Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutManago, Vincent & Carol 09/18/2007 11 :11 FAX 0317272385 TWOMEVLATHAMSHEMELLEV f 001/012 Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartararo, LLP Attorneys at Law 33 West. Second Street P. a. Box 9398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Tel: 631-727-2180 Fax: 631-727-2385 FAX COVER SHEE TO: James King, President SEP } S 2C07 FROM; Philip D, Nykamp, Esq. �- 5c,r.i Trtc�1F•� _� TELECOPY NO: 631-765-6641 TRANSMISSION DATE: 9/18/07 TIME SENT: It:10 am SUBJECT: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY SCTM: 118-4-10 NUMBER OF PAGES FOLLOWING THIS COVER SHEET: I IF ANY OF THESE PAGES ARE NOT LEGIBLE PLEASE CALL(631) 727-2180 AND NOTIFY: Kasey EXT: 262 ROOMIEXTENSION/FLOOR: NOTES: Please see attached. This information may contain confidential andlor privileged material and is only transmitted for the intended recipient Any review,retransmission,conversion to hard copy,copying,reproduction, circulation,publication,dissemination,or other use of,or taking of any action,or omission o take action, in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this message in crrur,please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer,disk drive;,diskette,or other storage device or media.. 09/18/2007 11: 11 FAX 6317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY IA002/012 TVYOMEy, LATHAM, 5HEA, KELLEY, IDURiN & QUARTARARO LL,P Affornrys W IA4w or COMM' THOMAS A.TWOMEY.JR. Malllnp Addrese LOoallen KENNETH P.LAVALLE STEPHEN a.LATHAM Poet OfficeBOX 9398 33 West Second Street JpAN C.HAYFIELD d JOHN F.SHEA.III Riverhead Riverhead PHILIP d,NYKAMP CHRISTOPHER 0.KELLEY Now York 11901-9398 Now York 1Igo 1-8398 LAURA 1 SQUAZZIN A DAVID M.DUeIN6 JAY P.OUARTARARCT CYRUS IS A.AZ, TO+ PETER M,MOTT TBlephone:631.727,21130 uSA A.N OATO+ JANICf L.$HEAD Facsimho:631.727.1767 KATHRYN OALLI WANIt MARTIN o.FMINEGANG DANIEL O.ANNC MAW GOODALL JENNlFER A.ANDALGR0 Rb RRYAN C.VAN COTT♦ WWW.Svivolklaw com KEW E,KINIRONS PATRICK S.FIFE 4AVREN E.STILES AM18L 8 GROSS• email address; PNykwnp@suffolklaw.com LLJA.IN TAK^TION T LL.N.IN ESTATE PLANNING+ NY LA BARB 6 Dircm Fax: 631-727.2385 NY.NJ.A PA NY A CT B ARAR1 a SI q NY A NJ BARB NY,4C.BA.i FL BARB+ Re Extension 26 7 NY.NJ,MYor.Ot FL SAR9 L Lll 1 NY A TN BAR9 September 18,2007 VIA FACS 7654641 AND FIR T LASS MAIL James King,President Members of the Board of Trustees,Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. 0. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear Mr. King and Members of the Board of Trustees: This firm represents John and Vera 1Aloia,the owners of the groin that is subject to the above-referenced application. Reference is made to my prior letters to the Board of Trustees, dated August 23, 2005, September 20,2005,and April 20,2006, as well as the prior hearings in this matter. 1 have enclosed the judgment in Manago v, Aloia ct al. This judgment was not appealed and is the final judgment. As you can see,the Manago's claims were dismissed in their entirety. In addition,the judgement states that the Aloias are the owners of the entirety of the groin and the land upon which it is situated. Accordingly,we again request that the Trustees deny the above-referenced application because: (1)the Applicant does not own the groin in question,(2)the record is clear that any maintenance performed on the groin cannot possiblx be the cause of any beach erosion on the 2Q MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112,FL Ill 400 TOMMNLINE ROAD 5W40 MAIN ROAD,P.O-SOX 3N EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11900 PORT JEFFERSON 5TA_,NY 11778 HAUPrdAUGE,NY 11786 SOUTHOLD.NY 11071 831.11ZL1200 881.287.0090 031.929.4400 0312115.1414 831.765.8300 09/18/2007 11 : 12 PAX 6317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY IM 003/012 James King,President Members of the Hoard of Trustees, Town of Southold September 18,2007 Page 2 Manago property, and (3) because the standards for issuance of a permit to the Managos mandate that said permit be denied. See Town Code §97-28. Of course,if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very, truly yours, Ntr*g P ilip D. ykamp PDN,kjc Enclosure: cc: John and Vera Aloia Charlotte Biblow, Esq_ 09/1B/2007 11 : 12 FAX 6317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY IM004/012 r i r I FAX NO. : 03 S&P. 07 2007 01=0W'11 F•- til'PREME COEIRT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK r------- .N.---.............. ...................1...ter. .......... VINC1ENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, Plalntiff(s), JUDGMENT WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY -Wins[- INDEX# 15690/02 JOHN F. ALOIA and ELVYI2A ALOIA,COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES,UNC., Detendaat(s). SIRS : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the within is a truce copy of the Judgment which was duh entered in the Office of the County Clerk of the County of Suffolk on June 18,2001 Dated. Garden City, tiew York June 27,2007 THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL L. KATZ BY: ,Of Con Attorn or Defendants JOHN ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA Office& P.Q.Address 1325 Franklin Avenue - Suite 320 Gardap City,Now York 11530 (516) 741-2121 FILE#2001-18479 TO.- FARRELL FRITZ,P.C. Attorneys for Pla[ntiffs Office &P.O. Address 1320 Ranson Plaza Utriondale, Now York 115S6-0120 (sib) Z27-0700 09/1B/2007 11 : 12 FAX 6317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY IM005/012 FAK NO. : 03 SeF• 07 2W? 01.08Ft^. F'' KEN"NTDV, LILLIS, SCHMIDT & ENGLISH Attorneys for Dofondants COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. 75 Maiden Lane-Suite 402 N$w York,New York 10038 (3t2) 430-0806 09/18/2007 11 : 12 FAX 8317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY Ia 006/012 Fif t I = FRX NEI. 03 Sep. 07 2007 01=0.9'19 P i f At a Specia] Tern+ of tt a 'supreme ' I Court of the stare of NOW Yn;k. i� Comity of Suffolk, 236 O=iffing AvIenue Zlverhea Pow York, or T :I The any of . 7007 i I PRE S an }.loNoPABLE PAvL J, 6AZSLEY, JR. , 9UFRLME Cn(MT OF THE STATE dF N9w YORX TY OF SL7I'pOi►K 1. } VINCENT MAriAGO Arid CAROL MdANACO- 1 FprT �1•gpr.4:-� } Index No. Dz-1569G ag;ir►at *A P%*.Lm } W } u-0Tq Xr. NLOXA and ELVIRA II,i ZA,l } �AeA�QD JUDGMENT ve-randants. I `- The Dafeaaants COSTELLO r,ARWZ CONTRACTING CORP. and I COSTBLLO MARINE 61MVICE9, INC. , having moved far an order direct ing the entry of summary judgmalit in their favor and against them fJ I plalr,tiffa, and the iowf andante, JOHN F. ALOIA a:1Q ELV=RA ALDIA, staving duly crosa-moved for an order directing the entry of awn- , mazy judgment in their fervor and againat the Plaintif.e, and for' a Declaratary ,Yudgme1'1t in their favor, and the Plaintiffs having, I I � duly cross-moved far anorder directing the entry of swnmaty r jadgtno-.1e in their favor nad agai.nat the Defandarte, and oral ar ; gumenta having beer!, hfaard 4efore UiLs Court on May 3, 2005, and. an order having been filed and entered an the Moth day of April. , Z { p ' WE W ROD AT 101171011:4717 PM rMD1Y4N T�I�}'SVR:PRO�Df�1i9N1r1?'D1RS;S1�0�93�f;S@;'DI1RAi10H�Iri��;Di•�0 09/18/2007 11 : 12 FAX G317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEY rM 007/012 C E1.R I FM( No- : 03 Sep. 97 2007 ei:e9Ff4 F5 Ij I, 1 �i2ans g:aftiting the COsTr-!. p Detant4ants' motian for suir-mare OuYg- I Imcnt.. gre,rstirg the ALOIA Cefendants' cross-motion for sumv..af:y' I judg-rant, gxantiaq a declaratory )udgmert; in favor of the A -01A; Defendants, and denying Plaintiffs' cross-mocion; WN, upon reading and filing cbe befand>xnta, CDOTIMLo+ W Rr$E COXMACTINd CORP. and COSTELLO KARINF SERVICES, INC. 'S Ma- 1 tion dated October I., 2D04 and the Affirmatism of TIMmas C. Mur- j phy, SBq. , dared October :. 2004, together with the affidavits and exbibit9 attached thereto in support of said Motion, and UPC-3! i' =:1a reading a^.d filf.hg of the nefendants. JOHN r. AL,QIA e.:f_l j�rrirvlRA ALOIA'S dross-matior. for Summary J%idgmant dated Movemker, I 23, 2004, and the AffiYmation of Var+cy R- Feuer, z&q. dared Ne- �vember 23, 2004, together with the arZi.davits and exhibits ac- 1 taehed thereto in euppbrt of said motion, and upon the readincl and fil�.rf5 n! PjRjnt:ffs, VINCRIWr MR AQQ and CAROL MADIAW-5r Croas-Motion for s=mary :udgsant oar-ad November Z3, 2004, axdi • i the Affirmation of Charlor-r-e aiblow, Seq, dared November -3, E 200d, together with the aLffidavics and exhibits attached thercEul l in support of said motion, and after due delibdrar-ion having beer.. had thereon, and upon the Order of ch_f;, Court dated April 12 2006; l IT Is KER29Y ORDERED, ADJ=ED AND IMCRESD that Deten- i 1 dants, COSTELLo MARINE C"ONTRACT17-40 ,CORP. and CQST1&LLO MARIN3 1 i 4 PAG:d+3'R4�+aAT1Vilf2001i�#1;fTP�4lCe 1pay6glilTrue]'SMPROD8P111 RI2'D011MM"DOT1ol"Zis 09/18/2007 11 : 13 FAX 6317272385 TNUMEYLATHAMSHEAHELLEY 1A 008/012 FFI:,T FAX NO. : 03 Sep. 07 2007 01:10FM P� StRV_CES, INC. ' 3 motion for summary ;udgment is in all respects grarccd and the complaint: is dismissed, wiCf: ptE]tid1Ge, and. IT IS FMTHER C M=, ADJUDGED AM DECREED tbac the Defendants, JOHN F. AL01A and XLVIRA ALOIA• S motsvr for SUMMOVY 3udgment is in null respects Vrantedi and, , TT IS FEMTH2h ORPERED, AWUDG8b AND DECREED chat a De- claratory JudgrnenC ie hereby gzanced to the Defendsnce, JaiN F. " AL7IA and ALVYRA AL01A, declaring chat. the AL,AIA Defendants are thv sole and exclusive owners of the entirety of the ;e:tY re- 1 Ifasrred to in the Order of this Court dated April 12, 2006 (thel �Je%ry') , amd the sole encs exclusive owners in fsm absolute of I the land upon which the Jetty is SiCuated (t;he "Land"} except t0 the extent that any part of the Land situated under Water is awned by any governmental entity under the Laws of the state of� New York yr the united States 4"Laws") , said jetty being the .game, structure depictod in the Surveys retorred to in the aforemen- rioned wotfores and cxasp-IttOtiOYl9, to wi.t: The Donac)c 9urvr_y,I Iodated May 3, 1984,, the zngegno survey dozed February 27, 1002, E and the Pecaric Surveyors' Survey dated Feb7r+lary 16, 1996: and. IT I9 FURTHER OR]*3R35D, ADJuvGED AND DHCRREV chat ownership of .the 'LJetty" is appurtenawnt t:o the ATRIA Defendants' i ownership of Sectxvn 113, block 14 and Lott 9, also known as 9045 j rrassau Point lioad. Cutchogue, Suffolk County, Now Yv=k, 'the 1 S PAGE rN RCYCIITr�aar :ar�r Pragr�T���sv�v �, �t� :sip r :=ou� :aa•�a I 09/19/2007 11 : 13 FAX 6317272305 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEASKELLEY J1 009/012 Fk�m� FAX NO. : 03 Sop. 97 2W7 01,WPM P- rT _ -tom :sv I ' "XLOIA Property' ) and thaC the , LCIA Defendants, and any au,cos- svrs in interest to the ALOTA Property, subject to all Laws, have and %hall have the a=ILLs�.ve aright to possession, cusitvdy sndi control of the -Jetty, : arw i I'C 18 F`GZtTHER OROMM, ADOVD= AND DIScR= Ghat the exclusive fee simple. estate of JOKK F. ALOIA and BLVIRA ALCIA ;.r I the "L&W underlying Che ',Tatty , subject to all `Laws," sha11` merge with ownership of the_ALOTh Propa rcy, and sucb estate shall ,inure to the succaaeors in interest to the ALOrA Property. a--�d; 7T 18 FtMTN2R ORDERED, ADr7x=RD FUND DSCREIED ChAt the E sucralk county clark, being the County Registrar, is hereby di- i I` rested Co enter, record aid index this ,'udgment in its books un- der Section 11e, Block 14 and Lot 9, and; 1 IT YS 1rL]R':'OR ORDERED, ADJU=ED A-tM DECREED that the' Plaintiffs, cwpow-Motion for summary Judameht is in all reipecCa denied; and. I I IT re FM77= ORD$REO, ADJ=ED ARD oEaFD that Plain- , I tiff■' complaint and all crone-claiMS are disodaged, wlCh prea'j- Jdlce, and. ' f IT Y8 ![JllTHER O DISRSO, ADjUDOED AND OBCFX= that thm L UeEerdArsea requests for costa are hereby denied; and, i 6 1 Wili ul 1;61:11 PSI[Celld�'�I D �=SMPAoa�A�c9 ii 4H86;5190�90 cso: W�A H Y,110 09/18/2007 11 : 13 FAX 8317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEA8KELLEY IA 010/012 F'R�.Ita FAX NO. : 93 Sep. 07 2007 01'11PM FP I 1 �� =T IS FDA'Z'S>IEA oRDsRE9. l.DJUDGtD AND D$CREED that this I 3udgment He entered herein by the Clark of this Court in tsvo!: 0 the ne_"endanta, JOKS F, ALLOIA, ELVIRA ALOIA, COSTELLO hlrJ IN3i CONTRACTIDIG CORP. and COSTSL:A WMINE 53MVICE5. INC. and t�ga_nrtlt ttee yjaintiffs, VTNCBNT MAMW and CAROL M NAGO, , i �ude�arit signed tpip day of 2007 i 1 Ts M T E R, 1 ' s GRANTED O .S.C. JUN 0 41007 r C �.t..�.�-� � t Guam a Peecs18 i GLM OF SUFFOLK COUNTY 1 i N*i W -Ar bay' f,k)hn r- F_Ivi'ry OJO r 4 i c , ,-,,i ai'h cu r.'..j r 7y OIL �fe 3zU 11.ttt ll -r;),e C,034 Clio MRr+;t Cvnirtitsbrii G.w.d i~o�tula M o.uv ,5rryd.�n �s r��-•.ote.. i� � yU� � u-Y- , 7 �!��9'ACMD AT 6�11�r 1Al:iT���CenCal �'StIQ:PRODdF�k9Y�12tDNl3:�1�0'C®:'OI�'AON }:P2d! ' 09/18/2007 11 : 13 FAX 8317272385 TWOMEYLATHAMSHEAUELLEY 011/012 -- FAX NO. ' 03 SKP. 07 2eO7 01:11Pll F'v SU-PRFNIE COMT OF THE STATE OF NEW PORK CO1 'N'7Y OF SU-FFOLK VINCENT vIANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, Plaintiff(s), CERTIFICATION -agalmst- INDE-X M 15690/02 JOHN ALOLk and ELVIRA ALOIA,COSTELLO`S MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. AND COSTELLO NtfiR1NE SERVICES,INC., Dofaadants CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 130-1.1-a OF THE RULES OF TIM CEMF ADMINISTRATOR(22NYCRR) The undersigned certifies the followEag documout■pursuant to 22NYCRIi Section 130- TUMMENT WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY Dated: Garden City,New York .Tune 27,2007 TIM LAW OFFICES OF NEIL NZER IIY: 0 CY R,Of Ccuuma Attorneys or Defeadoafs JO&N AI.O%A&ELVIRA ALOIA oMce& P.O. Address 1323 Franklin Avenue-Suite 320 Garden City,New York 11530 (516)741-2121 09/18/2007 11 : 13 FAX 6317272385 TWOMEYLATHANSHEA&KELLEY IM 012/012 =r<ins FW NO. : 03 Sep. 67 2eW 61:12R4 F1. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS: COUNTY Of NASSAU ) NAINCY R. WEINER,being duly sworn,deposes and says: That deponent is over the age of eighteen years, Is not it party to this lawsuit. and reside9 In Suffolk County,New York. Thae on the 27th day of June, 2007 deponent served the within JUDGMENT WiTll NOTICE Of ENTRY upon: FARRELL FRITZ,P.C. AtlForneys for Plaintiffs Office&P.O. Address 1320 Recksoa Plaza Uniondale,Now York 1106-0120 (516)227-0700 KENNEDY,LILLIS,SCHMIDT*E19GLISH Attorneys for Defendants COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. COS'j%LLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. 75 Maiden Lane-Suits 402 New York,New York 10038 (212)430.OS06 via first elasa mail,by depositing a true copy thereof, in a sealed wrapper,with postage prepaid thereon,itt an offieiat depository of the United States Postal Service within the States of New York. eo CY R.JVMWER Sworn to before we this irJ` day of June 3 ?. NOTARY PUBLAC NEIL L. KANZER Notary Public-Smie of New Yore, No, 02KAGO95299 Qu81Ied ir. Sufrolk County Fitt'Commission Expires ju!y 7,2007 4 d w w. , i v Y�n� _ i 50 , fo+ � Y 3 n qY � WW 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 July 19, 2006 Hon. James King, President and Members of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road, Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Illegal jetty at north end of my property: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 118-4-10 Dear President King and Members of the Board of Trustees: Since 2001, when I first brought this issue before you, the Board has adjourned a decision pending additional information. In the meantime, the beaches south of the jetty (located at the north end of my property) have further deteriorated. Last year, my neighbors to the south complained to President Krupski about the erosion of the beaches south of the jetty. Mr. Krupski asked me to bring this matter before the Board once again in April, 2005. The Board, however, again resolved to continue to await a court decision on ownership before addressing the reconstruction of the jetty without permits and due process. I understand you now have that information from the Court (the judge ruled that the Aloias own the jetty) and so the Board can proceed. I would like to summarize for you the salient points: (1) Non Functioning-Jetty In 1995 the entire jetty was determined to be "non-functioning" by the Town (see attached Exhibit I). John Aloia, our neighbor to the north, requested a permit to repair the outer-most 14 feet which was badly damaged by an ice storm. Those repairs (which were made in a high profile manner) did NOT make the remaining 50 feet of the jetty functional, so the jetty continued to be non-functional until the reconstruction was performed in 1999 and 2001 (see photos before and after reconstruction also see statements and letters provided before the Board in April and August 2005 by the residents to the south). Concerning the 1995 repairs to the outer-most 14 feet, on August 24, 2005 then Board President Krupski said that it has been Town policy for many years "that any jetty replacement or reconstruction would involve changing the jetty into a low profile jetty..." "So that has been Town policy for years consistently applied throughout the Town." John A1oia then asked if this applied to his 1995 repairs to the outer-most 14 feet. President Krupski responded "That should have been applied then, you should have been to (sic) ordered to reconstruct it in a low profile manner the same as all the jetties." (2) Aloia ADDED (not replaced, not repaired —ADDED) 50 ADDITIONAL feet of sheathing In 1999 and in 2001 the remaining in-shore 50 feet of the jetty was reconstructed without permits. It was argued before the Board that ordinary maintenance does not require a permit. The Board should note that they did not repair or replace 50 feet of sheathing ---- they ADDED 50 linear feet of new sheathing adjacent to the old sheathing and replaced some side stringers, (about 400 square feet of ADDITIONAL wood). This widened the jetty, made it functional and made it a veritable wall, preventing sand from moving south. My attorney has provided you with the legal depositions from the Aloias and their contractor wherein, under oath, they admitted doing the work to reconstruct the jetty without permits. In addition, the Aloia's attorney, Mr. Nykamp, admitted they added 46 feet of new sheathing, (it was 50 feet i.e. 64 ft less 14 =50). In his August 23, 2005 letter to this Board he stated "a new row of sheathing was placed along side the existing row that lies between the existing stringers." Also, please note that some stringers were replaced at that time. All this was done in a HIGH PROFILE manner without permits. (3) DEC ordered NO work seaward of the bulkhead and then issued a Notice of Violation On August 17, 2000 the NYS DEC issued an order to the Aloias stating that NO construction may take place seaward of the bulkhead without a permit (see attached Exhibit 11). On Oct. 29, 2001 The NYS DEC issued a Notice of Violation to Aloia for causing "Substantial modification to an existing groin" by the installation of new sheathing without a permit(see attached Exhibit III). The DEC also decided to await ownership determination before final resolution. (4) Town Wetlands Ordinances (in force when reconstruction occurred), # 97-27(C)(1)(a) only low profile jetties are permitted # 37-6 defines normal maintenance as repair of same kind structural elements which do not change the size, design or function of a functioning structure. (5) Illegal Actions without a Permit: Please remember they did NOT repair or replace, they ADDED 50 feet of new sheathing. Adding a second row of 50 feet of sheathing, etc. resulted in changing the dimensions of the jetty, which is illegal without a permit; this work made the jetty functional which is also illegal without a permit. Any reconstruction work on a jetty, other than ordinary maintenance (see above), is illegal without a permit. How can anyone justify that a permit was required for a 14 foot in kind, in place replacement and no permit is required for 50 feet of ADDITIONAL sheathing? Is 50 feet of ADDITIONAL sheathing "in kind, in place?" At the August 24, 2005 Board Meeting it was argued that ordinary and usual maintenance does not require a permit. How can anyone agree that ADDING 50 feet of new sheathing to a jetty (whether functioning or non-functioning) is usual maintenance? This was clearly an extraordin event requiring a permit. Had a permit been requested it would have allowed the property owners to the south an opportunity to come before the Board and express concern about making a non-functioning jetty functional. When Mr. Krupski inspected the jetty in 2005 he told us that if the jetty were shortened and made low profile there would be no problem for all the beaches north and south. Also, it is obvious from Mr. Krupski's comments made at the August 24, 2005 Board meeting, that any jetty permit considered by the Board would have required a LOW PROFILE design. Mr. Krupski defined a low profile jetty as one which, at high tide, is completely under water from the high watermark seaward. Thus allowing sand to flow over the jetty during high tide and move down drift (he confirmed this on June 12, 2006). (6) Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Council On April 11, 2005, The Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Council voted unanimously "for complete removal of the existing 64' wood jetty..." (see attached Exhibit IV). (7) Town decides to await determination of ownership before ruling to undo work and states a low profile ietty is required At the April 20, 2005 Board Meeting President Krupski stated "We can't order something to be done or undone on someone else's property. We really need to make a determination on who owns the jetty..." Mr. Krupski went on to say "...a low profile jetty would serve both purposes here and it would both properties. This is not a tow profile jetty. If anyone whether it was the Aloyas (sic), the Managos or anyone came in for a reconstruction for a jetty, which they commonly do on the bay, we see it month after month, we would and the DEC would both require a low profile jetty, one that would trap the sand on one side and allow it to pass through to the other, and that would probably remediate a lot of or most of the erosion..." Since the ownership issue has now been decided by the judge in favor of the Aloias, the Board can proceed to issue a violation and require the reconstruction be removed. We have provided The Board with aerial photos showing our beaches in 1996 compared to the beaches after the jetty reconstruction. We have provided you with the legal documents you requested and a letter from our engineer discussing the extreme erosion to our beach caused by the reconstruction. In September, 2005 my attorney sent you a detailed letter outlining the facts and code requirements and precedents set by the Board relating to the requirement of a permit when jetty repairs have been made during the time period the aforementioned reconstruction was performed. I have attached a portion of that letter which discusses the Board's prior actions on jetty repairs (see Exhibit V). In prior years a number of Board members have inspected the jetty and have seen the devastating effect the reconstruction has had on our beach and on the beaches of our neighbors to the south. They have indicated that the jetty does not meet Town standards (length, height, low-profile, etc.). You have heard from The Nassau Point Property Owners' Association, The Town of Southold Conservation Advisory Council and complaints and requests from a number of our neighbors to the south (Schiff, Castaldi, Graham, Keating, Kilbride, etc.) who are concerned about the devastating erosion of their beaches and the stability of their bulkheads; they have urged you to enforce the law and take the appropriate action to remedy the situation caused by the extended, high profile, illegal jetty. Attached are a number of photos showing the beaches on Nassau Point before and after the jetty reconstruction. Please note the devastation of the shore-line south of the reconstructed jetty. Therefore, now that the legal impediment which the Board was awaiting to be resolved has been removed, I am respectfully requesting that the Board act on the illegal reconstruction of this jetty, which is destroying the beaches on Nassau Point. We urge the Board to enforce the law and issue a violation. To remedy the situation, you have heard a number of requests and recommendations including issuance of an order to remove the entire jetty or an order to shorten the jetty and make it a low profile jetty in accordance with Town policy. At the very minimum the Board should demand that: a) The 50 feet of ADDITIONAL, NEW sheathing on the SOUTH side of the jetty and the new stringers must be removed immediately. This sheathing was added without permits. Two rows of sheathing are illegal and unprecedented. This should return the jetty to its pre- construction status. The old, original sheathing should continue to provide a fine beach on the north side and allow sand to flow to the beaches to the south. b) Any repair or reconstruction of this jetty must require the jetty to be shortened and made LOW PROFILE. Thank you for the opportunity to present this material to you; I respectfully request your urgent assistance in this matter. ery truly yours, CI O AMv Vincent Manago Attachments = Town Hall. 53095 Main Road Telephone � 0 � � P.O. Box 1179 (516) 765-1801Ol ��� Southold. New York 11971 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TO: Southold Town Board of Trustees FROM: Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council DATED: June 22, 1995 RE: Recommendations from Meeting of June 21, 1995 The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council met Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 4:30 P.M. at the Southold Town Mall. Present were CAC Chairman Stephen Angell, and CAC members Bruce Loucka, Robert Keith, .;ohn Hagerty III, Betty Wells, and Allan Connell. The following applications were discussed and recommendations given. RECOMMENDATION OF WETLAND APPLICATIONS No. '1271 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Robert Keith, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees PARTIAL APPROVALr. of the Wetland Application of DR. JOHN ALOIA 118-4-9 to rebuild 14' offshore end of jetty; rebuild 3' x 3' access stairway from existing platform to bulkhead; install 3' x 8' access stairs from bulkhead to beach; rebolt top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends approval to rebuild the 3' x 3' access stairway; install 3' x 8' access stairs; and rebolt the top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends DISAPPROVAL TO REBUILD 14' OFFSHORE END OF J ETTY. The jetty is not currently functioning and is not needed. The Council also recommends the applicant plant the area behind the bulkhead with beachgrass to prevent erosion during overwash. 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion carried. No. 1272 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Allan Conned, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS of the Wetland Application of EILEEN VILLANI 86-6-10 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One Building` 0-SUNY, Stony Brook,New York 11790-2356 Iowa Phone: (631)444-0365 FAX: (631)444-0360 John P.Cahill Commissioner Letter of Non-Jurisdiction-Tidal Wetlands Act John and Vera Aloia August 17,2000 39 Nassau Blvd. Garden City,NY 11935 Re: Aloia Property, 8145 Nassau Point Road,Cutchugue SCTM# 100-118-04-09 JUN 2 9 2001 _ Application## 1-4738-0113,8/00007 R C3C �' Dear Mr. and Mrs.Aloia: (1 !t- Based on the information you have submitted,the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that:.. The property that is landward of the pre-existing(prior to.8/20/77)bu114head which is more than 100 feet in Iength, as seen on the aerial photograph(exposure 71-2002)produced by Aerographics and on infrared aerial photograph#974, is beyond the jurisdiction of Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). Therefore, in accordance with the current Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations(6NYCRR Part 661).no permit is required under the Tidal Wetlands Act. Please be ad,' e �h ---- t no construction,sedimentation, or disturbance of any kind ma take ace seaward odal ds 'uns ichonaI boundary,as indicated above,without a, ermit. It is your responsibility to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken to pre en any se imentation or other alteration or disturbance to the ground surface or vegetation within Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction which may result from your project. Such precautions may include maintaining adequate work area between the tida�wetland jurisdictional boundary,and y ux roject(i.e.a 15'to 20'wide construction area)or erecting a temporary fence, barrier, or hay bale be Please be further advised that this letter does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies. Sincerely, ark C Carrara _ Permit Administrator cc: BMHP J. Costello Walsh, Costello Marine Contracting Corporation File New York State Department of Environmental C Postal - vvision of Fish, Wildlife & Marine Resources, Region C CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT Marine.Habitat Protection (Domestic Mail Only, Building 40 - SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 1 1790-2356 Phone: (631) 44-4-0295 FAX: (631) 444-0 rrn .7- N Postage S ru Notice of Violation m CertHied Fee Postman October 29, 2001 Return Receipt Fee 7fier (Endorsement Required) �� ! - M Restricted Delivery Fee 1! Dr. John Aloia C (Endorsement Required) 39 Nassau Blvd. Q Total Postage&Fees $ Garden City, NY 11530 m Recipie N me(P! Print early) 3be m�gyletad by maser) •----•------->�...... ..... ...........r-------------------------..--.... a— Street,Apt.Na.�or PO Sox No. t `f--- 6LV C3 cliy,-sr� ;NF Date of Violation: On or before 10/23/01 ''' C f G . rl �3 0 Location of Violation: 8145 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, N>' Tax Map ID # 1000-118-04-09 Permit # none Dear Dr. Aloia: Records of this Department indicate that you are in violation of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL): Article 15, Protection of Navigable Waters Section 15-0505.1 6NYCRR Part 608 Article 15, Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act Section 15-2709.2 6NYCRR Part 666 Article 13, Protection of Marine Waters Section 13-0345.2 El Article 17, Prohibition Against ution of Marine Waters Section 17-0503.2 El u Article 24, Freshwater Wetlands Act Section 24-•0701.1 6NYCRR Part 662 X Article 25, Tidal Wetlands Act Section 25-0401.1 6NYCRR Part 661 In that yaug sed, or Permitted to be_caus-e-d: Substantial modification to an existing groin by installing 6" x 6" dimensional lumbF - -long the top of the groin extending from the bulkhead, seaward thirty six feet (36'); the in ation of sixteen feet (16') of new'sheathing along the landward end of the groin without b,..,.iefit of permit. ft�4 Contravention of this/these Article(s) of the ECL is a violation and/or a misdemeanor Ftishable by a fine of no more than $10,000 per violation. Penalties may be assessed for each �,.�p r ,: . day that the violation continues. s Please be further advised that violations of the ECL which are not resolved may be the Subject of an administrative hearing pursuant to Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules & Regulations of the State of New York (6NYCRR, Part 622). Xw e hoe-hy-advised IQ ggasg., you er at the a ced c ate Please contact the following office within thirty (30) days of receipt of this letter, so that we may attempt to resolve this matter. Failure to contact this office within this time period will result in this matter being referred to the Department's Regional Attorney for further en orcement actian. To schedule an appowtwent for a corn a in this matter lease con ct the -Mee of Marine a ltat Protection at 631) 444-0295. Compliance conferences will be held with the Re anager of Marine Habitat Protection. Very truly yours, I - Charles T. Hamilton Regiozil Supervisor of Natural Resources Stony Brool, cc: Dr. Christopher S. Mallery, ACOE ECO Enright Certified Mail # NOW 01 CA 203 Pagel �SpFFOL,�c Town Hall Telephone y 53095 Route 25 (b31}765-1892 +� - P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Mon., April 11, 2005, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL of the Wetland Permit application of VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO for complete removal of e existing 64' wood jetty and restoration of the beach on subject prope y with approx. 300 cy. o re ge or 1511n w sand. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-10 Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried September 14, 2005 Page 6 Emil"ett 5 A & &1i" s .�. t�i�► Fa �Eit� ����� 1. January 22, 1999 Board Meeting A Wetland permit for Bud Holman to reconstruct three jetties, one 65 feet long and two 50 feet long was approved. In the Holman case, Costello represented the applicant. (As noted above, Costello did the work for the Aloias.) In his presentation to the Board, John Costello stated that permits were required for maintenance of jetties that had been built more than 20 years before. Costello further admitted that he was aware of the Board's policy requiring reconstructed jetties to be "low profile". 2. February 24, 1999 Board Meeting Susan Souder sought a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace, in place, an existing 34 foot timber groin and replace it with a low profile groin. The application was granted by the Board on the condition that the groin be low- profile and that the overall length be cut back to 30 feet and the remnants seaward be removed. 3. Jul 21 1999 and August 25 1999 Board Meetin Charles LoCastro requested a permit to remove and replace in-kind and in-place an existing 61 foot low profile groin_ Discussions by the Board at the August 25, 1999 session make it clear that the Board required jetties to have permits to lock in their dimensions. In addition, Trustee King noted: "[t]hese groins are really going to become a problem. Mark my word. We already have a problem with the Roman one that I looked at. It's the same thing. They never should have been rebuilt. As a matter of fact, I think there's a violation." 4. February 24 2000 Board Meetin David and Ann Corieri requested a permit to remove and replace in-place two 50 foot timber groins. The Board discussed the difference between replacing a functioning jetty and replacing a nonfunctioning jetty. The Trustees noted that replacing a nonfunctioning jetty, as was done by the Aloias in this case, could have grave consequences regarding beach build-up. The Corieri's consultant noted that the Board and NYSDEC have policies against issuing permits for nonfunctioning jetties. In addition, the policy of requiring low-profile jetties was also discussed. 5. August 23, 2000 Board Meeting Peter and Barbara Swahn's permit application was discussed at this meeting. During that discussion, Trustee Krupski reiterated the Board's policy of keeping Igor September 14, 2005 Page 7 jetties low in profile. 6. FebryM 21 2001 Board Meetin Eileen Kasschau's permit application concerned removing and replacing (in place) 34 foot and 29 foot jetties with 27 foot and 22 foot low profile jetties. The Board approved the application and discussed its policy to not grant permits for nonfunctioning jetties. The Board mentioned its policy against high profile jetties stating "we want the low ones where when they fill up a little bit, the sand spills over." 7. April 25,2001 Board Meeting E During this session, several permits were requested to replace existing jetties in kind and in place. During discussion of the Munier application, Trustee Foster made a distinction between functioning and nonfixnetioning structures. In addition, the Trustees further noted that their policy requiring changes to jetties to result in low profile jetties. In addition, the need for additional permits from other agencies for jetty repairs was discussed during the Moeller application hearing. 