HomeMy WebLinkAboutPubic Hearing 07/16/2019 SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
a
July 16, 2019
9:00 AM
Present: Supervisor Scott Russell
Justice Louisa Evans
Councilman William Ruland
Councilwoman Jill Doherty
Councilman James Dinizio, Jr.
Councilman Bob Ghosio, Jr.
Town Clerk Elizabeth Neville
Town Attorney William Duffy
This hearing was opened at 9:20 AM
COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of
Southold will hold a public hearing Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 9:00 AM at the Southold Town
Hall Meeting Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York upon application of the Coastal
Erosion Hazard Board of Review Appeal of LCMG FINY, LLC c/o Leslie Goss which seeks
relief from Section 111-6 and 111-11C of the Town Code to retain and reconstruct +451 linear
feet of existing 8' wide fixed wood pier with handrails on each side, of which+-120 linear feet is
seaward of the AHWL; replace handrails on each side of pier and install new decking; all of the
cribs will be removed, including timbers and half of the stone from site with removed stone to be
disposed of offsite; the remaining stable stone at each crib location will be left in a stable mound
to preserve habitat with new 12 inch Class B piles to be utilized for support of the pier for its full
length; install Thru-Flow decking for the full level length of the structure over the water;
construct a transitional slope section of the pier from the mainland bluff to meet standard 1:10
maximum gradient in order to provide 5 feet of clearance for pedestrian access along beach;
install ladders at strategic locations along the length of the pier, and bumpers/fenders at the end
of the pier; and to replace three (3) tie-off piles and install one (1) new tie-off pile; and as
depicted on the site plan prepared by Docko, Inc., received on May 3, 2019 within a near shore
area in a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area located on property on parcel SCTM#1000-2-1-14.1 at
3773 Clay Point Road, Fishers Island, New York; and directs the Town Clerk to publish notice
of such appeal in the Suffolk Times newspaper and the New London Day newspaper not less
than ten (10) days nor more than thirty (3 0) days prior to such hearing and to notify the applicant
by first class mail.
I have a notarized affidavit that this was indeed published in the Suffolk Times. I also have a
copy of the legal notice published in the New London Day and also that this was noticed on the
Town Clerk's bulletin board and on the Town website. I have a copy of the notices and signs
posted on the property and copies of mailings for the adjacent owners. That is it.
Coastal Erosion Appeal LCMG FINY, LLC
July 16, 2019 page 2
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Who would like to address the Town Board?
KEITH NEILSON: My name is Keith Neilson, I am with Docko, Inc. and I prepared the
applications for this project and for the variance that you are reviewing today. I would like to
make a little introductory presentation about this dock. This dock was originally built in the
1950's and so it has a long standing testimony to its structural capability and support method.
The, in preparing the application we reviewed the coastal management programs of each of the
four federal, state and local agencies and specifically for this presentation, the coastal erosion
management protection chapter 111 of town law. Which directs it as protection of existing local
facilities, existing and adjacent properties and resources in the area, of which there are two
notable. A minimal amount of tidal wetlands along the shoreline but a significant amount of
aquatic vegetation which is eelgrass depicted on our application drawings around the pier. The
project will involve crib removal and use of Thru-Flow decking and pile supports which where
all considered enhancements based on environmental review of the New York DEC and the
Department of State as well as the Corps of Engineers, these will improve water flow and
circulation and provide a better habitat, benefit habitat and water habitat for the growth of this
eelgrass. We did have the eelgrass (inaudible) by a professional wetland scientist and
(inaudible) the delineations are accurate. The DEC, Corps of Engineers and the Department of
State also reviewed this project for resource and habitat protection and suitability of navigation
in the area. As a part of the Corps of Engineers review, the national fishery service also weighs
in on protection of submerged aquatic vegetation. So the project is depicted here with the broad
area being the pier itself, the light aqua color area being the submerged aquatic vegetation, the
eelgrass, otherwise the waters are blue indicating the water below the mean water line. We have
a profile in the applications drawings which shows the extent of the removal of stone and the
wood pipes to free up water flow and circulation and then if you view over the right hand edge of
the page to show what the end structure and fenders and piles would look like. The current
decision was originally made by the DEC and we agreed upon the extent of timber and rock
removal and disposition i.e., not being on the beach for the stone. Everything will be transported
back to Connecticut and disposed of according to Connecticut laws. The pile supports are, in
order to make sure that this remains a sound structure, will be green hard piles and they will be
driven to 15 feet of embedment with an average bearing capacity of 30 tons each and (inaudible)
of 15 tons, so these piles will not pull out during normal or anticipated storm conditions. All
connections will be bolted, the decking pieces are screwed down. The Thru Flow decking is an
open grate type of decking which allows not only sunlight to come in on a day to day basis
(inaudible) is roughly 60 percent of natural sunlight exposure but the decking also allows for
some disbursement or relief of upward forces from waves. So these are consistent not only with
the environmental resource protection but also with disbursement of forces to minimize wear and
tear on the dock. The timbers are (inaudible) and stringers being 3x10's and the pier is facing
into the most significant forces that the dock will experience on a typical basis. So that the
strongest axis of the pier is facing into the most significant forces. We followed the chapter 111
guidelines carefully in preparing the application, posted the necessary notices and followed the
proper procedures and so your approval of the variance (inaudible). I would be happy to
entertain any questions you might have.
COUNCILMAN GHOSIO: Did you get a Trustees permit?
Coastal Erosion Appeal LCMG FINY, LLC
July 16, 2019 page 3
MR. NEILSON: We have got a Trustees permit for the tidal wetlands. The Coastal Erosion was
denied because the pier exceeds 200 square feet and it is not removable. I did make a notation in
the application that said making this pier removable would compromise the structural ability of
the pier and that's why we requested variance.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: And the intended use I assume is for a vessel?
MR. NELSON: Yes.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: What's the depth of the water there?
MR. NEILSON: Just over 4 feet at the end of the pier and that was in accordance with national
marine fishery service design standards for eelgrass areas.
ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY HAGAN: This matter did come before the Board of
Trustees, the Trustees did grant a wetlands permit however, they were unable to grant a coastal
erosion permit based on all the statements Mr. Nelson did make. It is important to note that in
the review of the file, the Trustees did note there were several changes made from the existing
structure to its current layout, namely the Thru Flow decking throughout to promote marine life
and plant life growing on the bottom to allow for light permeation. That area does have a great
deal of eelgrass already, it is expected that the eelgrass will continue to grow underneath the new
dock once the Thru Flow decking goes in. The removal of the cribs was also very important and
leaving the stone underneath the dock in certain places to allow for marine life to foster in those
areas. Also, the Trustees were happy the pier had been raised to 5 feet to allow for pedestrian
access on the shoreline and that was the reason why they had approved the project and granted
the wetland permit.
SUPERVISOR RUSSELL: Any questions? This is essentially a replacement.
This hearing was closed at 9:31 AM
Eliz th A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk