlnance, and what the Trustees were trying to do, as far as concerns about plant growth, and maintaining a vegatative, and erosion control measures up there, and we hadn't done that. As we went to the Trustees for the variance, they had to consider basically three things in the Ordinance. One is there some other place you can put this? They said, no. The Trustees acknowledged there's no alternate site for this deck. It's where it's got to be. The second one was, in the course of doing this deck, have you employed mitigation measures to reduce the impact you might have on natural environment, and this is why the Trustees made some mistakes in their findings, and I think that would suggest that perhaps on conclusion then can be accepted. First of all, it's not that significant, but the,/ did issue a negative declaration under SEQRA, which suggested proposed activity had no significant effect on the environment, not that I've asked for a positive dec every application, but there really was not a positive finding here. In the Trustees decision, there was discussion of installing dry wells. In the docu- mentation I provided you, I showed you dry wells that had been installed to control runoff from the roof of the house, already in place, and I gave you a memo from Tim Coffey indicated that he had installed those already. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Are they in each corner of the house? WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey went on, and installed erosion matting, jute, and some staples, the detail of which I don't know, the Coffeys are in Florida until April the first. I gave you his summary of what was installed there as erosion control measure. In addition, he selected the plants that went down below the deck, and along the stairs, as an erosion control plant. My point on bringing "Pg 7 - Kostoulos hea~g this up is that the Trustees made a mistake. In their decision, they identified the plants as ornamental non-indigenous species, and my belief is that they presume that this was a layperson said, oh, roses would look nice down here, but in fact, those where a specifically choosen species, as an erosion control measu re. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Can I just say something about that? When we had to repair the steps, when the house was being built, there was so much poison iv.v, we had to spray something to get rid of the poison ivy. The men could not work on the stairs. When that was done, that house had been a neglected house for over ten years. That was the Rowe house, and no one had lived it for over ten years, so people had used as..kids would hang out there, and there were so many beer cans, and soda cans, it was just dumped on. When that was cleaned up, our concern was, that we needed something to keep down the ground. We spoke to Tim Coffey. We did not tell him what to put down. We said, just put something that will hold the ground. We want to make sure, that whatever we plant there, is good for our bluff. He chose the roses. Whatever he would have told us, we would have put, and that was done prior to even constructing that. That was the first thing we did, was plant the roses. That was in '91, as soon as the built, so we planted over 200 rose bushes on that bluff. It cost us $1,500.00 to tie down the ground, because that was what he choose as the best. We put a lot of money into this house. Our main concern was that nothing happen to the bluff, as well. WILLIAM MOORE: Mr. Coffey is not here, but I had gone and checked with him, back when I first submitted the application. I went to Riverhead, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has the brocures, that spell out what types of plant are appropriate, and confirm it's in here. Rosa Rugosa, which is what he planted, is a known and accepted plant. I didn't know that. That was news for me. I was glad to see he took the species, that was appropriate for the area. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Do they outline it in terms of erosion control, or is this coastally..can handle salt? There's a difference between erosion control, and, or plant's ability to withstand a salt tolerance. I was just wondering how these spell out. In other words, to be honest with you, the Trustees when they visited the site, and they saw the Rugosa in, because they saw the rosehips, where inpressed that this is not entirely in keeping with recommendations we've seen previously coming out Soil Conservation Service. Two members of the Board, of course you realize, have an agricultural degree, Mr. Krupski, and myself, and the fact is that Soil Conservation Service normally recommends either Lathopa, or American Beach, where it will grow, or they will he recommend something like Crown Veg, that will handle the loamy soil, something that burrows in, and provides more matrix. Of course, the Board may be seeing relatively recently after the Rugosa roses were in, saw plants that had crown spaces that were very open, and prone to what we felt would be rainwater washing, mulch that around them, away. That's why, you know, I had not heard whether it was Albert, or the rest of the Board, feeling that the planting they saw, was installed in such a fashion, that it was erosional capability, or the reason is there that..you know I'll concede if that's the information. MARIA KOSTOULAS: We were told that the roots are very long, and they stretch across~, and that's what holds the soil, that's why it was a good choice. He, also, agreed that was a excellent choice. '~ Pg 8 - Kostoulos he ~g WILLIAM MOORE: The reason I bring that up is, that if you read the Trustee's decision, the language used in the decision, and that's what we're appealing here, was, it made me believe as a layperson, that there was a misunderstanding in the application with the application, or other plant selection would, ornamental selection, and I must confess I'd forgotten about your background. I certainly forgot about Albert's, but in the course of that, it was a ornamental selection, and we questioned that Mr. Coffey, who we can balance, and the two of them can argue back and forth, and what have you. But, he did select, and recognize the erosion control species to go in there. It may serve ornamental purposes to boot, but it is in fact an erosion control selection. In their own decision, the Trustees made reference to two site inspections, which they noted no erosion. That's significant. Whether you considered it or not, we~ve had the nor'easter, and subsequent storm, and those folks can tell you there's been no erosion. TONY KOSTOULAS: When we put down the netting, when Mr. Bredemeyer came up, and did the inspection. Whatever we do, we try to do the best that there is. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel, just digress for a minute here. I don't want you to lose your train of though, that you're on, so was the deck, that is number one, now intitled one, deck number one, was that whole structure, was there a building permit issued for that structure, at the same time as the house renova- tion went alongl MARIA KOSTOULAS: In our closing statement, I believe is in that packet. We have it in here. It specifically states, that we have to repair that, and the deck, or we would be in violation. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Deck number one in Exhibit E. TOWNY KOSTOULAS: That's part of the original application. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Deck number two already existed. WILLIAM MOORE: No, that wasn't part of the orginal application from the builder. In fact, they didn't even know, given the type of structure it is, that it required a building permit. Out here in Southold, we know it's called structure, it needs a permit. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Are you suggesting, that this is like a catwalk, just a series of boards laying on the ground? WILLIAM MOORE: Basically, that's correct. There's a drawing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It's railroad ties. WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just laying on the surface of the ground. WILLIAM MOORE: It's a walkway you would see down to the beach. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Like a raised catwalk? WILLIAM MOORE: Yes. Six by six with two by sixes on top of it. Pg 9 - I(ostoulos g SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Presently, there is, in other words, you don't have a permit, a building permit, for that structure at this time, then? MARIA KOSTOULAS: We didn't realize we needed one. WILLIAM MOORE: The Building Department says, you've got to get your CZM permit before. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: In other words, when you found out that you needed the permit, you went back to the Building Department, and they denied you, because it was in the Coastal Erosion Area? MARIA KOSTOULAS: Right. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That had to be approved before. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: But, this deck goes from one side of your property line to the other side. Is it? It's not just a walkway to get to get out to the pre-existing deck. It actually covers the entire width of lot. MARIA KOSTOULAS: That's the extent of our backyard, or frontyard, whatever you want to call it. That's what we have, so we have young children, and they want to ride their bicycle, or whatever, we built that, so that they can play in that designated area. I mean it's very small, as you can see. That's the entire play area. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do I understand.. MARIA KOSTOUI_AS: There's a picket fence, that goes around the entire property. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Amd this new deck is at various levels, or is it all firmly attached at one grade? TONY KOSTOUI-AS: One grade, and it goes down one step to go to the other level. MARIA KOSTOULAS: Three steps out of the house, one level, and then another, one step down to the other. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: What are the actual dimensions of this deck number one? WILLIAM MOORE: I have a hard time. The total is 670 square feet. It's not shown. I have a problem as far as dimensions go. JOHN BREDEMEYER: We took it off the survey, which is not exactly. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like about forty-five feet wide. MARIA KOSTOULAS: It goes in on an angle. It's not straight. JOHN BREDEMEYER: If somebody wants to ask for a measure, I'll be glad to go. · ~ Pg 10 - Kostoulas h~ing COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Give us the northerly most dimension of that deck number one. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The northerly most dimension, that which is parallel to the top of the bluff, is by my estimate 43 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: On the West side? JOHN BREDEMEYER: On the west side the leg parallel with the property of the neighbor within approximately two feet of it is 17 feet. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: There's two feet there between the deck and the neighbor, right, at the property line? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's hard. It could be less. It's very difficult to read from a survey. It may be a foot and a half. On the easterly side section that parellels the plot line is 8 feet. COUNCILMAN PENNY: As we're getting into specifics here with deck number one, what happened in deck number two? Now, my feeling was, that you didn't have to get a building permit for that, from what I've read. They asked you to repair it, but as it was repaired it was enlargedt from 10 by 22 to 22 by 14. There's another little thing, that goes off the front of it, that I can't ascertain exactly what it is. COIJNClLWOMAN HUSSIE: It looks like steps going down to the other stairs. COUNCILMAN PENNY: It goes from a simple 10 by 22 rectangle to a 14 by 22 with anotl~er something out in front of it. WILLIAM MOORE: I wondered if that includes the step that connects the two decks, that fourteen foot measurement, I believe, would include that step between decks number one and two. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I just want to be sure, that we agree on somthing. Process before this Board is merely to sit as an Appelate forum, so to speak, for the Trustees. You could very well find yourself, and I just want you to understand, and the Board to understand, relegated in fact of going back to the Building Department, and back to the Zoning Board. In other words, the fact that there's imprimatur, if there were one, and I don't presume to do that from this Board, reversing a determination of the Trustees, they still would have to go, I want the Board to understand this, you still go to the Building Department, and as I read the survey, and I think as you read the survey, they're going to get denied in the Building Department, because of sideyards. Regardless of anything they're going to get sideyards, because they never got a variance from the Zoning Board, so they could be faced with making major modifications to the deck by the Zoning Board of Appeals, depending upon their actions. WILLIAM MOORE: That's entirely possible. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: This Board's actions can not in any way impact, nor will be used in any way to impact upon the integrity of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 'Pg 11 - Kostoulas h~ng WILLIAM MOORE: The Zoning Board's criteria is very different from yours. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I think it's important that the Board know that. WILLIAM MOORE: One of my concerns, in fact, of having multipal applications going before different Boards at the same time, is the concerns you end up with inconsistant. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm seeking to avoid that. WILLIAM MOORE: You take one at a time. This is what this has said, you don't circumvent. We need to go to the Zoning Board. We're already before them. To get back to see that the specific issue, you know it is the bluff distance, whether that application approves sideyards, I don't know. I was not involved with it, when that was filed, but I'll follow on that. What we're boiling down to is the Trustees have acknowledged that the deck can exit there, it's a four foot, or an eight foot cutback in the deck, and our position is, we're going to have human traffic at the top of that bluff. The issue is safety for the youngsters, and secondly, just human pedestrian, and family traffic on what is the top of the bluff. You can't change the characteristics of the property. It's a small piece of property. The house is there. The Zoning Board in granting their prior approval to reconstruct kept them from building closer, but in my position to keep people off the top of the bluff, and running about on it, you're going to get to the existing deck anyway, and so leave it be. There's been no erosion. These are facts. The Trustees looked twice. There has been no erosion. Tim Coffey put in the entire erosion control devises. They appear to be working, and these storms haven't damaged it. The Trustees should have said, it may cause erosion, or it may do this. With the benefit of their two inspections, this northeast storm, and no problem. So, it was on supposition. I know it was all the best intentions on their part. There should be no ill will to the Trustees' decision at all. We just disagree as to the wisdom, and the logic of eliminating the deck area between the permitted deck, and deck number two. That's really the issue. COUNCILMAN PENNY: All the Trustees are suggesting is that, if I read this right, number one, that this be shortened eight feet. When we say shortened eight feet, could Jay tell us exactly what the purpose is? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Board meant to, the seaward most portion of it, to be treated landward. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: To be what? JOHN BREDEMEYER: In other words, cut back to the landward. In other words, the whole intention of the Board is to provide clearance at the top of the bluff, point of inflection of the bluff, or that portion of the bluff, that starts to go, and tumble on to the beach, is right at the edge of the bluff. The way the bluff, and deck, are presently positioned, the discharge from the deck which slopes right to the point of inflection will have all the runoff, and rainfall, on to the surface of the ground, which the~ leaves almost no area for maintenance. If any erosion at all starts, the deck will then start to be undermined by the erosional force. It will be very difficult to maintain, so the motion was to set minimums. I guess when I get into my presentation, I'll discuss the ordinance, and the Board of Trustees starting to develop some policy on it, in relation to the ordinance and the Board's feeling when we discuss this. But, to say now, that to move it back. Pg 12 - Kostoulas h~ing COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Move it back eight feet? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Do you have a presentation to make, Jay? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Yes. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Counsel is not finished yet. WILLIAM MOORE: I really have reached my end. It's important to these people. They don't want to put up something that's going to fall down, and take any unnecessary risks. They've incurred great expense, over $3,000.00 to Mr. Coffey to do his erosion control measures, and their work. That's the proof of the pudding. The Trustees' decision on the other hand, really relates to the what if scenerios, and we point to a couple of areas of error, into the ornamental plants, and the ornamental plants, and if there's some reason for the Board to feel a desire to have more information from an engineering standpoint, or Tim Coffey's standpoint, I'd be happy, as I've said, this is the first time we've done this. I don't know what extent you want. It is an appellate review, but what we're reviewing, and considering, it is still in the Town of Southold, as far as the Boards within Southold. I'm happy to get more information for you, if you feel you would like to have it to make the decision. I'll try and get it for you. Thank you for your time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll start with my presentation, I guess. Just want to say, Bill left out one of the firsts, that he was in town, and that was a person to do a DEIS before the Trustees, and that's one of the firsts. We've always worked well together. I enjoy the informal approach, but he did leave out one of his firsts. Some people think Trustees dont' do DEIS's. Everyone has a copy of the permit history from the Trustees. The permit history, and the finding of the facts? I guess I'll go to the first part of the discussion. The deck ih it's entirety is jurisdictionally on a bluff with respect to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act, because the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act of the Town defines the bluff as going landward of what is the point of inflection. That was what I was trying to draw, which way the bluff tumbles home down to the beach. You notice the point of inflection, and a point landward of that for twenty-five feet, is also con- sidered bluff for the bluff jurisdictional area. Usually, if you will, the ordinance itself would have open constructed structures not located on a bluff ~tself. Con- struction in the Code within twenty-five feet, it doesn't permit a deck in that area. It's totally forbidden to have a permanent foundation unless it's on a very strict variance request. (tape changed) One of the primary concerns of the Trustees regarding the site, regardles of how they found the deck there, and the underpining of what got us there The Board was concerned primarily with protecting the bluff area, and protecting the neighbor's properties, as well as the Kostoulas' from any bluff erosion. The initial response in looking down I did see the Rugosa rose, and I'll to, you know, say that we're certainly going to have look into Rugosa Rose a little more formally, as far as it's erosion, and it's soil keeping qualities. But the soil is there. Our typical Plymouth Carver, or Plymouth Havens Association vary clay, soils, and it's a remakabl~ly stable cove, that whole cove, so that long term erosion, or prospects, are probably not serious for the site. That's true. But given the fact that they're very steep slopes, visually they're even steeper than one on one. The Board was very · ' Pg 13 - Kostoulas :ing concerned that by not having any area of maintenance where you could have vegetation, that a structural approach won't work. It's all well and good to put hay fields under the deck on a temporary basis, or put filter cloth and jute, but these are all organic materials. All organic materials are just going to become, going to oxidized, and eventually will diminish. The only real secure way of having soil keeping is with plants, that can get sufficient light, to bind the soil, and their roots. I stopped out to the site today at lunchtime, just to see what may have gone on, and already the mulch, that was on the side is starting to organize, so that it's lining up, so that you can see that there is water erosional force. It's starting to move down the sides of the hill, and of course, that would be normal. That's normal for probably everywhere you look along the area there, but the idea of having the deck come back further is to prevent that. Now, a simple calculation of rainfall over the existing size of the deck at 770 square feet, approximately, a two inch rainfall, when you calculate it out, it comes to 840 gallons. Now, the deck does ~lope almost entirely towards the point of inflection of the bluff, and 840 gallons of water, which could come in a relatively short period of time, represents a lot of water going over a bluff, particularly for a structure which goes out to the neighboring properties. There was a concern there, that by not setting some minimums we have might have problems in the future, where a Board of Trustees would called to answer for a decision, that allowed building right over transitions. So, basically, what you're having here, is you have transition from land surface to the bluff itself, and those areas are going to be prone to force. COUNCILWOMAN HUSSIE: Let me ask you a question, Jay, please. The deck actually does actually have space between each plank, so the water can go through it. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's true. Plank space is very tight plank space on this deck. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Which way do the planks go? JOHN BREDEMEYER: The planks are running east and west, parellel to the shore, so, it would tend to burrow substantial amount of water through them. But, I would say, it's a fairly tight constructed deck. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, let me just hold you up for a minute. Bill, if I can go back to a statement, that you made. Somebody mentioned about drains that were put in? Are they drywell drains? Where were they placed, again? WILLIAM MOORE: At the corners of the house. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At the corners of the house, the structure itself, not the actual deck area. The drywells were put in, and the reason for the drywells were? For rain off the roof, so that didn't run down the bank, in other words? COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Each of those are connected to the downspouts from the gutter? WILLIAM MOORE: Right. JOHN P~REDEMEYER: The Trustees in looking at it, it would impractical to try to contain runoff with gutters on the deck. Although we talked about it, it did not end up in the permit. In Mr. Moore's return to you requesting the hearing, · ..Pg 14 - Kostoulas hearing there was a discussion on, I think, Plymouth soils, but the discussion there related to soil without slopes, but the reality here is there's a question about discharged to soil with severe slopes, and that really, you know, it's not really a problem with the discharge through the deck, and below. It's really the question of the discharge or the accumulated discharge, which would be moving along and down the bluff. The Board thought about options, and in requesting the setback of the eight feet, the Board felt we wanted on all Coastal Erosion Hazard applications, a minimum of approximately eight to ten feet for maintenance to try to promote the kind of vegetation, that you want to have to stabilize the top of the bluff, and we felt this is a minimum, since the ordinance,since the ordinance, itself, would have at least a twenty-five foot setback for open constructed structures. We felt that even somewhat less than that, under the circumstances, that it would be justified under the circumstances because of stable soil. We didn't want to go in closer than that. We felt in difference to the stability we saw that we were on the side of being lenient, we actually thought the eight to four foot options, the eight options are fairly lenient options compared to what the ordianance call for, and we basically wanted it on the safe side. It is true that the ne?,ative declaration reflects a limited concern as far as environmental. But, of course, that also relates to impacts, that might effect the public good, and even a modest storm along the sound, you see what they do. There was never a question here about this site, discharge in large quanities of soil, material into the waterway. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Jay, what is the feeling of the Board in reference to bluff stabilization? Do you feel, as a Board, through coastal erosion, that they have to come ;~ou for any bluff stabilization before any of that work is every attempted, even talking about vegetation? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's part of the ordinance, and the Board will otherwise require that in their permit, where they see a site suitable. The Board saw the Rugosa Rose, and felt best to leave well enough alone. The request was to leave it, and although they might have had other preferences, that may change now, too, as we get more familar with it. I know tile soil conservation people were recommending hydoseeding, which they had good results with, and depending on the types of soil, various planting types. This site we felt would have been better used for something else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That wasn't noted. The reason why I ask you that o. uestion, is it was not noted in your findings, that the fact that the individual who did the work should have come before the Trustees prior to even starting the planning. That why I asked you, if it was a prerequisite for any applications, or just stabilization work regardless of an application report. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think the Board did make a notation on that. This was noted revegetative with ornamental non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched to accepted soil stababization practice for the bluff. We wanted to note the condition we saw, but then the Board, when they discussed it, they felt that we on to the permit condition. I believe we said, here the entire bluff shelf not be vegetated, or re~egetated, or altered in any fashion, except for the mimimal disturbance without the express permission of the administrator. So, we went from..we saw something we're not entir~y pleasedwith. It was not deemed sufficient. We never issued a violation on this application. It came to us through the Building Depart- ment. There was a concern whether it was a violation on the face val~..e of the Code, and we felt it was a revegetation. Pg 15 - Kostoulas ng SUPERVISOR HARRIS: The reason why I bring that up is, this Board has to act on what is before it, and obviously, it was not noted, so as far as we're concerned there was no problem with the work that was done there. You know, in reference to negative decing, and so on. I'm just bringing it to your attention. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was just reading the permit history, and the finding facts are very clear. We said that they did not properly vegetate, and we went on to say how they should not revegetate without permission from the administrators. SUPERVISOR HARRIS My point was, that if this Board is to act on the application, as far as a whole, the deck is one part of what's in question here. The second part of it, obviously, by yolir findings is the vegetation itself. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I don't think there's a problem with the request for the deal. I think it's with the kind of vegetation, and having problem Trustees. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: That's m,v point. That's what I'm trying to get to. That that's in contention, the vegetation. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Basically, the deck itself. The feeling was that this simply shades the coastal zone too much, and the discharge of water, and over time could possible erode both that property, and adjourning properties. Fairly straight forward. Any questions? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Jay, I have one question. Your suggestion of the modification of the deck, either one or two, is that somehow impact, and vary from the determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals? The Zoning Board of Appeals said, the proposed reconstruction, and the existing house, including the porch, with an e×isting blueprint shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling. Now, isn't your decision then, somewhat at variance with a decision of another Board, and giving greater rights than that Board? JOHN BREDEMEYER: I was not aware of any.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm reading from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I did not have a decision, nor did my Board have a decision from the Zoning Board of Appeals when they went into this. ~¥e went into this, we went into.. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I'm not being critical. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I have to be honest with you. If the Zoning Board of Appeals has limitations different than our Board, we are separate Boards with respect to the law, and thrust of it. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: The thrust is different. That's correct. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The thrust is entirely different, and not only that, the Trustees were blind to the fact of limitation... Pg 16 - Kostoulas .ng TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: So, then your postion is not withstanding.. I just want to understand your position is not withstanding the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals, even if you had notice of it, you still could say this, but it doesn't necessarily change or vary the prior approval of the Zoning Board, the limitations of Zoning Board. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The Trustees are looking at this strictly within the Coastal Erosion Management, strictly. COUNCILMAN PENNY: I think the point, that Harvey and Jay are discussing, is a point that I'm kind of at a conflict with, and if you were dealing with this as a new application for something that did not exist, the matter would be a lot clearer. The fact of the matter is, that this structure was put in place, and the fact that it violates number 2 on the ZBA is something that we have to separate, and the Trustees did that. Their treating of this was as if there was a new application. Even if the Trustees did approve it, and even if the deck was not built with this approval, they could go back to the 7BA, and seek further relief from this restriction, that already exists. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: But, the Zoning Board of Appeals does not necessarily have adhere to this, and they can say, w,e feel that our original decision gave you enough room. Just because the Trustees say, you can build within so many feet for erosion purpose, we feel for zoning purpose, and setback requirements, or lot coverage, or some other reason that they may assign to it, you can only go so far. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: Does it seem logical if the Board wants to discuss things with us, as attorneys, that we should recess the hearing~ TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Sure, at the conclusion. ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY KIERNAN: At this point, we,ma,vbe, we want to hear more evidence, or go forward. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I'll rap up real quick. As a point of clarity, becat~se also when we got into this processing, and if we tried to do coordinating action under SEQR I'm sure we'll still be discussing this in a couple of years from now. It's on Long Island Sound. We don't have to coordinate. We've decided administratively in house, that we will all handle these as un-coordianted reviews, if they're unlisted actions, just to keep things simple, or managable. I don't know if that simple. I have nothing further to comment. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: I have a question. Do I understand, have two questions. Is the point of inflection a key criteria, back from? that the way..I that you measure JOHN BREDEMEYER: It's defined in the Code. I know that at least the past dealings with the Trustees, and I, with the DEC, when they involved in erosion protection through wetland permits, the point of inflection is a key point. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The point of inflection isn't where it's starts to curve down to the beach. The point of inflection is where the curve starts going down, and then the curve reverses about half way down, or part way down. Inflection means the change.. Pg 17 - Kostoulas h, ng JOHN BREDEMEYER: Let me read the definition from the Code. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's when the curve reverses is the point of inflection techr~ically. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Technically it is, and in a lot of cases there is also another point of inflection at the head of the bluff, because the sand, and material, deposit sometimes on top of the bluff, and there's an inflection, that also there's another S-curve, that goes back to the tlpwards. I think the point of inflection is the current defines, as I depicted on the blackboard, I may not call, even call, it separately, it may just be the bluff itself. The point of inflection is that point along the top of the bluff, where the trend of the land slope changes to begin it's descent of the shoreline, even though it's not a classic point of inflection. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That is not a proper point of inflection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: That's correct. It's not correct, and what's the Code gives TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's also the State law. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: The second question I have is, are your recommending that there be sort of a gap between..if they would move this back eight or ten feet, there be a gap between the shortened deck, and the pre-existing deck? JOHN BREDEMEYER: We weren't suggesting that. If that was understood from our decision, no. The Board had meant to have them continue. Since it was pre-existing structure, it was felt that by bringing it back, we would be able to have as much as practical protection for this slope. Admittedly, the other deck is there. We can't do anthing about it. It was the hope, that we could possibly opt for the decision with four foot shortening, and removing that deck, and just having the catwalk down to the stairs. We felt that was the most desirable option. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: So, there still be a catwalk to the stairs? JOHN BREDEMEYER: It would be catwalk to the stairs, and then with the shortening of your maintenance area, the vegetation could be maintained, and it would be very little shading then. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: How wide would this catwalk be? JOHN BREDEMEYER: Again, I believe the Board is reasonable. We just assumed it would the width of the existing walk. It wasn't specified. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: I don't see any mention of any catwalk in this decision. JOHN BR£DEMEYER: I believe the decision is clear now. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: It's not clear to me. It's not the intention of Trustees then to shorten this thing across the entire width of the lot, such that people have to walk down into the sand, and the dirt, and get on to the wood structure. JOHN BREDEMEYER: It was not the intent, but between Town Board discussing it, and what the final language is, I can see that there is. "Pg 18 - Kostoulas h~ 'ng WILLIAM MOORE: I don't see anything that suggests some kind of a catwalk. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or a connection between decks. JOHN BREDEMEYER: There's a misunderstanding with that. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Do you want to consider that, before we continue with this hearing. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Can we just make it clear ?- The way I understand what the Trustees ask is the shortening eight feet across the whole northern end of the structure. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Or four feet with another variation. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: That's what the decision says, but now we also under- stand that the Trustees are not adverse to some form of a connection. JOHN BREDEMEYER: I think the misunderstanding lies in..because the the ordinance allows for stairs, and access. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This hearing may not even be needed, or wanted, if Counsel discusses this, now, with his clients a minute. I'll certainly give you a minute, counselor, if you'd like to consider what you've just heard. JOHN BREDEMEYER: The reason we discussed this, because the deck, we asked to be reduced to the width of the catwalk. Number two. Number two would be altered to become the width of the stairway. COUNCILMAN PENNY: This one is deck number one, and this one here is deck number two, and they just happen to fall in line, one and two. But, there is more to it, than four foot shortening, instead of the eight foot shortening. It's also moving a portion of the deck. WILLIAM MOORE: My suggestion to Harvey was..Jay and myself had made our observations, and we'll let Gerry do his, and in light of this new information I'll go back and speak, prior to your making a decision with the Trustees and the Board, and see if we have everything. GERARD GOEHRINGER: I was not here to discuss what's before us now with the new deck, which we're discussing, but this particular application is near and dear to us, because of it's proximity to the bluff, and the acutual reconstruction was before us in 1991, and so forth. Any sugestions, that were made, I should point out that the Kostoulas, they've done everything we've discussed with them, and so on and so forth, However, where the problem came in, in our decision, you've read our decision, during the period of the hearing, and you can see that I had it in here, if you want to see it, the neighbor next door, and I don't remember who was on the east side or the west side, where deeply concerned with what you're referring to be the alcove. The alcove was a porch. Okay? I have copies of it in here. This porch evidently had a cement slab underneath it, and it still has a cement slab, which now is now underneath their steps. It's a short deck, and then the steps go down to the question that is before you. We spent a lot of time, a lot of discussion, and we assured the neighbor that there would be construction, or destruction, of that particular cement slab. Alright? The reason · Pg 19- Kostoulas ~ing. for the decision, and the reason for the four feet, was because the Kostoulas wanted to put a second story veranda off of the master bedroom. Right? The nature of our decision was clearly to allow them to put two four by fours four feet out, wherever it lie in that area of the cement slab, not to penetrate with the cement slab, but to put that there. That was conceivable it, ladies and gentlemen. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: So, that's what the four feet reference is. GERALD GOEHRINGER: That was the four feet reference. Okay? Mr. Randazo, who was their contractor, and somebody I had known for at least twenty years, and worked with by the way in the 70's, indicated to me that he needed those to support this veranda, that he was putting in. He then subsequent to the decision called me, and he said, I'm a little concerned because it says I can't go out past the footprint, and I clearly defined for him, at that particular..you know, on that discussion, that was approximately two weeks after the decision was rendered, and indicated to him that that did not mean he could not place these two four by four out four feet out from the existing footprint. Okay? Again, he needed that for the support for the veranda. So that was understand. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Goehringer, in other words, this determination states that that four foot does not say any deck construction. It is saying almost the existing deck construction, which is going to become a footing in retrospect is the reason why it was granted for an above structure to be placed there. GERALD GOEHRINGER: We didn't want any alteration, because we promised the next door neighbor. There's no alteration of that existing cement area. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for that clarification, because it was not clear by reading this. GERALD GOEHRINGER: I should just point out the jurisdiction of the 239.4 of the Zoning permit involved the applications before us. Now, it's been held in abeyance throughout this entire proceedings, that go back and forth. But the Zoning Board does have total jurisdiction on the 239.4, which says we have jurisdiction up to 100 feet to the bluff. We then yield that jurisdiction to the Trustees, and then of course, this were the Coastal Zone Management Area gets involved. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for the clarification on your decision. It does help, certainly in my thought process. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Gerry, is it your interpretation then, if the Board proves, or disapproves, or whatever, the determination of the Trustees, that the Kostoulas are then entitled to a building permit, and a C.O. for the deck, regardless of any sideyard varianaces? GERALD GOEHRINGER: Absolutely not. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Okay, when you said that you yielded, I wanted the Board to know that you haven't yielded, that that phrase yield doesn't mean that you yield to everything. Pg 20 - Kostoulas ing GERALD GOEHRINGER: We now have to deal with the total encompassment of the rear yard, and that's something that we have to deal with. We haven't deliberated. We have closed the hearing, and we haven't done anything about it. According to our calculations, when we've only had one application in the thirteen years, that I've been on the Board, that has been similar to it, and it was not on Long Island Sound. It was on Pipe's Cove. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Board? (No response.) Bredemeyer? Thank you. Is there anybody else, Any other questions? (No response.) anybody on the Mr. Moore? Mr. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Nothing else. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Okay, I think the Board has heard all the facts. We will reserve decision, and thank you for yQur time. JOHN BREDEMEYER: Will you be taking any additional information? SUPERIVSOR HARRIS Yes, additional information is certainly needed. By all means, I hope that the applicant, and the, certainly, the Trustees will be able to provide that information to help us come to a decision. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Just one question. In the interim, before we make our decision, would it be possible, if any Board member wanted to visit these premises, because we have no rights as Town Board members to walk on somebody's property, only a Building Inspector does~. WILLIAM MOORE: I meant to suggest that earlier. That would be the best way to see it, if you all look at. By all means. JOHN BREDEMEYER: For the time, that you are the Reviewing Board for the Trustees, do you want us to include your name in the applications for access permission? TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: No. The time is now, just like Mr. Penny requested. I asked the applicant, whether we can make a visual inspection. COUNCILMAN PENNY: I don't want to go down there, and do a visual, and get locked up for tresspassing. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you for your time. Judith T. Te~ Southold Town Clerk APPEAT.q BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Seuthold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 I N~fER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM RECEIVED TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FEB 10 1993 FROM ZBA ~ Soulhold Town Cled~ DATE: February 10, 1993 SUBJECT: Kostoulas Property at Aquaview Avenue, East Marion Town Board CZM Hearing Notice for 2/18/93 We are in receipt of a copy of the notice of hearing on an appeal application concerning Tony and Maria Kostoulas. For your information, we are attaching copies of a 1991 variance determination for the subject premises together with a copy of the survey prepared November 15, 1990 and a copy of a written evaluation from the Soil and Water Conservation District of Suffolk County. You will note that at that time, the applicants were proposing to square off the dwelling. The deck was not a part of the variance request in 1991. There is, however, a variance pending at this time with the ZBA, and Attorney Bill Moore has requested a postponement in order to file an Appeal of the Town Trustees' decision pending before the Southold Town Board. The ZBA has advertised two public hearings on this application and at the last hearing, the applicant requested a postponement in order to retain an attorney. It appears that the applicants do not wish to proceed with the zoning variance until after the Coastal Zone Management variance has been finalized. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS !iq ~.~'~ ~'~ !' Genrd P. Goe~nger Chaman ' Charles Gngoms, Jr. ~ ~9/ . .~ ,.~ Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Robert A. V~lla BOARD OF~PEALS Telephone (516) 765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 4008. Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4A and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to construct addition which will decrease total side yards and reduce yard setback from bluff along the Long Island Sound. Location of Property: 1035 Aquaview Avenue, East Marion, NY; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 21, Block 02, Lot 013. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 22, 1991, and continued on April 5, 1991; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all tho.se who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, the surrounding areas; and and WHEREAS, the Board made the foilowing findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants originally, upon filing ~he variance application on February 12, 1991, reqttested permission to square off the two northerly corners of the existing dwelling in addition to renovations/reconstruction shown on the plans prepared by Miller Associates, Project #9037 dated Janu- ary 4, 1991. All construction will be within 100 feet of the Sound bluff. 2. The premises in question is a described parcel of land having a frontage along the north side of Aquaview Avenue of 60.0 feet and frontage along the Long Island Sound of 43+- feet. The subject parcel is substandard, having a lot area of approximately 11,330 sq. ft. 3. The subject parcel is unique, being quite narrow and with limited (upland) building area, which lends to the practical difficulties. 4. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code permits relief to lots containing less than 20,000 sq. ft. in the front Page 2 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 KOSTOULAS decision, continued:) yard to not less than 35 feet and in the side yards to not less than 10 feet. The minimum rearyard setback is permitted to be reduced under this provision to 35 feet. The code does not specifically permit relief to substandard parcels for bluff setbacks, except as may be permitted by the Board of Appeals. 5. During the processing of this application, opposition was received from the landowners immediately abutting this parcel on the easterly side. Upon learning of the objections raised by the adjoining landowners, the applicants have alternatively requested permission to construct a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly side of the house, meeting the required setbacks as limited by Section 100-244B of the code. Although the addition along the southerly portion is "landward" of the dwelling structure, this alternative would be within 100 of the bluff, also necessitating relief by this board. 6. It is the position of this board that in considering this application, as amended, for an addition along the southerly portion of the dwelling structure: (a) the proposed location of the southerly addition is landward, being 46+- from the bluff at its closest point, of the existing dwelling structure, setback reduction to 24 feet from the westerly {front} property line is substantial in relation to the requirements, however, there is no alternative available for appellants to pursue except by variance; (b) the alternative relief, as requested, is not substantial in relation to the existing structures; (c) the difficulties imposed are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will not adversely effect the essential character of the neighborhood, or be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town and neighboring properties; (e there is no other alternative method feasible for appellants to pursue; (f) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting conditional alternative relief, as requested and further noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Grigonis, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief for the construction of a 10 to 12 ft. addition along the southerly (front) of the principal dwelling structure, which will be not less than 46 feet Page 3 April 10, 1991 Special Meeting Southold Town Board of Appeals (Appl. No. 4008 - KOSTOUkA$ decision, continued): to the bluff setback at its closest point (although landward of the dwelling), as requested in the Matter of the Application of TONY AND MARIA KOSTOULAS under Appl. No. 4008, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. That the front yard addition comply with the front yard setback provisions of the Code for this substandard parcel (as per 100-244B) or the provision in effect at the t±me of the issuance of a building permit; 2. The proposed reconstruction/renovation at the northerly end for the existing house including the porch (or deck) within the existing footprint, shall be permitted provided the porch or deck construction not protrude more than four feet from the dwelling; this reconstruction/renovation shall not include the squaring off of both corners at the northerly portion of th~ house. 3. The renovations of the existing dwelling shall not extend beyond the existing footprint and shall not involve excavation or other land alteration activities. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Grigonis, Dinizio, and Villa. (Member Doyen of Fishers Island was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER, CHAIRMAN ~'~ '..,~./ _". -.~ ~. .... - ~,-,,,¥! OFi~_~/.'-"..,J-,,,,/'_D , SUFFOLK COUNTY N.Y LOT ~- . . . . . . '' , CO. CLK. NO. FLED SUFFOLK CO TAX MAP DATA:* BLK. ~..~'~--~ ~;:~ LOT ': ST 'tO FTL,'.TIVE r,~.U,U~".' "". O,"'I Sim,Y?., AR~ rC'R A ~ ~ )'~ T "l, U .'Cf', t DJ' 1 OF ... OR OU!~K FILE NO. ~-~/ SURVEYED ,/~OJ~. /~.~ 19~O BY WILLIAM R. SIMMONS JR. PlO BOX 377 JAMESPORT. LI.. N.Y. 1194'/ PAGE ,~ GRID ~ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT April 17, 1991 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Southold Town Board of Appeals P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Goehringer: Regarding your request for our assessment of the Kostoulas property in East Marion, please be advised that a site inspection was conducted on April 10, 1991. At that time the top of the bluff was approximately 16-18 and 24 feet northward of the proposed additions on the Northeast and Northwest corners of the residence, respect- ively. The bluff face in this area is very s~eep; however, appears stabile and is vegetated predominately with woody vegetation. There was no significant toe erosion at the base of the bluff. Construction of the new concrete foundations and piers will involve excavation in close proximity to the top of the bluff. The new construction will also add signi- ficant weight at the top of the bluff. Wheather this activity will jeopardize the stability of the bluff can not be accurately determined by this office. However, such activity would increase the potential for bluff erosion especially along the upper portion of the bluff. Storm water runoff from the roof of the dwelling and the yard area should be diverted from flowing over the top of the bluff and onto the bluff face. I hope this information will be useful to you and the board. If you require additional information please contact this office. Sincerely, Senior District Technician P.S. Please note new address {iverhead County Center {oom E-16 tiverhead, New York 11901-2100 HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney MA1'rHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 3, 1993 SCO'I"F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 William Moore, Esq. Moore & Moore 315 Westphelia Road Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Coastal Erosion Board of Review Appeal Tony Kostoulas Dear Mr. Moore: This letter shall confirm, that the Town Board, at its meeting of February 2, 1993, has scheduled the above-referenced hearing for Thursday, February 18, 1993 at 4:00 P.M. in Southold Town Hall. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. HAA:mls cc: Town Clerk Trustees William D. Moore Patricia C. Moore Thomas F. Moore Of Counsel MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 ~ (5~0 298-5~,4 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary November 20, 1992 BY HAND Mrs. Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1992 Soul~ol8 T~,^,, Re: Matter of Tony Kostoulas Dear Mrs. Terry: Enclosed please find an appeal to be filed with the Southold Town Board with regard to the October 22, 1992 decision of the Southold Town Trustees in the matter of Tony Kostoulas. Very ~.ly! yours, WDM/mr Enc. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW In the Matter of TONY KOSTOULAS APPEAL This appeal is filed with the Southold Town Board in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review pursuant to Article IV section 6-35 of Local Law 24-1991. The owner of the property files this appeal seeking a modification of the action of the Southold Town Trustees acting in their capacity as Administrator of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area in their conditional approval dated October 22, 1992. A copy of the Trustees' decision is attached as Exhibit A. The specific provisions of the chapter which were improperly applied in this matter involve sections 6-12(A), (B), and (C) and 6-30. Mr. Kostoulas is the owner of property located at Aquaview Avenue some 1,020 feet east of the intersection of Aquaview Avenue and Rocky Point Road in East Marion. The property has the Suffolk County Tax map identification as 1000-21-2-13. This property was improved with an existing single family dwelling, deck and stairs leading to the beach with additional accessory buildings at the foot of the stairs near the beach on the Long Island Sound. Mr. Kostoulas purchased the property in 1990. At the time he purchased the property he obtained a copy of the certificate of occupancy issued by the Southold Town Building Department together with a copy of the building department's housing code inspection report. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit B. The building department noted in its report that the existing exterior stairs, porches and deck needed to be repaired. In addition to these repairs, Mr. Kostoulas sought and obtained approval from the zoning board of appeals in decision #4008 to substantially renovate the existing single family dwelling. A copy of the certificate of occupancy issued for these improvements is attached as Exhibit C. A copy of a survey prepared by William R. Simmons, Jr. dated November 14, 1991 shows the status of the property prior to these extensive improvements to the property; a copy of the survey is attached as Exhibit D. In the course of the preexisting 7.9 ft by 14.0 the dwelling was removed reconstruction of the residence, the ft alcove located on the north side of revealing and exposing the original footings of this alcove area. It was the consensus of both the builder employed by Mr. Kostoulas and the building department inspector that the exposed footings should be covered with decking to avoid a hazardous condition on the premises. [The footings could not be removed without disturbance to the area in question and equipment could not have gained access to the area in view of the existing dwelling] A copy of the William R. Simmons, Jr. survey as revised dated June 12, 1992 shows the property as it has been improved. See 2 Exhibit E. The footings have been covered with an on grade irregularly shaped deck of approximately 760 square feet. The deck consists merely of 2 x 6 planks attached to 6 x 6 ties. A sketch of this construction is attached as Exhibit F. Neither Mr. Kostoulas or his builder were advised that an additional permit (Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) was required for this ground level deck which was designed to footings and to attach to the pre-existing deck. deck is not the subject of this application as cover the prior The pre-existing it predates the effective date of this local law. The only deck in question is the one which was installed to cover the prior footings, and which was extended to tie-in to the pre-existing deck. When Mr. Kostoulas was advised that his deck addition required an additional permit, he promptly made application for same. At or about the same time, he attempted to mitigate the potential impacts from erosion that the deck might have caused by having a landscaper recommend and install appropriate erosion control measures. Specifically, the landscaper installed permanent erosion control fabric on top of which was placed three layers of jute erosion matting pinned down with 8 inch steel erosion staples which was further covered with 2 - 3 inches of cedar mulch. See Exhibit G. In addition, rose bushes, selected by Timothy Coffey Nursery/Landscape Contractors were planted as a further measure to control erosion. The cost of these measures was more than THREE THOUSAND dollars ($3,000.00.) The Southold Town Trustees erred when they determined that the deck "may have resulted in unnecessary soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face." The conditional approval given by the trustees required the installation of drywells to control runoff. However, dry wells had already been installed by the landscaper employed by Mr. Kostoulas. The trustees apparently did not recognize this fact. See Exhibit H. The trustees' conclusion is that the deck may result in run-off. However, the trustees made two inspections to the property on March 17 and May 21, 1992 and noted no active erosion on the property. The trustees noted in their inspection that the bluff area had been revegetated with "ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched." The plant selection was made specifically by Timothy Coffey to act as an erosion control measure. The plant selection was not made by a layman for ornamental purposes. The particular species selected by Mr. Coffey was "Rosa rugosa" which is noted for its particularly effective soil erosion control characteristics. The root structure of this plant grows both vertically and laterally, is drought resistent and requires no chemicals to sustain its growth. It should be noted that the United States Department of Agricultural, Soil Conservation Service includes this specific species as effective erosion control plantings in its "Conservation Plants for the Northeast" publication. Moreover, such species are "shade tolerant" [ie. can survive in shaded areas such as the one created by the deck] and are effective for stabilizing sand dunes and landscaping. The "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the 4 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service identifies the soil on the subject property as "Plymouth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes (P1B). See attached Exhibit I. "The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil." The impact of the 670 square foot deck1 which is landward of the top of the bluff is far less than the impacts that could reasonably be expected from pedestrian usage and passage from the house to the pre-existing deck and steps. The on grade deck simply ties the house into the preexisting access to the beach and will eliminate pedestrian and other family activity in the area. Given the significant erosion control measures which have already been installed by Mr. and Mrs. Kostoulas, and the fact that no active erosion was identified by the trustees after two inspections of the property, it is clear that the deck coupled with the erosion control measures have not and will not cause a measurable increase in erosion at the site or at other locations. As the trustees noted in their conditional approval, the deck cannot be located in another part of the property to accomplish the goal of connecting the preexisting deck with the house. Accordingly, Mr. Kostoulas has met and satisfied the general standards set forth in section 6-12 of Article II. It is respectfully requested that the permit issued by the Town Trustees be modified to allow the deck to remain as constructed together with the erosion mitigation measures At issue is only 470 square square already installed by the feet of deck, as up to 200 feet is defined as an "unregulated activity" 5 o~er o Lastly, we hereby reserve the right to challenge the appropriateness of the designation of the $outhold Town Trusteee as the perm£t admfnfstrator for the Coastal Eros£on Hazard Area° Dated: Mattituck, New York November 20, 1992 MOORE & MOORE By: William D. Moore 315 Westphalia Road PO Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 6 TRUSTEES ' '.' John M. Bredemeyer, III, President Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUI'ERVISOR SCOTT L. HARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold. New York 11971 October 22, 1992 ACTION OF THE SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES ADMINISTRATOR COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA Variance application of TONY KOSTOULAS SCTM #21-2-13 to construct a 670 square foot deck within the coastal erosion hazard area. PERMIT HISTORY AND FINDING OF FACTS 1. On March 17, 1992 an approximate 670 square foot deck was noted near completion within the Structural Hazard Area at SCTM #21-2-13 without the required permit approval of the administrator. 2. An application was received for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act on March 25, 1992 in response to a notice of disapproval from the Building Department of March 2, 1992 and subsequently inspected by the TruStees on March 17, 1992. 3. The Southold Town Building Department allegedly permitted the deck construction to be completed so as to prevent a hazard to the Kostoulas children from trip hazards and the bluff precipice. 4. Pursuant to 37-6 the deck is wholly constructed on the bluff in that all construction is within 25' of the point of inflection." 5. The deck which is approx. 670 square feet is more than 25% greater in surface area than the house and existing deck which are approx. 1200 square feet and as such is defined as a major addition. 6. A variance is required pursuant to 37-17 A3 in that the addition is not the permitted minor addition allowed by Section 37-17 B. Additionally there are concerns that the structure contravenes the stated purpose of 37-17 A5 in that the activity Whereas the Board of Trustees is of the belief that the deck should not diminish the natural soil keeping features of the bluff to the extent that erosion control vegetation will not thrive. and Whereas the Trustees have considered all the facts surrounding this application for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act the application is approved with the following conditions: 1. The deck constructed in March of 1992 and subject of this application shall be shortened 8 feet so that it is no closer than 10 feet to the point of inflection of the bluff thus permitting light penetration and vegetative stabilization of the bluff. 2. An alternative 4 feet shortening of the deck subject this application and removal of the entirety of the pre-existing 14' X 22' deck over the bluff-face shall be considered equally with condition number one above at the applicants choice. A maximum 8' X 8' landing would be permitted in lieu of the 14' X 22' deck. 3. The entirety of the bluff shall not be vegetated/re-vegetated or altered in any fashion except for the minimal disturbance needed for the removal noted above without the express written permission of the administrator. 4. Drywells shall be installed for the rear of the house. 5. A soil stabilization and planting plan approved by the Soil Conservation Service shall be submitted for the top most 20' of bluff adjacent to the removed deck prior to said deck removal. 7. An inspection of the deck removal, soil stabilization and drywell installation shall be called for prior to May 1993. In order to avoid the need to post a bond or consider legal action for the existing illegal construction, a notarized statement shall be submitted to the Trustees within one month of this approval indicating your concurrence with the provisions of this permit, your choice of #1 or 2 above and your agreement to abide by all of its terms. c.c. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Bill Southard, NYSDEC may have resulted in unnecessary "soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face". 7. After the time of application, the applicant installed erosion control fabric and several tiers of 'low terracing beneath the deck areas without authorization from this office. 8. The bluff on si~e appeared to be free of active erosion at the time of inspections which were m~de o~ March 17 and May 21, 1992. 9. The bluff face was noted re-vegetated with ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched in contrast to accepted soil stabilization practices for-bluff areas which should be heavily seeded with "known" erosion control species. 10. The deck in question and the pre-existing deck over the bluff cast shade over the point of inflection of the bluff. 11. The deck is not considered easily movable, although easily removed, and as such is at variance for Section 37-13 B: "the construction of non-movable structures or the placement of major-non-movable additions to an existing structure is prohibited" (in a'structural hazard area) 12. The deck slopes toward the bluff and there is a serious question that rain run-off is not properly directed and collected for re-charge ahead of the bluff. 13. On July 30, 1992 an agency negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA was issued for this action which is considered an unlisted -uncoordinated action. 14. On September 17, 1992 a public hearing was held pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. 15. No one spoke against the application at the public hearing. DETERMINATION (conditioned approval) Whereas the deck in question could not readily occupy another site on the. property. Whereas the deck in question does not reasonably mitigate the adverse impacts of run-off and shading in close proximity to the bluff face. Whereas the deck in question will not be reasonably safe from e~osion damage. Whereas the variance requested is not the minimum necessary.to properly protect the bluff from erosion and exacerbate the potential negative impact of the existing deck over the bluff. FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BBILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. PRE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUP~ANCY No Z19582 Date DECEMBER 13~ 1990 THIS CERTIFIES that the building Location of Property 985 House No. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 21 ONE FAMILY DWELLING & ACCESSORIES AQUAVIEW AVE. EAST MARION Street Block 02 Lot 13 Hamlet Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Requirements for a private on-family dwelJ- lng built prior to ~-PRIL 9, 1957 pursuant to which Certificate of Occupancy Z19582 Dated DECE~iBER 13, 1990 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 ONE FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The certificate is issued to RUTH ROWE. (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDEPWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A ****SEE INSPECTION REPORT Rev. 1/81 ///Buil/ding Inspector BUILDIEG DEP:~dRT2-LENT TO;'~I OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. HOUSING CODE IHSPECTIOH REPORT Location 985 Aquavlew Ave. East Marion ~numoer & street) Subdivision Map No. not(s) Nmme of Owner(s) Ruth Rowe Occupancy A-I {type) A~mitted by: Richard Israel (Owner-tenant) Accompanied by: Same Key available Source of request Suffolk Co. Tax No. 2{-2-{3 William H. Price' Date Dec. 4, 1990 Type of construction WOOD FRAME Foundation POURED CONCRETE Cellar FULL Total rooms, let. F1 2nd. F1 Bathroom(s) ONE FULL Toilet room(s) ONE Porch, typ~ REAR ENCLOSED Deck, type -- Breezewa~ Garage Type Heat OIL 'Warm Air xx Fireplace(s) ONE No. ~¢its 2 Domestic hotwater YES Other #stories ,Crawl space 3rd. F1 {½ Patio, type.-- Utility roam.. Hotwater Airconditioning Type heater ELECTRIC ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: Garage, type const. Swimming pool Other DECK (TOP OF BLUFF)-DECK & SET OF WOODEN STAIRS J Storage, type const. Guest, type const. BRICK & CONCRETE SHED (ON THE V_IOLATIONS: BE^CH) TO BEACH. Housing Code, Chapter 45 N.Y. Stat~ Uniform~Fire Prevention - ;& Bulldin~ Co~e _Lncation Stairs to beac{ & decks. Description {Art.{ Sec. Exterior stairs, porchesm decks,, et.e. {CHAP.{ P shall be maintained in a safe & sount }}242.{ }~ condition Remarks: ALL ACCESSORY STR?TURES IN NEED OF REPAIR. Inspec ted by: '~-~//~-'/'~.J/L Da.teof Insp. 12/6/90 'GARY J/.'//FISH · ' 'Time s~art.. {0:30 end {0:50, aim. FORM NO. 4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town Hall Southold, N.Y. No Z-20500 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Date JANUARY 24~ 1992 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ADDITION & ALTERATION Location of Property 1035 AgUAVIEW AVENUE EAST MARION, N.Y. House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 21 Block 2 Lot 13 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated JANUARY 24~ 1991 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 19809-Z dated APRIL 25r 1991 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 ADDITION & ALTERATION TO EXISTING ONE FAMILY DWELLING AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS #4008. The certificate is issued to TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS (owners) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N-215208 - DECEMBER 3~ 1991 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED JAN. 15~ 1992 - GEORGE MARTINEK -~ ' /// B~ilding Inspector Rev. 1/81 LOCATED AT ~---~T /~//'4~'/~:)/(d LOT SCALE 1" = *~ · SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- DIST./g~i:~ , SEC. BLK. O .430 LOT OffSETS r~C,M 5~'kUCTURE5 'lO RELATIVE ~OUNDP.~ ON ~, AKE ?C~ A SPECIFIC US[ O~Y, ~U~ NOT BE US~ fOR CO~N OF FENCE~ · TOWN OF~-~'~(-/~'/'''/d/D , CO. CLK. NO. SUFFOLK COUNT"' N.Y. FILED FILE NO./~-~/7~/'~ SURVEYED/(v/4:~' /'~,,J 19~0 BY WILLIAM R-'SIMMONS jR.' P/O BOX 377 LOT , TOWN MAP OF SCALE 1" = ,.~ · SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DAYA:- DIST.,/~.~)~) , SEC. ~1.~ BLK. 0~ LOT , CC,, CLK, NO. FILED P~O BOX 377 JAMESP©RT L i. 'I v. ~, .... ~XH RI]UTE 25 SCIUTI"{nLD~, N.Y. 11cj71 £515~ 765-2554 TO :: ,_~7l!111~/1:1717M ¢ r reorder np. 7-4533! (/~.~,~'~"' - ---- z - ~" ~ * ~" ~ N imprint no. 7-45331-[ TIHDTHY CD,FEY NURSERY/LANDSCAPE DDNTRADT~RS  RDUTE 25 ~OUTH~LD, N~Y. 11971 [5153 T&5-2554 L /u S-Tr4LZ_ ~ Of~ ~L o~ SUFF~ COUNTY, NEW YORK (So/ns sheet O R / E H A R B RdA D I N E R .® (Jo/ns shee~ 6) 475 000 FEET 78 8orb crops to lime and fertilizer is f~6r. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout t~e profile of most of these soils, but it is strongly acid t? 'medium acid in the lower substratum of soils iii the isilty substratum phase. The rOot zone is confined mainly ilo the upper 25 to 85 inches. Internal drainagq is gOo&Permeability is rapid in all of these soils except ii( (lids9 of the silty s.u.b- stratum phase. Permeability is im0de~'ate in the silty layer of soils in the silty sobstratuin iqha~. 'Representative profile of Plymouth loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes, in a wooded arda, in ~eckscher Stste Park: ' ' AI--~0 to 4 inches, very (lark grayish-brown (10YR 3/2) strongly acid; gradual, xv~i~/y bounds ry. B22---10 to 17 inches, yellowish-brown (10YR 5/6) loamy fine gravel; very strongly acid; gradual, wavy boundary. grain; very friable; a ft~x~- roots; 10 percent gravel ]IC--27 to 58 inches, yellowlsk-br0wn (10YR 5/6) gravelly roots; 30 percent rounded Pebbles] 1 inch a ~d less diameter; very strongly acid. in thickness and corresponds with the d~pth to underlying strongly acid to very strongly acid, brown (10YR 3/2) to brown or dark brown (7.5¥R 4/2). In ri'he n horizon ranges fron da ,lc yellowish brown (10¥R · t/,t) to strong brown (7.SYR 5/6). Texturd ~anges £rom sand soils lack the fraglpan and till substratum of Monta~, ~ variant soils. Plymouth ioa~ny sand, 0 to 3 per'cent slopes This soll has the profile de~ribed ~ l~pr~entafi~'e the series. It is mainly on outwasb plains south of Ronkonkoma moraine. It is also on flat hilltops and drainageways on morainic deposits. The areas are nearly ]eve], but (bey are somewhat some places. Areas on outwash plains are large ~orm, and areas on thc moraine are small and irregshr~ Included with this soil in mapping are small areas Riverhead soils flutt have a texture that is marginal loamy sand. Also included are some loamy saeds have a profile similar in appearance to the soils of Carver series. On moraines~ scattered areas of sandy variant soils that have a weak fragipan and ondcrlying till layers are included. These areas iat,r grade between Plynmuth loa~ny sands and loamy sand, sandy variants. In ~he larger areas of tLS milt, smsll acreages of Carver and Plymouth sands inaloded. Scattered throughout the county and on ers Islan(1 are areas that are do~ninantly flue sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Ply~nouth This soil is fairly well suited to crops commonly g. in the county. ~[any are~ were formerly cleared f.. farming, but most of these areas are idh~ or a~x~ i, or rees. Small areas that are in large tracts wiflx head or ltavcn soils are the only areas us~,,1 for lu the western part of flie county most of this ~ sed for housing developments and as industrial Capability unit llI~l; woodland suitability group ~vmuuth loamy sanS, a to S nercent slon~s ~. This soil is on moraines and on(wash plains. SlOl)t.s umhdating, or they are single along the sides ef mitten/ drainageways. Tlu nndulating ire s are larg~. The areas'sion intermittent ~raina ~ex~a , g g narrow ,tt~? long, and they follow the com'se ~;f drainag¢~ (JmnneL Incloded with this soil in mapping are small an'as ..~ Riverhcad soils that are marginM to loamy sand in ~,~ lure. Also included are loamy sands thai hay, similar to those of soils in the'Carver series. Other i~. 1. sious on moraines are Montank loamy sand, sand~' iant soils that have a weak fl'agipan or areas thai ~h't~ small to map sepa~tely. These are nrc 'g.a les b~ Ply?outh oamy sand 'and Montauk loa ny sand, sa:,,i. . ,~lhtnt soils. Small gravelly areas less than ahot 2 , ,, m s~ze are inclnded. Included are a few small areas, tieularly on Fisht~rs Island, that arc dominanlll- sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth This soil tends to be droughty. This soil is flfirly well suited to the crops grown in the coooty. Some areas were formerly tlsc,l fanning, but nmst snch areas are in brush or a]'e idl,. the western pai;t ~ the county, this soil is used mail.l. for housing de;elonnents. 'Capability nnit Ills w~dland suitabil ty gr¢ np 4sl. Plymouth loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes This moderately sloping mil is on moraines and plains. Where it oecm's on moraines, slopes are r,lli~g ~ ~any phtces, and the surface is broken by closed stons. On outwash plains this soil is on the short ~! slopes along intermittent drainageways. Areas William D. Moore Patricia C. Moore Thomas F. Moore Of Counsel MOORE & MOORE Attorneys at Law 315 Westphalia Road P.O. Box 23 Mattituck, New York 11952 Tel: (516) 298-5674 Fax: (516) 298-5664 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary November 20, 1992 BY HAND Mrs. Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED NOV 2 0 1992 SouthoH T.?, Re: Matter of Tony Kostoulas Dear Mrs. Terry: ~ Enclosed please find an appeal to be filed with the Southold Town Board with regard, to the October 22, 1992 decision of the Southold Town Trustees in the matter of Tony Kostoulas. Very ~r~.ly! yours, WDM/mr E~c. SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE COASTAL EROSION HAZARD BOARD OF REVIEW In the Matter of TONY KOSTOULAS APPEAL This appeal is filed with the Southold Town Board in its capacity as the Coastal Erosion Hazard Board of Review pursuant to Article IV section 6-35 of Local Law 24-1991. The owner of the property files this appeal seeking a modification of the action of the Southold Town Trustees acting in their capacity as Administrator of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area in their conditional approval dated 0~tober 22, 1992. A copy of the Trustees' decision is attached as Exhibit A. The specific provisions of the chapter which were improperly applied in this matter involve sections 6-12(A), (B), and (C) and 6-30. Mr. Kostoula$ is the owner of property located at Aquaview Avenue some 1,020 feet east of the intersection of Aquaview Avenue and Rocky Point Road in East Marion. The property has the Suffolk County Tax map identification as 1000-21-2-13. This property was improved with an existing single family dwelling, deck and stairs leading to the beach with additional accessory buildings at the foot of the stairs near the beach on the Long Island Sound. Mr. Kostoulas purchased the property in 1990. At the time he purchased the property he obtained a copy of the certificate of occupancy issued by the Southold Town Building Department together with a copy of the building department's housing code inspection report. Copies of these documents are attached as Exhibit B. The building department noted in its report that the existing exterior stairs, porches and deck needed to be repaired. In addition to these repairs, Mr. Kostoulas sought and obtained approval from the zoning board of appeals in decision #4008 to substantially renovate the existing single family dwelling. A copy of the certificate of occupancy issued for these improvements is attached as Exhibit C. A copy of a survey prepared by William R. Simmons, Jr. dated November 14, 1991 shows the status of the property prior to these extensive improvements to the property; a copy of the survey is attached as Exhibit D. In the course of the ~econstruction of the residence, the preexisting 7.9 ft by 14.0 ft alcove located on the north side of the dwelling was removed revealing and exposing the original footings of this alcove area. It was the consensus of both the builder employed by Mr. Kostoulas and the building department inspector that the exposed footings should be covered with decking to avoid a hazardous condition on the premises. [The footings could not be removed without disturbance to the area in question and equipment could not have gained access to the area in view of the existing dwelling] A copy of the William R. Simmons, Jr. survey as revised dated June 12, 1992 shows the property as it has been improved. See 2 Exhibit E. The footings have been covered with an irregularly shaped deck of approximately 760 square feet. consists merely of 2 x 6 planks attached to 6 x 6 ties. of this construction is attached as Exhibit F. Neither Mr. Kostoulas or his builder were advised additional permit (Coastal Erosion Hazard Area) this ground level deck which was designed to footings and to attach to the pre-existing deck. deck is not the subject of this application as on grade The deck A sketch that an was required for cover the prior The pre-existing it predates the effective date of this local law. The only deck in question is the one which was installed to cover the prior footings, and which was extended to tie-in to the pre-existing_deck. When Mr. Kostoulas was advised that his deck addition required an additional permit, he promptly made application for same. At or about the same time, he'~ttempted to mitigate the potential impacts from erosion that the deck might have caused by having a landscaper recommend and install appropriate erosion control measures. Specifically, the landscaper installed permanent erosion control fabric on top of which was placed three layers of jute erosion matting pinned down with $ inch steel erosion staples which was further covered with 2 - 3 inches of cedar mulch. See Exhibit G. In addition, rose bushes, selected by Timothy Coffey Nursery/Landscape Contractors were planted as a further measure to control erosion. The cost of these measures was more than THREE THOUSAND dollars ($3,000.00.) The Southold Town Trustees erred when they determined that the deck "may have resulted in unnecessary soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face." The conditional approval given by the trustees required the installation of drywells to control runoff. However, dry wells had already been installed by the landscaper employed by Mr. Kostoulas. The trustees apparently did not recognize this fact. See Exhibit H. The trustees' conclusion is that the deck m&¥ result in run-off. However, the trustees made two inspections to the property on March 17 and May 21, 1992 and noted no active erosion on the property. The trustees noted in their inspection that the bluff area had been revegetated with "ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched." The plant selection was made specifically by Timothy Coffey to act as an erosion control measure. The plant selection was not made by a layman for ornamental purposes. The particular species selected'by Mr. Coffey was "Rosa rugosa" which is noted for its particularly effective soil erosion control characteristics. The root structure of this plant grows both vertically and laterally, is drought resistent and requires no chemicals to sustain its growth. It should be noted that the United States Department of Agricultural, Soil Conservation Service includes this specific species as effective erosion control plantings in its "Conservation Plants for the Northeast" publication. Moreover, such species are "shade tolerant" [ie. can survive in shaded areas such as the one created by the deck] and are effective for stabilizing sand dunes and landscaping. The "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" prepared by the 4 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service identifies the soil on the subject property as "Plymouth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes (P1B). See attached Exhibit I. "The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil." The impact of the 670 square foot deck~ which is landward of the top of the bluff is far less than the impacts that could reasonably be expected from pedestrian usage and passage from the house to the pre-existing deck and steps. The on grade deck simply ties the house into the preexisting access to the beach and will eliminate pedestrian and other family activity in the area. Given the significant erosion control measures which have already been installed by Mr. and Mrs. ~ostoulas, and the fact that no active erosion was identified by the trustees after two inspections of the property, it is clear that the deck coupled with the erosion control measures have not and will not cause a measurable increase in erosion at the site or at other locations. As the trustees noted in their conditional approval, the deck cannot be located in another part of the property to accomplish the goal of connecting the preexisting deck with the house. Accordingly, Mr. Kostoulas has met and satisfied the general standards set forth in section 6-12 of Article II. It is respectfully requested that the permit issued by the Town Trustees be modified to allow the deck to remain as constructed together with the erosion mitigation measures already installed by the square At issue is only 470 square feet of deck, feet is defined as an "unregulated activity" as up to 200 5 owner. Lastly, we hereby reserve the right to challenge the appropriateness of the designation of the Southold Town Trustees as the permit administrator for the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Dated: Mattituck, New York November 20, 1992 MOORE & MOORE By: William D. Moore 315 Westphalia Road PO Box 23 Mattituck, NY 11952 6 TRUSTEES '" John M. Bredemeyer, IlL Prcsidcnt Albert J. Krupski, Jr., Vice President Henry P. Smith John B. Tuthill William G. Albertson Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUI'ERV1SOR SCOTT L. IIARRIS Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 South(fid. Ncxv 'tbtk 1197l October 22, 1992 ACTION OF THE SOUTHOLD TRUSTEES ADMINISTRATOR COASTAL EROSION HAZARD AREA Variance application of TONY KOSTOULAS SCTM ~21-2-13 to construct a 670 square foot deck within the coastal erosion hazard area. PERMIT HISTORY AND FINDING OF FACTS 1. On March 17, 1992 an approximate 670 square foot deck was noted near completion within the Structural.Hazard Area at SCTM ~21-2-13 without the required permit approval of the administrator. 