8. May 24, 2001 Board Meeting During this session, an application to remove and replace in-place an existing 16 food timber groin with a 15 foot low profile timber groin was approved. The Board required the jetty to be lowered 2 feet. 9. December 9 2001 Board Meetin During this session, Costello appeared on behalf of William Lehmann and requested a permit to remove and replace a 44 foot jetty in-kind and in-place. Interestingly, this permit was not for the full length of the jetty, as the outward 16 foot end had been done 10-15 years before. The most interesting fact is that Costello was the agent for this project. The Aloias' contention that a permit for the jetty reconstruction was not necessary is contradicted by the actions of their own contractor who knew it was necessary to obtain a permit for nearly identical work in the Town of Southold. �� ✓ � ��,� ,� h �r �„ , � �;y , �, �, �„ �� , �� 6 � ,z f �� e ��,. ., uu r� ii �i � II(I i,.. i �, ��i,� � .� 4 �� �� y, V" hVi Y J r f � � .., � n � ( r r�, a� J ��1�1 s � �, 1�} r 1 f y � /f/ �. 4 �, ��h � r U ����; rr�1 a h 40 f f��Si I IpYYq G V, �� �i I ��, � ,,, ��,, � ,, �, ��,�� �r '%�f�f��r j� ��� � �����/����r f�l i ���� rr/j 1l/%/���f i r� 1 ����✓�GO�/0 i �( h,2 r iq " umu ii �V ��' �V� 1 ✓Yrr �J��r�jip% � 1 v r yf r� i�r i r //r� %�/i r, , �ir�r�a,i � r ��'%% i r� �'rlb � ll/r�i/�/I�r� �h� Q�-..l F. r✓L/ r r J//t i f (IIA��i°G � J ! �1 11al1irN rH�, � ��i� � �J fii6 � G/� �'r/l////l/,err����11 � I i ! d � tr�iH� � b P � � ������ ��� � � �t1 ;,,.ire '� � "m.�+' 3+j r �r � � d �u �y�;���f U )�,� w aT�i� � �.. �%% � �y ;i �� ' r i �-� .�� rr/ra /� -•�.. � es r,,.i,.�.':, /a u.,L..�%,v ti�///Ir�G/%%�i; ✓ iti���������f%I�1� C'wk �,..... .. Dim,/6, ... r . �\/� \� � \/, �\\`\ .• r � �» \ o,sr r� k f � u a J i r� i i ��' �.; „�,,� ;�- u i�, ` i ����') ' �� � ' �� 4 ` W �� �;� d � ,k V r� 'l s 4 Z i' r �;>P n "4 ` i r � �� i h f Y a i `I �. tl� h—e � s rr�rrr �r i,N,? +,j r"'���` i„"{;, ;�+::V L��4k�° ti r';'�+r �� �,_, r mr � ���"�� s�, i� P ;%�� I i'�1 4 � 4'�d �(��r�,��� kr �'J�(a�r'� �kyy 2�nfir h ro '"° �� ,�) r �r e�a�)� r J �, �� a ,�� r r' COY C3A5 N r rr �,r� � � � ro, 1� �rh 0 1 y,t "�r�� ���p'��t� err rr'� �� G r'f� i { �✓ !fl"R��� r ��rJi dwi'���p r'�jir���r'� b q f Y { t C ' �� ��� +'� u r �`E �� � "' �' ' �� i s i x �� ,, � � � � �, i .� �� � rT-- �... ^�'/r Rio'✓'�r �i ii ,:ii,lY"l^ r y , „ ,,, ,: „ /„ /i /r, r /✓ i it ii'" ',i, �, it �1 �� r � .,. i /, / i .i � l /, / / ,�.i, ,� ,/ i. / i ✓i ,,,,, 1 I /% ✓ 11 ✓1 � / � / / � r i ✓ ,! � r ��r � � I J / r ✓ �/. .,. ,/ U ,./ i,I✓ ra.,.,,, r i J.. ,,✓ 1 � � ,AYJII� H'I/ �/ ��/� �9� �I ,✓I ll� l , I, i�..;,r /�l5(', ,., �f /,, � f ,. ✓ ,� ,✓ �..,, 1. „��✓�/li/� i, � � /�i���.l�/�,��6 �... rl�,„�/���Ir ///,/,, ,, �if ,�.r,l/"i i r, )� � � i � ,✓ � /,.yl�;,,,,,.,�r,,.�,1>✓�.. ���„� %,���a/'` .1 1 ,,, �G. i r,. iU� rl'/7� ,'k, �✓!r i� .;✓i�/ l4 -�, .f- L• I, / � 1, �✓✓. -�✓ .i,r�. ✓, r�sj � ./f 1��.IYn... �� ,�//'/✓'f ,l'e „�/�9y1� ,l� �l✓v!r„/��r �r� � i r � f �� �� � r � i � r 4i•' ,'./> ri,� /,� i /i ✓ �-nog �� �/��.,.I/J����� r �J� r' Y+, �.✓�1fi/,�l ,Ju,�� lli� ✓l��"✓� l r� � � (i � J,✓ �'✓r i ij,�✓� 1��,'�"7 ,� '%7 ,G1,�,: i ✓ r�,���r�;�J frr � J�J�i1rr�- ,h", C � � %��� ��l � � �`✓// iJ��llJ ����i�%/%,1%���,�✓j;,l !�/J �r/� %�;p�j �''��9'�;'��j�b���i�ljd✓til'Irfp✓��,lf�l/A�JIiJ�r��✓r/,J /'l� ^ � I „ � � 1���������r 1�� rv /�r�(tiVlrAr<✓1r16/G�r��u!r�i�ink���.'�er�6/r r�klf����d( 1� f � ✓, D/Ai ✓ m � r hy9r✓r �/� i r ,n �i� i�� � � �,,..�.�,✓',�,,.. � ..r.� r, J u, "17m� � ., r � p I � ✓ ��,F. ��'� �i� ;;✓� �fr✓✓✓, y,..,, ��'"'r�G,aa✓ ,�a,aF,, ,.,: rw���Yl;�!�l'U� ��� � `?sW��x�f ` � � r, , � ,.�. Y ,.,. � , ,.: ,,,,,, r r R „.,q„ ✓ Jiui,/,1�:!�ulmW I � -xFf �� � ✓, ✓,,,,,, �,,f'c�;.r'irt✓rru, ,.;d.9u.!�INF, :r✓;- „ I l 1 � „>,. r Vi� r!':r� �,�, . "rlr//% �y�i/,z✓,�... Wz, � i F,... ,,,,,,-;;�r /✓u�; ,✓� .. ,IEyYllflw✓r,J�lrril,lr,,'�%�Y, ,. ;.. � i,. ��,'/ii,r,;,. ✓;fir,,,, �1 ,.,. r!✓, „ ,,, r, r,��Ql IfP7ti�Yr'� Jri�+, ,o �,/✓ f ,,, �11 p�'4'✓, r.. ,, ,,, ,;� „✓�,�✓ J��j ai� f V �" � N , ,.�r a rli�" i ! � r � ..r, �� � �� �., �✓/OFy��� f � �l�i ���Vi ���/' " rt�o. �JV�7y G� �✓rn� 0 l � J �JJ�,r�iyr�i9if/J' ��irl! ✓i��' �i ✓w p ���! �' a ;, ✓y7;r� �,rJ✓ J1 � o,l ti J J i 1„- r✓ !a F 1 4 r ur o, i ,i ✓ (d i r r H �ii i ter ire i% Y. rw e4v " ............... r� i . �/ 1, f qu Summer 1996 r . r / Manage Property, - Summer 1996 I i f !1 l it y" n Atli. 1.,. � ✓...,� µ ry ,I *m„ i mwu u i M nago Property - Summer r 2002 J Mena o Property - Summer 2002 ✓ r4 hr14�✓ p„µz��1 Y/ �� /r'9 .fir Jl �+1��'GA� r,r✓ lyr ✓/l �a ,r i ,,.ii..,.o,� lr� I G'e��rf aryw ilyW i4.,'�� !Ir �wA�r ��771,'✓,D, "( �,,,.,fi� �,rj /�ii��F,/ �^lli l' r / V,/ J rr � /✓,rr, p 9 �l fl '✓ �f/%��I /r�tr rJ� 4✓�o r /u ore,-/rr/,P„ i »r, r Mle ill •,� 1Ji'a 9r"'d'� ;� �r1M' t�N41 4 S I m�4 �""O��'�� r llljllgl rH iw �Il�llpii�I, �vn i / Summer 2002 3.;v u i l of , 1 �f 'fit:,Y'���1/ ,✓�� ,�iii/,;� /�i�,/,/,�/ca�g,+m/�v u�,��r�b,,,� I � %u....1.�� i u i k ril f / 9" i rid ' or W' Summer 199 *ef �i r(iir Sum�mr 2002 G v A / 1 / ✓l r 666 /�, /= r r rl ul i r//// r I�. Ay NA u' Yr / r r r II 1 f; i ff� , r I 9 Ua / ✓ n i� �I t �r /",✓e ✓, w +�� r, r��/����/���' ���I���1l�XaGr%✓ i,; w/ ram"/l/�%% �i` r`� I y i a 1M• fAN,.� � ` w'8w!� 1 M'�mP ���✓p i/r,6,��.r�'i�r,"J/� r�//C��'4,,�0/�hloN^�r��;M,;'�1�AUY�e„ .:,I ,.,. �.�.fit.,, � �, r „ � r r �-� r � L✓'yr yli ^ 21 m �v� M a�� %/ ///�///�f� �����/iA////MJINVKWr�I��,.�l�i/ii�✓r rj iiri�� /�� � �"�dw�� ✓ u •;�J'� �"^;�o. ��l f/rir%��%//// J✓����yi 'If'" f'(Mi//r`', 9i r/ r✓„Lt/,�I(1 ^"uw;: r J �tl .. BNmw��umuuewm .:..-�s,ram;„« ..::. �� � I� i✓r , �r r� r tiOy� / r�Jllr allr /i i o rw/ �,ra�i / /Drill r ✓'//' ' ,., fug;%,r,/�.;,i ,//0l9%��r��(��Y,�� d�v�'af✓h✓�/ / rii//k �% /r ° r / �, r���M1y�r✓/' a`w�s;�w;,w w� ,��� � M � �r�,'r �'���`wiw WTi� ��r r� ✓li fJ r^ m, ✓ wo r i ri 9P / ,� i r rrrr ,��` r ✓ Vr z U 4 %""ri r V �➢/ � � � ,,. -ram. m iw o<n ex JV :mn d„ rwN Iplr�G,�� dWiu';weW'�py�,II�YUE y , �30 -WAR {o r 1 ��' ri sir/� �i '�' ��`✓ � r�, /�m� � �,��,�u� r�`/', arm � ➢IF �ro �P d r r�, i �, k ! r,H j rlldid/// ri vi � r r r r " /� rr ui gild ,, alr r r ,,;,,, <, ,"°✓�; �, n '�Jwub:. ips t6�I� I +r i r i . is i ! • - • Farrell Fritz, P.C. EAB Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.farrellfritz.com Charlotte Biblow Partner Direct Dial 516.227.0686 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2266 16457-100 cbiblow@farrel l fritz.com September 14, 2005 VIA HAND DELIVERY h r� Hon. Albert J. Krupski,President and Members of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold i 5 E P 1 4 M5 I 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 '-- : --7� Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: This firm represents Vincent and Carol Manago on their application regarding their jetty. The Managos' application was initially heard at the April 20, 2005 Town of Southold Board of Trustees (the "Board") meeting. It is on the calendar for the Board's September 21, 2005 meeting. The application was submitted following an inspection by the Board of the damage caused by extensive and unauthorized reconstruction of the jetty by Mr. and Mrs. Aloias, who live next door to the Managos in Cutchogue. The Aloias admit that they conducted reconstruction activities on the jetty during the period 1999 to 2001. Recent inspections by the Board confirmed the devastation not just to the beach in front of the Managos home, but also to several beaches south of the Manago property. I am writing this letter to address certain issues that were raised at the August 24, 2005 hearing on this permit application. I previously provided the Board with a copy of the motions for summary judgment, as requested by the Board at its April 20, 2005 meeting. These motions were submitted to Judge Baisley for decision in a case pending in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for the County of Suffolk. In that case, the Managos are the plaintiffs and the Aloias and their contractor, Costello Marine, are the defendants. The motions were submitted in March 2005 and were orally argued in early May 2005. As of the date of this letter, Judge Baisley has not yet issued any decision on those motions. Bridgehampton East Hampton Melville New York Uniondale W V W • • • • • September 14, 2005 Page 2 The Reconstruction Activities Done By The Aloias In prior correspondence to this Board, dated August 15, 2005, 1 pointed out pertinent testimony and documents contained in the motion papers that unequivocally establish that the Aloias made significant changes to the inshore 50 feet of the 64 foot jetty without applying for or obtaining any permit from the Board. That testimony also established that the Aloias did not obtain any permits for this work from the New York State Departments of State and Environmental Conservation (hereinafter, respectively the "NYSDOS" and "NYSDEC") or the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("ACE"). The extent of the Aloias reconstruction activities done without any permits was admitted to by the Aloias in the testimony cited to in my prior letters to the Board. The scope of the Aloias' reconstruction activities was also admitted to in a letter, dated August 23, 2005, from Philip Nykamp, attorney for the Aloias, to this Board. In that letter, Mr. Nykamp stated that at least 46 feet of the inshore portion of the 64 foot jetty was reconstructed between 1999 and 2001 by the Aloias without obtaining any permits. Mr. Nykamp's description of the activities in no way can be viewed as being "in kind and in place" repairs. In his letter, Mr. Nykamp noted that "a new row of sheathing was placed along side the existing row that lies between the existing stringers. in addition ... a 6" x 6" timber wail [sic] was added to the top of the jetty in 1999..." See Nykamp August 23, 2005 letter at page 2. That extra row of sheathing was placed all along the 46 feet of reconstructed area. Id. at page 5. Costello was hired by the Aloias to do this work. Assuming Costello used similar materials in the 1999 to 2001 time period as he used in 1995 when Costello previously worked on the jetty, then almost 370 square feet of new board was added (not replaced) to the jetty when the 46 feet of sheathing was added to the structure.' The jetty was also widened by 2 inches all along the 46 feet where the new boards were inserted next to the existing sheathing. Permits Were Required By The Aloias For The Jetty.Reconstruction Work The Aloias failed to obtain any permits for the jetty reconstruction work they admit they did during 1999 through 2001. At the August 24, 2005 Board hearing, Mr. Nykamp contended the work did not require permits. He is wrong. To begin with, the Aloias previously applied for and obtained a Board permit to reconstruct the outermost 14 foot section of this very same jetty in 1995. That permit as well as the one issued by the NYSDEC in 1995, specified and defined the nature of what "in-kind and in-place" repairs were. In 1995, the Aloias and their contractor, Costello, submitted drawings to the Board and the NYSDEC that showed that in-kind and in- place repairs would result in replacement of the existing sheathing so that the final result would be a single row of sheathing. In addition, the submitted plans specified that no increase in the height of the jetty would be allowed. A copy of the Board's 1995 permit and the plans submitted to obtain it is attached as Exhibit "I". A copy of the 1995 NYSDEC permit is attached as Exhibit "2". Thus, in 1995, when the Aloias applied for a permit to repair less than one-quarter of the jetty, the Aloias knew that in-kind and in-place meant and continues to mean the replacement of parts of the jetty so that its dimensions remain the same. In 1995, Costello used sheathing that was 2"x 8"x 8'. See Exhibit"1",a copy of the 1995 permit. September 14, 2005 Page 3 Secondly, in August 2000, the Aloias received a letter from the NYSDEC advising them that any construction seaward of their bulkhead required permits. A copy of the letter from the NYSDEC is attached as Exhibit "Y'. Thus, the Aloias' contention that no permits were required to reconstruct the remaining three-quarters of the jetty is incorrect. See In re Risi, Index No. R2- 0303-98-02, Decision of the NYSDEC Commissioner (10/29/2004) (respondents who had obtained prior permit for work on tidal wetland structures cannot claim lack of knowledge for need of permit for subsequent work on same structures.) A copy of this decision is attached as Exhibit 11411 . Moreover, the statutes and regulations applicable to tidal wetlands clearly articulate the need for permits and the policy behind the permit requirements. Section 25-0401(1) of the ECL specifies that: ...no person may conduct any of the activities set forth in subdivision 2 of this section unless he has obtained a permit from the commissioner to do so. The permit issued by the commissioner shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, such permit or permits that may be required by any municipality within whose boundary such wetlands or portion thereof is located. (Emphasis added.) Section 25-0401(2) of the ECL specifies the activities that require a permit from the NYSDEC. That section provides in pertinent part, that: Activities subject to regulation hereunder include...the erection of any structures...the driving of any pilings, or placing of any other obstructions, whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the tide, and any other activity within or immediately adjacent to inventoried wetlands which may substantially impair or alter the natural condition of the tidal wetland area. Section 25-0402 of the ECL sets forth the procedure for applying for tidal wetlands permits. That section provides the following: Any person proposing to conduct or cause to be conducted any activity regulated under this act...shall file an application for a permit with the commissioner...The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that the proposed activity will be in complete accord with the policy and provisions of this act. Such application shall include a detailed description of the proposed work...together with the names of the owners of record of adjacent lands and the known claimants to the tidal wetlands of whom the applicant has notice...(Emphasis added.) Thus, pursuant to State statute, the Aloias were required to apply for permits for the jetty reconstruction work and to provide advance notice to the Managos and other interested parties. See In re Nieckoski, Index No. 1-3742, Decision of the NYSDEC Commissioner (4/3/1991), September 14, 2005 Page 4 1991 N.Y. Env. LEXIS 48, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "5". See also Exhibit"3". By sidestepping the requirement to get a permit, the Aloias prevented the Managos from learning of the work and robbed them of the opportunity to object to it, because the Aloias knew the Managos claimed ownership of the jetty. The Aloias also prevented the Board and the NYSDEC from evaluating the proposed work — most notably that the reconstruction was not "in-kind and in-place" nor would it result in a low profile jetty required under the Town Code. The State Tidal Wetlands regulations, promulgated pursuant to the State Tidal Wetlands Act, also required the Aloias to obtain permits prior to undertaking the reconstruction work on that jetty. These regulations, found in 6 NYCRR Part 661, set forth the State's policy regarding tidal wetlands, echoing the policy set forth in ECL § 25-0102. The purpose of the tidal wetland regulations is to "preserve and protect tidal wetlands and prevent their despoliation and destruction...[to] allow only those uses of tidal wetlands and area adjacent thereto that are compatible with the preservation,protection and enhancement of the present and potential values of the tidal wetlands..." 6 NYCRR § 661.1. The NYSDEC regulations also state that tidal wetlands have varied natural characteristics that make it important to more stringently protect them. 6 NYCRR § 661.2. See De St. Aubin v. Flacke, 68 N.Y.2d 66 (1986) (state legislative policy in adopting Tidal Wetlands Act is to protect tidal wetlands because of their critical importance.) The NYSDEC regulations list numerous uses that either are compatible with tidal wetlands but still require a permit and uses which are presumptively incompatible. See 6 NYCRR § 661.5. In particular, 6 NYCRR § 661.5(b)(22) requires that a permit be obtained for "in-kind and in-place replacement of existing functional bulkheads and similar structures." Likewise, 6 NYCRR § 661.5(b)(24) requires a permit for "substantial restoration or reconstruction of existing functional structures or facilities of any kind" and 6 NYCRR § 661.5(b)(25) requires a permit for "expansion or substantial modification of existing functional facilities or structures." Perhaps most telling is 6 NYCRR § 661.5(b)(29) that requires a permit for the "construction of groins, bulkheads and other shoreline stabilization structures." There can be no doubt the reconstruction work done by the Aloias required NYSDEC permits. See Exhibit "Y'. See also Brotherton v. NYSDEC, 252 A.D.2d 498 (2d Dep't 1998) (reconstruction of washed out bulkhead required permit.) The Aloias admit that no such permit was obtained. The NYSDEC regulations are instructive on the definition of"ordinary maintenance". Section 6 NYCRR §661.5 (b)(21) states that permits are not needed for "ordinary maintenance and repair(not involving expansion or substantial restoration, reconstruction or modification) of existing functional structures..." (Emphasis added.) 6 NYCRR § 661.5(b)(21). First of all, the jetty in question was determined in 1995 to be non-functioning. See Exhibit"6", which is a copy of the 1995 Town Conservation Advisory Council's finding that the jetty was non-functioning. Second, the reconstruction included expanding the width and raising the height of the jetty.2 2 In the context of freshwater wetlands,which regulations are remarkably similar to those applicable to tidal wetlands,the NYSDEC determined that"ordinary maintenance and repairs"do not encompass widening of a structure. See In re Zacarro,Index#R4-2083-98-08, Decision of the NYSDEC Commissioner(8/24/2000)2000 N.Y.Env, LEXIS 62. A copy of this decision is attached hereto as Exhibit"7". September 14, 2005 Page 5 Third, the work involved more than three-quarters of the jetty. The Aloias' acts were, therefore, not ordinary repairs as defined in these regulations. See Williamsburg Block Association v. Giuliani, 167 Misc.2d 980 (Sup. Ct. NY Cty. 1995); aff'd, 223 A.D.2d 64 (0 Dep't 1996) (ordinary maintenance and repairs involve no changes to existing structures.) See also In re Rambo, 177 A.D.2d 577 (2d Dep't 1991). Similarly, the Town Wetlands Ordinance, like the ECL, required the Aloias to obtain a permit prior to the reconstruction activities. That ordinance contains a declared policy to preserve and protect tidal wetlands. See Code of Southold, § 97-11(B). Pursuant to § 97-20(A) of the Code of Southold, a permit is required to conduct any activities on tidal wetlands, even if prior permits have been obtained. Pursuant to § 97-27(C)(1)(a), only low-profile jetties are permitted. Under § 97-11, low-profile jetties are defined as typically no higher than 18 to 24 inches above existing soil or sediment grade. The Aloias reconstruction does not meet either criterion. Moreover, § 37-6 defines normal maintenance as repair of same-kind structural elements which do not change the size, design or function of a functioning structure. As noted above, this Board's Conservation Advisory Council found the jetty to be non-functioning. The reconstruction work made it functional. Furthermore, it changed the size and design of the jetty. In addition, applications for Town permits require the applicants to demonstrate they are the owners of the site or, if not, that they have permission from the owner. See Code of Southold, § 97-21(A). The Aloias knew they could not demonstrate ownership or consent, so they chose not to apply at all. In 2001, the Bay Constable issued the Aloias a stop work order pursuant to § 97- 31 of the Code of Southold, and fines were imposed by the Board for the Aloias' failure to get a permit under the Town Wetlands Ordinance for work being done seaward of the dune. In addition, at the August 2001 hearing relating to the Aloias' unlawful acts, members of this Board stated that the jetty reconstruction was illegal and not in conformance with the Town's Wetlands Ordinance. See transcript of August 27, 2001 at pages 29, 31, 32, and 33, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit"8". The Aloias chose not to apply for permits to do this work in 2001 (or in any other year other than 1995, prior to the Managos owning their property) because that avoided the statutory requirements to notify their neighbors in advance of the proposed work. The Aloias knew that the Managos would oppose any permit request relating to the jetty as it was on the Manago property and that the reconstruction of the jetty would make it functional and would destroy the Manago beach. Moreover, by not applying for permits, the Aloias avoided the legal requirement of demonstrating to the NYSDEC and the Board that their proposed action was compatible with state and local policies, was protective of tidal wetlands, was reasonable and necessary and could not be achieved by alternative measures, and most importantly, that the proposed action would have no adverse impact on the tidal wetlands and adjoining or nearby properties. See 6 NYCRR § 661.9(c) and Code of Southold Chapter 97. During the August 24, 2005 hearing, several comments were made as the meaning of "ordinary repair" in the context of the changes made to the jetty during 1999 through 2001. Perhaps the best way to determine what the Board means by that phrase is to look at jetty permit applications that were ruled on by the Board during that time frame. Attached as Exhibit "9"are copies of the Board minutes for the following permit requests that demonstrate that the work September 14, 2005 Page 6 done to the jetty in question by the Aloias required a Board permit. 1. January 22, 1999 Board Meetins A Wetland permit for Bud Holman to reconstruct three jetties, one 65 feet long and two 50 feet long was approved. In the Holman case, Costello represented the applicant. (As noted above, Costello did the work for the Aloias.) In his presentation to the Board, John Costello stated that permits were required for maintenance of jetties that had been built more than 20 years before. Costello further admitted that he was aware of the Board's policy requiring reconstructed jetties to be "low profile". 2. February 24, 1999 Board Meeting Susan Souder sought a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace, in place, an existing 34 foot timber groin and replace it with a low profile groin. The application was granted by the Board on the condition that the groin be low- profile and that the overall length be cut back to 30 feet and the remnants seaward be removed. 3. July 21 1999 and August 25 1999 Board Meetin Charles LoCastro requested a permit to remove and replace in-kind and in-place an existing 61 foot low profile groin. Discussions by the Board at the August 25, 1999 session make it clear that the Board required jetties to have permits to lock in their dimensions. In addition, Trustee King noted: "[t]hese groins are really going to become a problem. Mark my word. We already have a problem with the Homan one that I looked at. It's the same thing. They never should have been rebuilt. As a matter of fact, I think there's a violation." 