2. An application was received for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act on March 25, 1992 in response to a notice of disapproval from the Building Department of March 2, 1992 and subsequently inspected by the Trustees on March 17, 1992. 3. The Southold Town Building Department allegedly permitted the deck construction to be completed so as to prevent a hazard to the Kostoulas children from trip hazards and the bluff precipice. 4. Pursuant to 37-6 the deck is wholly constructed on the bluff in thst all construction is within 25' of the point of inflection." 5. The deck which is approx. 670 square feet is more than' 25% greater in surface area than the house and existing deck which are approx. 1200 square feet and as such is defined as a major addition. 6. A variance is required pursuant to 37-17 A3 in that the addition is not the permitted minor addition allowed by Section 37-17 B. Additionally there are concerns that the structure contravenes the stated purpose of 37-17 A5 in that the activity Whereas the Board of Trustees is of the belief that the deck should not diminish the natural soil keeping features of the bluff to the extent that erosion control vegetation will not thrive. and Whereas the Trustees have considered all the facts surrounding this application for a variance pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act the application is approved with the following conditions: 1. The deck constructed in March of 1992 and subject of this application shall be shortened 8 feet so that it is no closer than 10 feet to the point of inflection of the bluff thus permitting light penetration and vegetative stabilization of the bluff. 2. An alternative 4 feet shortening of the deck subject this application and removal of the entirety of the pre-existing 14' X 22' deck over the bluff-face shall be considered equally with condition number one above at the applicants choice. A maximum 8' X 8' landing would be permitted in lieu of the 14' X 22' deck. 3. The entirety of the bluff shall not be. vegetated/re-vegetated or altered in a~y fashion except for the minimal disturbance needed for the removal noted above without the express written permission of the administrator. 4. Drywells shall be installed for the rear of the house. 5. A soil stabilization and ~ianting plan approved by the Soil Conservation Service shall be submitted for the top most 20' of bluff adjacent to the removed deck prior to said deck removal. 7. An inspection of the deck removal, soil stabilization and drywell installation shall be called for prior to May 1993. In order to avoid the need to post a bond or consider legal action for the existing illegal construction, a notarized statement shall be submitted to the Trustees within one month of this approval indicating your concurrence with the provisions of this permit, your choice of ~1 or 2 above and your agreement to abide by all of its terms. c.c. Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Bill Southard, NYSDEC may have resulted in unnecessary "soil disturbance that directs surface water run-off over a bluff face". 7. After the time of application, the applicant installed erosion control fabric and several tiers of 'low terracing beneath the deck areas without authorization from this office. 8. The bluff on si~e appeared to be free of active erosion at the time of inspections which were m~de on March 17 and May 21, 1992. 9. The bluff face was noted re-vegetated with ornamental/non-indigenous plant species and heavily mulched in contrast to accepted soil stabilization practices for'bluff areas which should be heavily seeded with "known" erosion control species. 10. The deck in question and the pre-existing deck over the bluff cast shade over the point of inflection of the bluff. 11. The deck is not considered easily movable, although easily removed, and as such is at variance for Section 37-13 B: "the construction of non-movable structures or the placement of major-non-movable additions to an existing~structure is prohibited" (in a 'structural hazard area) 12. The deck slopes toward the bluff and there is a serious question that rain run-off is not properly directed and collected for re-charge ahead of the bluff. 13. On July 30, 1992 an agency negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA was issued for this action which is considered an unlisted -uncoordinated action. 14. On September 17, 1992 a public hearing was held pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Act. 15. No one spoke against the application at the public hearing. DETERMINATION (conditioned approval) Whereas the deck in question could not readily occupy another site on the. property. Whereas the deck in question does not reasonably mitigate the adverse impacts of run-off and shading in close proximity to the bluff face. Whereas the deck in question will not be reasonably safe from erosion damage. Whereas the variance requested is not the minim~ necessary.to properly protect the bluff from erosion and exacerbate the potential negative i;apact of the existing deck over the bluff. sUR'~EYED LOCATED AT ,,~'T',,~,~' . TOWN OF~'~C/~''''/'~/z~ , CO. CLK. NO. , SUFFOLK COUNT"' N.Y. FILED LO3' MAP OF ~)~-~".,~.~/~D SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- ," ' ~L~. ~ LOT ~/~ ON ~, AK[ ~ A ' ~ULD NOT B - / ~. WILLIAM R. SIMMONS JR- , PlO BOX 377 j,~Es~o~x. ~.'., ~-~' ~7 FORM NO. 4 (~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town }{ali Southold, N.Y. PRE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No Z19582 Date DECEMBER 13~ 1990 THIS CERTIFIES that the building. Location of Property 985 House No. County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ORE FAMILY DWELLING & ACCESSORIES AQUAVIEW AVE. EAST MARION Street Hamlet 21 Block 02 Lot 13 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Requirements for a private on-family dwell- ing built prior to A~RIL 9, 19~7 pursuant to which Certificate of Occupancy Z19582 Dated DECEMBER 13, 1990 was issued, and conforms to all'pi the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. Tile occupancy for which this certificate is issued is ONE FAMILY DWELLING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES **** The certificate is issued to RUTH ROWE (owner) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDEPWRITERS CERTIFIC31TE NO. N/A PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED N/A ****SEE INSPECTION REPORT Rev. 1/81 /Buil/d ing Inspector FORM NO. 4 ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT Office of the Building Inspector Town }{all Southold, N.Y. No Z-20500 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY Date JANUARY 24t 1992 THIS CERTIFIES that the building ADDITION & ALTERATION Location of Property 1035 AgUAVIEW A~ENUE EAST MARION, N.Y. House No. Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 21 Block 2 Lot 13 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated JANUARY 24~ 1991 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 19809-Z dated APRIL 25r '1991 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 ADDITION & ALTERATION TO EXISTING ONE FAMILY DWELLING AS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS #4008. Rev. 1/81 The certificate is issued to TONY & MARIA KOSTOULAS (owners) of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL N/A UNDER%~RITERS CERTIFICATE NO. N-215208 - DECEMBER 3~ 1991 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED JAN. tSt 1992 - GEORGE MARTINEK J ' /// BJilding inspector SCALE 1" = ~ · SUFFOLK CO. TAX MAP DATA:- DIST./~) , SEC. ~'/ ~LK. ~..~:~ LOT ~ OtTS~TS rF;OM $3'kUCTURE5 TO P. ELATIVE ~OUNDR] · TOWN , SUFFOLK COUNTv N.Y. , CO. CLK, NO, FILED O FiLE NO./~/24:~:~ 19~0 BY WILLIAM R. SiMMONS JR-~ P/O Box 377 JAMESPORT. L.I., N.Y. 119~47 SURv:, ~D FOR: LOCAT:D ~T ~'-"~"~7' LOT MAP OF Z~,~.-~,'~ ,,Z::~,~'~ SCALE 1" = ,~'0" + D~ST./C~'<~ , SEC. BLK. 0~'.~-~ LOT TO ~T~E BO~y ~, ON ~V~, A~ ~ ~P~FIC USE O~Y, A~ SHOULD NOT BE USED ~ CONSTI~UETION OF FENCES OR OTHER STRUCTURES. ~-r,. NO. 5UFFCL?~ -" ..... N./ F!LED [51~3 765-2554 TO 'q- o ~/9 .. tj ¥~/ 4 7- TD g //u ~-q- oF' ~/ '7 ~ ~ ~Po ,~ ? L ~ : 'T ~ ~ 447 000 FEET SU FF~K COUNTY, NEW fORK Beach ~ 0 R l H A R ~ RhE) RdA G A R D I N E R .® 78 SOrL SURVEY crops to lime and fertilizer is fMr. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid thrm ghout the profile of most of these sol s, but ii is strongly scid to medinm acid in tile lower substratum of soils in the silty substratnm phase. The root zone is confined inainl~ to'the riDDer 25 to 85 inches Internal drainage i~; goo~l. Permeablhty is rapid in all of these soils except in those of the silty suh- stratam phase. Permeability is imcglerate ill the' silty layer of soils ill tile silty sabs'tratnin phase. lqepresentative profile of Plymoath laamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, ill a wooded aras, in l:t'e~'kscher Stale Park: Al--0 to 4 inches, very dark ~,q'ayish-0rown (10YR 3/2) brown (10YR 3/2) to brown or dark brown (7.5YR 4/2). ..~!,,, iLi2-zon ~.l.g~s q.,,,. ~a,'~ y,, ,,,Via, i,.,w. soils lack the fragipan and till substratum of Monlauk, variant .soils. Plymouth loamy sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes This soil has the profile described as represcetatire the series. It is mainly on ontwash plains somh of Ronkonkoma moraine. It is also on fiat hilltops and draim~geways on nlm't hie deposits The areas generalh are nearly, 'hwel, but they are somewhat undalating stone pla¢~es. Areas on outwash plains are large aed Ual- form, sm] areas oa the moraine are small and irrcguhr Included wi0~ this soil in mapping are small areas Riverhead soils that have a texture that is marginal loamy sand. Also included are some loamy sands have a profile similar in appearance to thd soils ~f ~arvcv series. On nlm'aincs~ scattered sreas of saody variant soils that have a weal; fragipan and mitlerlyieg till layers are included. These areas ~radc la't;w~cn Plymoath loamy sands and,Mma.t.k loamy saod, sandy'variants. Tn }he ]argcr areas ,,f d. milt, small acreages of Carver and Plymouth sands inch,deal. Scattered thronghoat the county and oi1 ers lslaml are areas that are dominantly hae sand. , Thc hazard of crosmn is shgl t on this Plymen{h .1 his soil is fairly well suit d to crops comn~m~ly nt the cmmty. Many areas were formerly cleared ~. farming, bnt most of these areas are idle o[' am in or ~'ces. Small areas that arc in large tracts with head or '[Iavcn soils are t]n~ only areas us~,,] hn. la the western part of the county, most of t]tis used fro' h6using developments and as industrial sit,,. ~apability nnit 1I~l; woodhmd saitalfility greup hi P ~~~gr~nt q his SOl/ IS OI1 mor~ms a~mtwash I)]~. amh~lating, or they are single along the sides of inh: ntit~ent drainagmvays. The undnlatin,, areas ate htlge. The aleas along lnteimlttcnt~h.amagt~vaxs narrow alld ]onrr and they follow the coarse f;f drainage chamml. InchMed with this soil in mapping a 'e s mil arcs, ..l Riverhead soils that are marginal to loamy sand in h l tm'e. Also included arc lOlllOy sands thai ]mw similar ~o those of soils in the'Carver series. Other in. i. sions on moraines are Montaak loamy sand, samlv iant soils that have a weak fragipan or aress that th'e ~,,. small to map sepal~tely. These are intergrades Plymonll loamy sand and Montaak loamy sara'l, ~,tt rant smls. S II gravelly areas less th;n~ about 2 a, in size are iaclmled, hnqudcd are a few sam]l art,as, I'.'.' ticalarl¥ on Fishcrs Island, that lll'l~ domiaanth- san(l. ' Thc hazard of crosina is slight on this Plymoudt This soil lemls lo he dronghly. This soil is fairly well suited to thc crops grown in the emmly. Some areas were fm'nwrlv u~,.~l f: farnling~ bel nlost 8u(.h areas are in brush or a'n~ i,lh. I.. tile western pltl;t o~ thc colll~ty~ this soil is used for housing dcvtdopnmnts. Capability anit Ills; woodhmd suitabilit g gr(a p Isl. Plymouth laamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes {pl ~ Il s lm dveatlqy sloping soil is nn nloraines and plains. Where it occm.s on moraines, slopes arc r,lli~,.~ ~ many places, snd the surface is brokca by clesed sinns. 0)~ oatwash plaias this soil is on t} e shmt slopes ,dong inlerm trent drainageways. Areas 0;