4. February 24,2000 Board Meeting David and Ann Corieri requested a permit to remove and replace in-place two 50 foot timber groins. The Board discussed the difference between replacing a functioning jetty and replacing a nonfunctioning jetty. The Trustees noted that replacing a nonfunctioning jetty, as was done by the Aloias in this case, could have grave consequences regarding beach build-up. The Corieri's consultant noted that the Board and NYSDEC have policies against issuing permits for nonfunctioning jetties. In addition, the policy of requiring low-profile jetties was also discussed. 5. August 23,2000 Board Meeting Peter and Barbara Swahn's permit application was discussed at this meeting. During that discussion, Trustee Krupski reiterated the Board's policy of keeping .... . ....... .. .. September 14, 2005 Page 7 jetties low in profile. 6. February 21 2001 Board Meetin Eileen Kasschau's permit application concerned removing and replacing (in place) 34 foot and 29 foot jetties with 27 foot and 22 foot low profile jetties. The Board approved the application and discussed its policy to not grant permits for nonfunctioning jetties. The Board mentioned its policy against high profile jetties stating "we want the low ones where when they fill up a little bit, the sand spills over." 7. April 25,2001 Board Meeting During this session, several permits were requested to replace existing jetties in kind and in place. During discussion of the Munier application, Trustee Foster made a distinction between functioning and nonfunctioning structures. In addition, the Trustees further noted that their policy requiring changes to jetties to result in low profile jetties. In addition, the need for additional permits from other agencies for jetty repairs was discussed during the Moeller application hearing. 8. May 24, 2001 Board Meetin During this session, an application to remove and replace in-place an existing 16 food timber groin with a 15 foot low profile timber groin was approved. The Board required the jetty to be lowered 2 feet. 9. December 9.2001 Board Meeting During this session, Costello appeared on behalf of William Lehmann and requested a permit to remove and replace a 44 foot jetty in-kind and in-place. Interestingly, this permit was not for the frill length of the jetty, as the outward 16 foot end had been done 10-15 years before. The most interesting fact is that Costello was the agent for this project. The Aloias' contention that a permit for the jetty reconstruction was not necessary is contradicted by the actions of their own contractor who knew it was necessary to obtain a permit for nearly identical work in the Town of Southold. The Aloias Have No Valid Claim for Ownership of the Jetty During the hearing held August 24, 2005, Mr. Nykamp presented a lengthy summary of the Aloias' argument previously presented to Judge Baisley on jetty ownership. As noted above, the Court has not yet ruled on the motions or on the issue of ownership. In order for the record before this Board to be complete, I must include a brief synopsis of the Managos' argument, before the Court on why they own the jetty. However, as pointed out by me at the August 24, 2005 hearing, regardless of whether the Court agrees or disagrees with the Aloias about s 7 • i • • • September 14, 2005 Page 8 ownership, it does not excuse their failure to obtain permits. 1. The Mana o's Own the Jetty and it is on the Mana o Proverty There is no doubt that the jetty is located on the Manago property as documented by surveys done by Peconic Surveyors for the Managos and by Joseph Ingegno for the Aloias. Copies of these surveys were previously provided to the Board. Moreover, the Aloias contention they own the jetty via adverse possession is baseless. There are two types of adverse possession claims, one where the claimant asserts ownership rights to the property via a written instrument, and the other where no writing exists under which the claimant asserts ownership. See RPAPL §§511, 512, 521 and 522. As explained below, the Aloias cannot prevail under either theory. 2. The Aloias Cannot Establish a Claim Under RPAPL 44511 and 512 The Aloias contend that they own the entire jetty and the land underlying the jetty via adverse possession, based upon written instruments provided to them when they purchased their property in 1984. The cited-to instruments, their deed, mortgage and title report do not pass muster under RPAPL §§511 and 512. In addition, the Aloias have not established the other statutory elements of an adverse possession claim. Section 511 of the RPAPL provides in pertinent part, as follows: Where the occupant or those under whom he claims entered into possession of the premises under claim of title, exclusive of any other right, founding the claim upon a written instrument, as being a conveyance of the premises in question. . .and there has been continued occupation and possession included in the instrument. . .for ten years. . .the premises so included are deemed to have been held adversely. . . Section 512 of the RPAPL sets out the elements required to establish a claim of adverse possession under §511. Section 512 of the RPAPL provides in pertinent part, as follows: For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession. . .founded upon a written instrument. . .land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied in either of the following cases: (1) where it is usually cultivated or improved; (2) where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure; or (3) where, although not inclosed, it has been used for the supply of fuel or fencing timber, either for the purposes of husbandry or for the ordinary use of the occupant. In order to sustain a claim of adverse possession, the Aloias must show by "clear and convincing" evidence that their possession of the property: (1) was hostile and under claim of right; (2) was actual; (3) was open and notorious; (4) was exclusive; and (5) was continuous for ten years. Brand v. Prince, 35 N.Y.2d 634, 636 (1974). See also, Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 September 14, 2005 Page 9 N.Y. 95 (1952); Joseph v. Whitcombe, 279 A.D.2d 122 (1" Dep't 2001); Sylvio v. Russo, 271 A.D.2d 520 (2d Dep't 2000), app. den'd, 96 N.Y.2d 753 (2001). No such showing has been made. To begin with, the documents given to the Aloias at their 1984 purchase by their predecessor-in-interest do not convey title to the jetty and, thus, do not prove the "claim of right" required to be established under §511 and §512. The documents do not reference the jetty or the property underlying that structure. Neither the deed nor mortgage refers to that structure or the property underlying it. Although both the deed and mortgage reference a survey done for the Aloias in 1984, by Donack, the sole reference in these documents to the 1984 survey is to establish the average high water mark. No explicit or implicit reference is made to the jetty. The Aloias title policy also mentioned by Mr. Nykamp at the August 24, 2005 hearing and the 1984 Donack survey are not "written instruments" which convey title to anything. Furthermore, the title policy did not cover the jetty or the lands underlying the jetty as evidenced by the title insurer's disclaimer letter that has gone unchallenged by the Aloias. (A copy of the disclaimer letter is included in the summary judgment papers.) See Farley v. Nilsen, 192 A.D.2d 848 (3d Dep't 1993) (documents that provide conflicting information raise triable issues of fact, precluding summary judgment on adverse possession claim). See also Romeo v. Sherry, 308 F.Supp.2d 128 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (one cannot adversely possess submerged lands as they belong to the State.) The Aloias had no reasonable basis to believe that the jetty was on their property at the time of their 1984 purchase. They testified at deposition that their predecessor-in-interest never advised them prior to or at the time of their purchase of their property who had built the jetty or maintained it or that it was being conveyed to them. See Depo. of Mr. Aloias at p. 90, 1. 14 to p. 96, 1. 21. The 1984 Donack survey conflicts with another survey, done by Mr. Ingegno, commissioned by the Aloias. The 1984 Donack survey contained several obvious inconsistencies about the property located seaside of the top of the Aloias dune. The location of the jetty was placed to the north of the Aloias' right angle on the survey when it is actually several feet to the south of that right angle. Clearly, even a cursory glance of their own beach gave the Aloias notice of the inconsistency. See Bockowski v. Malak 280 A.D.2d 572 (2d Dep't 2001) (knowledge by "adverse possessor" that documents upon which he relies for conveyance of property are inaccurate, defeats his claim for adverse possession.) Equally fatal to the Aloias' claim of adverse possession is their acknowledgement, beginning in 1997, when other boundary disputes arose between the parties, that the correct property boundary line was as depicted on the Manago/Peconic survey. (See Vincent Manago's Initial Affidavit at ¶ 8 and Vincent Manago's Second Affidavit at ¶ 12 included with the summary judgment papers.) See Solow v. Liebman, 253 A.D.2d 808 (2d Dep't 1998); Guariglia v. Blima Homes, 224 A.D.2d 388 (2nd Dep't), aff'd, 89 N.Y.2d 851 (1996); Garrett v. Holcomb, 215 A.D.2d 884 (3rd Dep't 1995). The Aloias' behavior of removing or acquiescing in the removal of encroachments they placed on the Manago property after receiving a copy of the Manago survey in 1997 demonstrates that the Aloias believed they had no right to property located south of the Manago survey line. It also undermines their assertion that their alleged possession of the jetty was hostile or exclusive. Thus, the Aloias actions regarding the boundary September 14, 2005 Page 10 line disputes defeat their own adverse possession claim. See Van Valkenburgh v. Lutz, 304 N.Y. 95 (1952). Finally, the Aloias' failure to obtain necessary permits to do the jetty reconstruction work and the manner in which the work was done further defeats the elements of an open and notorious adverse possession claim. Not only were permits required, had the Aloias filed for the permits, the neighbors, including the Managos, would had to have been given prior notice of the work and been given the opportunity to stop the proposed work. The Aloias' circumvention of the required notice is not consistent with a person claiming the right to ownership. Rather, it is more like the nefarious "midnight dumper," who disposes of toxic materials secretly when no one is around to catch him. The Aloias' behavior is wholly inconsistent with an "open and notorious" claim to the jetty. 3. The Aloias Cannot Establish An Adverse Possession Claim Under RPAPL §4 521 and 522 Alternatively, the Aloias contend that if their 1984 deed and other related documents do not establish an RPAPL §§511 and 512 claim for adverse possession, they establish such a claim under RPAPL §§ 521 and 522. The Aloias, however, are wrong. Section 521 of the RPAPL provides, in pertinent part,the following: Where there has been an actual continued occupation of premises under a claim of title, exclusive of any other right, but not founded upon a written instrument . . . the premises so occupied, and no others, are deemed to have been held adversely. Thus, like claims under §§ 511 and 512 of the RPAPL, claims under § 521 require an "actual continuous occupation. Section 522 of the RPAPL provides, in pertinent part, the following: For the purpose of constituting an adverse possession . . . not founded upon a written instrument . . . land is deemed to have been possessed and occupied . . . (1) Where it has been usually cultivated or improved. (2) Where it has been protected by a substantial in closure. In addition to establishing the statutory basis listed above, the Aloias must also establish the common-law elements of. (1) hostility under claim of right; (2) actual occupation; (3) open and notorious occupation; (4) exclusive occupation; and (5) occupation that was continuous for the statutory period of ten years. See Rowland v. Crystal Bay Construction, Inc., 301 A.D.2d 585 (2d Dep't 2003). As explained above, the Aloias have not established any of the five common-law elements. Their failure to establish these elements is fatal to their adverse W • • • • • September 14, 2005 Page 11 possession claim. See Rowland v. Crystal Bay Construction, Inc., 301 A.D.2d at 586; Distefano v. Saatchi, 308 A.D.2d 502 (2d Dep't 2003) (failure to establish usual cultivation and improvement by clear and convincing evidence is fatal to adverse possession claim); Giannone v. 7"rotwood Corp., 266 A.D.2d 430 (2d Dep't 1999) (fencing the disputed area is not sufficient to establish "substantial inclosure"); Manhattan School of Music v. Solow, 175 A.D.2d 106 (2d Dep't 1991) (improvement or cultivation is not established by evidence of intermittent unspecified work at the premises.) Overall, the Aloia adverse possession claim is baseless. Conclusion This Board should heed the advice of its Conservation Advisory Council, which on April 11, 2005, unanimously recommended that the Manago application be granted. See Exhibit "10", a copy of the Council's April 11, 2005 resolution. As the Managos own the jetty, their application seeks a permit to undo the unauthorized work done by the Aloias, as that reconstruction has caused devastating injury to the Manago property and beaches to the south. However, this Board has the power to fine the Aloias and to order the Aloias to undo the reconstruction of the jetty, as it was admittedly done without permits. The destructive effects of the unauthorized reconstruction continue unabated and this Board must and can rectify the situation. I look forward to further discussing this matter with the Board of Trustees at the September 21 st meeting. Very truly yours, v Charlotte Biblow CB:yp Enclosure cc: Mr. and Mrs. Manago (w/enclosure) Philip Nykamp, Esq. (w/enclosure) FFDOCS 11649346.01 Albert J. Krupski, President Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice Presidents ��'\ 53095 Main Road William G.Albertson a ; P.O. Box 1179 1 `'' Southold, New York 11971 Martin H. Garrelly •� �r Peter Wenczel p1 ��D, f Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: DR. JOHN ALOIA Please be advised that your application, dated May 24. 1995 has bee reviewed by this Board, at the regular meeting of 6129/95 and the following action was taken: ( XXX) Application Approved. (see below) ( ) Application Denied, (see below) ( _ ) Application Tabled. (See below) If you application is approved as noted above, a permit fee is now due . Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees . The fee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth int he sintruction sheet. The following fee must be paid within 90, days or reapplication including fees will be necessary_ COMM=NTS AND REMARKS: Wetlands Applications Fee: $150.00 COMPUTATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: $ 150.00 SIGNED: PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES BY: 0, ,l;e- C`L-ERK,, OARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Exhibit No. Q J FIN A CARNEY CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS O/9 5 313 West 37th Street,fish Floor NYC 10018 (212}869.1500 r Board Of Southol d Town Trustees ti 1 • =h SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PERMIT NO. �1(."X DATE: .....612919 -...... ISSUED TO ..........D.R....J.OHN.-AL01A .... ...... .. . .. ... ,y? Aut4ur ft � �, sVj 4 5, f, Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 6 15 of the Laws of 1 -the State of New York, 1893; and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the ' State of New York 1952; and the Southold Town Ordinance en- titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS , IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM ~= LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance with the p g ' �� Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting held on ....6./..Z.91.9.5..... ti :• a3 p , y + ` � 15. 9.5..., and in consideration of the sum of •' � $-...15.Q_:il� ... aid o i p - Costello Marine-for_ ..D.R.• ..TO.HN .A.LOIA.... ............ ....... . of ....Xtchogue.. .. ...... . ............ ..... .. N. Y. and subject to the �� r• Y , yI �z► Terms and Conditions listed on the' reverse side hereof, of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: l' To rebuild inkindlinplace 14' of off-shore end jetty, rebuild a 31 K. 3 access stairs from exist. platform to bulkhead, install } a 3' X 8' set of access stairs from bulkhead to beach and plant behind bulkhead. all in accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in ' the originating application. ! �! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees hiere- by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be subscribed by a majority of the said Board 'as of this date. ]J, M c Trustees .-.. ..... y; _ •�4;-.�. _-� ..fw.�.�r=��_.r=+�. /.+rL1��I ��X Wit•. �"y-4w/- -..r���i•�.riar�f.r...�i'�] l r � / qW �UfFO Albert J. Krupski. President Town Hall John Holzapfel, Vice President Z ? 53095 Main Road William G. Hib-cris:.-:7 I°.; P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell _ c� 4 Southold, New York 11971 Peter W enczel Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office Use Only 1 L� Coastal Erosion Permit Application , `Xwetian.d Permit Application !!�1 FAY Grandfather Permit Application Trustee Lands Permit Application ! Waiver �- - --- _ 1~ --- �Tr Raceived Applicati n: oZY :� Clerical Review: Completed Application sY Incomplete SEQRA Classiicat n: Type I Type II Unlisted , Coordination: (date se t) I CAC Referral Sent: elf Y f j J Date of Ins-ection: Receipt of CAC Report': (date) Lead Agency Determination Technical Review: (date) Public Hearing: ( date) Decision: Approved (Y%N) (date) Anplicat ion Fee. $ Name of Applicant__ -S 6 4 L 1_A Ac!dr?ss N'..A- �• 1__ L 17 Phone Idumber: 67 7) ^%y1 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - - D jJ-- [' Property Location:�j�l �,�&_SS A l :20 IN-T TC, U (provide LILCO Pole #: , distance to cross streets, and location) Agent : C, b 5 i - # U tr" C C)OT J�AQ TISQ ( If applicable) Address: 441 it - Phone • Exhib No. FIN 8 CARNEY CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS I 39 Wes!37th Slreet,6th Floor NYC 10018 (212)869-1500 -41.j` o =.; Soa_.1 of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area ( in square feet) : Area Zoning:_ _R E S i UT[ A iz =,?4 N,] I Previous use of property: ! WES intended use of property: UC—LIALLSE 'MiAj I Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date N No prior permits/approvals for site i,iprovements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? yes , Provide explanation:_ Proj t Descr tion (use attachments if necessary) : I hl "Jjj -/iu 0 tl 1� D r0 E FS }fO IZ E F � OF S J- r L ' C F—SS Z>TAIR W R D 9. B L S TI M -Pl.A i FO R M TC) B UL k B FAlf 5T -M bL O L s Bov_ 1 of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations :_H } N TEN) A)SI CE tom- Ar I B S — Area of wetlands on lot: Sp O square feet Percent coverage of lot: f tr Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands:_ .� feet �3� � i=TT; \ti Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland ._dge of wetlands:_ NL4 _feet NL% VF6 1 fit'-' IC) Does the project involve excavation or filling? No Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? )41-4 cubic yards How much material will be filled---- NA cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 1V f,�!et Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:- �} M311i1C-r .:Tl 1d;IIi '21 7r.1t'7>:'! Y 1 t.'j Z i T+� C":fi+\' 'aT .•i =cis• a4 ! p.� � Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason os such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate) : E M KI IM � � F AI 6 qw . . ......... a• . . . -1 - -- Lim;�a11—t.>,Il: 1XI40JEcr IM. NUMUEn $i7 2� Slap ' Appendix c - 51p1a tnrlr0r1m6J,1AI (3tlalllll FlerlslvV SHORT LNVIHONIVIIEENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Pdf IINLISTtU ACTIONS Ulilll I ' Aht I-0fip,)p-et IN U' nP AtloN ITo bd cumhleled by Applicant or prolecl sponsor) 1. AvPLICANtitsPoNSDR i Z. PtiQJECi NAME I Costello Marine Contracting Corp. DRb14 h� �C� I-� f J. PrsOJEcr LOCATIQN- -- Whlclpilllr U T Counlr Suffolk 1 1, Pnic'sF LQCATIQN (Slreel addres4 and road Inl►rsecllons, promintrd Isnd+nwrks. etc., or provide mapl I See Attached area map_ ' • i s. is PnOPaSED ncTlctJ: — EIB+r O prpAwilon U Modlllcatlanlallaallon 1� C- PA) P'S s. bE9Cpr$E ¢rlojECt 9nIEF.Y: I REBUi� D r� r I=F5}l6K.- EKj1) v F- T'IMbEQ 5�-I'T� f --L MST-Ak. . ` a x nCC�S� 3,TAII~3 FRt4A P)ULk- HEAL) Tc> 13C,�CH , R BUILD 3 'x 3 CCt Ss S-rAI k -S Ft,'DlA EXI STINJ<� PJ-A-r FORM TU Bu�.kH EA D - RE-I36LT Top CLAP`-I P GM ? UL. K I--1 EA-b 7. AMC Hr OF UA1-1q AFFECIED! •- !Ides Uthriwlrely _e a. WILL PnQPriSEO Ar.fiQN Ct7MrL'!WItIJ ExiSJIMt] 7omwo an OTIIEn I xisri"o LAFJD USE rJ%9TmCFlOYJST ti i llti!Ye! J Ido 11 f•Jo,dnsrrlbw brlwlly _ I r a. Yvlfh,`9 P1'F9Er1r *Afi -�-- -- _v use IrJ vu;IJ1ty or rnf�.wcrt r ' L n�,r I:.r.usl ��Induehlwl TACnnrmwrrinl Al rlrullure I I TIRA�-iis- 9 l�ParlrJi'^rntF:[7p9n 1pnr-e ,,•I 0111ar I r WATERFRONT j C SAr DOES ACNON Ifry 7t+f A PcnMlr ArrnOVAL.0n FUNDING, IIQw On t1�:IMA:EL� FrpM +tIY ,rFIEn OQVEnJIMENTAUF.flENCt I> EDrnil stA?t on LocAL1t i l 1�I y9s �.J Ier. kI ;ws, Il,r wdwncylsl Mnd p+nnskre{,prov119 1 ; 3 14YS DEC, ALOE J 11.• t)QE9 ANY ASPECT OP THE ACTION HAVc A cunnENTLY vALID PfnMJr Qn APPnovAL? 1_..1Yii 9146 It YK 11§1 A94ncy name and perm111apptorAl 131 A�t--SyyA q@SUET r4;;F1I Pnt3P08Ep ACTION W1LL Exl9rlrla pfrnMITIAPPAavAL nauuinE Mo01FICATION7 U Y46 toll, r ! I CMIPY tlUt the 110anMArlon Pnvviueo AnovE.1g TnUE to t#1E aE9t QE My k?JOWLEbaE ' Apollconifitaninr narw COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING r ' 1 Dais: 41gn4ku1e' II Ilia "t;Ilvn Is Ili Ilia Conglol Aron, rind yotl Arij d sldlA tlgoticy, cnrrlpEefe 1110 CndelAl Aggr�93ITIerTI t=tittn bolarJl« proceeding wllll-lllls Assnssrtrenl OVEN I I I Vruviry 1f•41' fROA! �V,r;--OZ&4-0 607YA7ZO —� I ' �4rD�.<.r/�T9� !� . zaw- ►�"ice rt�tx�et�v�� �i7MOc0,'Ky D �'" LOGirrpAvM,{P i \ � !OA Z.9W i J po' �G4LF/�tr/3�T �o e �FGt Gcursaw , -2 5*'k KP,Pf J/4 �� � OfE�srlvG T7f1�EP✓��7Y g,C!n,-,,2 F COJ7c�YL0�1rGP�t/C C�G77,trG Cl�.p I!/sTrttl ���ACl�f �TYi /�3�3'{ l� w4rlm2nAf 7w Tom[. S`-�r7 /�•� ��T ,Pe°�-rp �ryrv6 Tlla�r�.s�Er4�CGQHR .,�c�ur- �y.ak��s �srliry, .siy!i�s�v ✓�/•ir`f./- A1l.A'-C2zs.�rss,�vr�rc�'a� 8/¢S�i/.lrfAU.�G�/!",P�• OCU/�s'Gt�c Ny rS LUlT�/p6!/E qw f /2 � J T i� r�s 46 I✓L 40 I i ,+l1rfG T� 2•S � i � I � � r a dw r?AolG I • I i \� r i $G'L.l7vbyv , fib/4:-, / Aar ,Ao , - Z)gF v/O,,71NAC%9 i - *s.ws�U,aL Id. E�vE ,4-5M 2:2 FZ G0IA 00 Pool LA f i ti s � � � f �.�r�r n.*�c.�� mil►-.rf�s I CX�.W6i'�4X�7 7d.�+�4111�L. �k l �� D.P_ VaVAI AZOIA �{ffS�/Ud1Y0- �r1 p-�,k'YA✓aT'IY �AF�Y C/7y�f!!/334 Bi¢s.t�rs�avRycrleo. ,erryw ,,.rc,w c��rsra,raAly ...xlie-��� �.•r.r. COU�rc7��lX Cour'EY Of Suffolk ) State of New York } BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE' APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT( S) AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KDOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD 09 TRUSTEES_ THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMITS) , IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(s) OR REPRESENTATIVE( s ) , TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY To INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVFEW OF THIS APPLICATION. S-YGNATURE SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF , 19 SUSAN E LONG XMry Public,StM of iVew yo* �f�In's�f���out�ac,rry NOTARY PUBLIC, iaa November�,��; '� Suggested space for location Map THIS IS NOT A PERMIT w + • AUTHORIZATION FORM Da to z, owner of r off,,,,& //�/�� �7 .{ I Bus inne ,ss P� roperty Name located at y d cJ �g !)d , do hereby give Costello Marine Contracting Corp. the authority to act as agent in my behalf in applying for all of the necessary permits in order for work to be done on my property described' above . S mature ' ___ New York State Department of nser Environmental Covation 4tK nqy Building 40 -SUNY;Stony Brook, New.York,,11750-2356 .r .At 1s Phone (516) 444-0365 Fax # (516) 444-0373 2 MatzNTAL QQ` Michael D. Zagata 'June 1, 1995. . Commissioner Dr. John, Aloia 39 Nassau .Blvd. . . Garden City, NY 11530 RE: 1-4738�01138/00001-0 Dear Permittee: In conformance with the requirements of the State Uniform Procedures Act (Article :70,: ECL) and its7implementing regulations (6NYCRR, Part . 624 ve..- are enclosing your:,:permit Please read all conditions carefully. - If you are unable"'to complY'.with any conditions, please! contact us'..at the:.above address. Also enclosed 'is :a permit sign which , is :'t0 be conspicuously Posted at the project site and protected; f% rom the weather. Very truly .yqurs, 0. Charles T.,' Hamilton Deputy:.Regional Permit Admi:astrator CTH:cg enclosure t; NEW K STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERV )N DEC PERMIT NUMBER 1-4738-01138/00001-0 EFFECTIVE DATE r FACILITY/PROGRAM NUMBERS) Ma 31 1995 P E +T EXPIRATION DATES) Under the Environmental May 31, 1999 Conservation Low I j FTYPE OF PERMIT 9 New ❑ Renewal ❑ Modification ❑ Permit to Construct ❑ Permit to Operate ! Article 150 Title 5: Protection 9 6NYCRR 608: Water Quality of Waters Certification ❑ Article 27, Title 7; 6NYCRR 360: Solid Waste Management Supply ❑ Article 15, Title 15: Water ❑ Article 1T, Titles 7, e: SPDES ❑ Article 27, Title 9; 6NYCRR 373: Hazardous Waste Management ❑ Article 15, Title 15: Water ❑ Article 19: Air Pollution Control Transport ❑ Article 34: Coastal Erosion ❑ Article 23, Title 27: Mined Land Management 0 Article 15, Title 15: Long Reclamation Island Wells ❑ Article 36: FLoodplain ❑ Article Z4: Freshwater Wetlands Management ❑ Article 15, Title Z7: Wild, 0 Articles 1, 3, 17, 19, 27, 37; Scenic and Recreational Rivers ■ Article 25: Tidat Wetlands 6NYCRR 380: Radiation Control ❑ Other: PERMIT ISSUED TO TEHONE NUMBER Dr. John Alois ADDRESS OF PERMITTEE 746-1289 39 Nassau Blvd. Garden City, NY 11530 CONTACT PERSON FOR PERMITTED WORK Costello Marine Contracting Corp. TELEPHONE NUMBER P.O. Box 2124 Gre rt NY.11944 NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT/FACILITY (516) 4TT-1199 Atoia Property 8145 Nassau Point Road LOCATION OF PROJECT/FACILITY Cutchogue COUNTY TOWN WATERCOURSE NYTM COORDINATES Suffotk Southold Hog Neck Ba oar PTUN OF a1Tt MJ z® AMVI Tr Rebuild 141 end of timber jetty and install 3' x Br stairway from bulkhead seaward. Al{ work shall be in accordance with NYSDEC approved plans. By acceptance of this permit, the permittee agrees that the permit is contingent upon strict Compliance with the ECL, all applicable regulations, the General Conditions specified (see page 2) and any Special Conditions included as part of this permit. [EllNAL PERMIT ADMINISTRA- ADDRESS Hamilton Bldg. 40, SUNY, Room 219, Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356 r IGNATURE ¢� DATE � ✓' '-'v`-Uri June 1, 1995 Page 1 of 4 • • • • ,��� �� � rum • • • • i n�pect i orts T. The permitted site or facility, Including relevant records, is subject to in- spection at reasonable hours and intervals by an authorized representative of the Deparrmnt of Errvi rorrrental Conservation (the Department) to determine W,ether the permittee is caTplying with this permit and the EEL. Such represen- tat ive may order the v�ork suspended pursuant to E"CL 71-0301 and SOFA 401 (3) . copy of this permit, including all referenced rreps, drawings and special conditions, must be available for inspection by the Departrent at a I I times at the project site. Failure to produce a copy of the permit upon request by a Department representative is a violation of this permit. Permit Changes and !mane I s 2. The Department reserves the right to modify, suspend or revoke this permit Men: a} the scope of the permitted activity is exceeded or a violation of any condition of the permit or provisions of the ECL and pertinent regula- tions is found; b) the permit v►es obtained by misrepresentation or failure to disclose relevant facts; c) nevvmeterial infonTation is discovered; or d) envirorn�ental conditions, relevant technology, or applicable lav or regulation have mate rialIy changed since the permit v%es issued. 3. The permittee rrust submit a separate written application to the Department for reneneI , modification or transfer of this permit. Such application must include any. fours, fees or supplmntal infom -etion the Department requires. Any renenel , mrodification or transfer granted by the Departrrent must be in writing. 4. The permittee must sutrni t a renene l app 1 i cation at least: a) 180 days before expiration of permits for State Pollutant Discharge Elimination SVsten (SPCES) , Hazardous ftste Nbnagarent Facilities (FMF) , rrajor Air Pollution Control (APC) and Solid V%ste NtnagTmnt Fac i I i t i es (S/'4lIF) ; and b) 30 days before expiration of ail other permit types. 5. U-iless expressly provided -for by the Department, issuance of this permit does not modify, supersede or rescind any order or determination perviously issued by the Departrnent or any of the terms, conditions or require Tents contained in such order or determination. Other Legal CbIi gat ions of Permittee 6. The permittee has accepted expressly, by the execution of the application, the full legal responsibility for all da•reges, direct or indirect, of Matever mature and by vrhamver suffered, arising 'out of the project described in this permit and has agreed to indernify and save harmless the State fran suits, actions, darages and costs of every mare and description resulting frc-n this project . 7. This permit does not convey to the permittee any right to trespass upon the lands or interfere with the riparian rights of others in order to perform the permitted vvark nor does it authorize the irrpa i m-ent of any rights, title, or interest in real or personal property held or vested in a person not a party to the permit . 8. The permittee is responsible for obtaining any other ,permits, approvals, lands, easeTents and rights-of-v�ay that may be required for this project . Pa e2of 95-26-u(7192)-215c ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR ARTICLES 15 (Title 5), 24, 25, 34 and 6 NYCRR Part 608 ( Tidal Wetland 9 That if future operations by the State of New York require an al- 1 q other environmentally deleterious materials associated with the teration in the position of the structure or work herein authorized,or project. if. in the opinion of the Department of Environmental Conservation it shall cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of said 13. Any material dredged in the prosecution of the work herein permitted waters or flood flows or endanger the health, safety or welfare of shall be removed evenly,without leaving large refuse piles,ridges across the people of the State, or cause loss or destruction of the natural the bed of a waterway or floodplain or deep holes that may have a resources of the State,the owner may be ordered by the Department to tendency to cause damage to navigable channels or to the banks of remove or alter the structural work, obstructions, or hazards caused a waterway. thereby without expense to the State, and if, upon the expiration or 14, There shall be no unreasonable interference with navigation by the work revocation of this permit, the structure, fill, excavation, or other herein authorized. modification of the watercourse hereby authorized shall not be com- 15. If upon the expiration or revocation of this permit, the project hereby pleted, the owners, shall, without expense to the State, and to such authorized has not been completed,the applicant shall,without expense extent and in such time and manner as the Department of Environmental to the State,and to such extent and in such time and manner as the Conservation may require,remove all or any portion of the uncompleted Department of Environmental Conservation may require,remove all or structure or fill and restore to its former condition the navigable any portion of the uncompleted structure or fill and restore the site and flood capacity of the watercourse.No claim shall be made against to its former condition. No claim shall be made against the State of the State of New York on account of any such removal or alteration. New York on account of any such removal or alteration_ 10- That the State of New York shall in'no case be liable for any damage 16. If granted under 6 NYCRR Part 608, the NYS Department of Environ- or injury to the structure or work herein authorized which maybe caused mental Conservation hereby certifies that the subject project will not by or result from future operations undertaken by the State for the contravene effluent limitations or other limitations or standards under conservation or improvement of navigation,or for other purposes,and Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water Act of 1977 no claim or right to compensation shall accrue from any such damage. (PL 95-217 provided that all of the conditions listed herein are met. 11 Granting of this permit does not relieve the applicant of the responsi- 17, All activities authorized by this permit must be in strict conformance bility of obtaining any other permission, consent or approval from with the approved plans submitted by the applicant or his agent as part the U.5 Army Corps of Engineers, U,S. Coast Guard, New York State of the permit application. Office of Generaf Services or local government which may be required. 12 All necessary precautions shall be taken to preclude contamination Such approved plans were prepared by CoStellO Max.ittt✓ of any wetland or waterway by suspended solids, sediments, fuels, Contracting 4/20/95 solvents. lubricants,epoxy coatings,paints,concrete, leachate or any on SPECIAL CONDITIONS 1• Any debris or excess material from construction of this project shall be completely removed from the adjacent area (upland) and removed to an approved upland area for disposal. Na debris is permitted in tidal wetlands and or protected buffer areas. 2 . The storage of construction equipment and materials shall be confined to landward of bulkhead. 3 . All repairs to existing structures shall be confined to replacement of existing elements with no change in design, dimension, or materials, unless specifically authorized herein. 4 . Dredging is prohibited. Supplementary Special Conditions (A) through (F) attached i . I UtC PERMIT NUfvIBER 1-47aB-01138/000 1-0 PRC)CRAM/FACILITY NUMBER 4 TPage 3 of sU. LEMENTARY SPECIAL CONDITII The following conditions apply to all Tidal Wetlands; Freshwater Wetlands; Coastal Erosion Management; and Wild, Scenic, and Recreational Rivers Permits: A. A copy of this permit, including all conditions and approved plans, shall be available at the project site whenever authorized work is in progress. The permit sign enclosed with the permit shall be protected from the weather and posted in a conspicuous location at the work site until all authorized work has been completed. B. The permittee shall require that any contractor, project engineer, or other person responsible for the overall supervision of this project reads, understands, and complies with this permit and all its general, special, and supplementary special conditions. Any failure to comply precisely with all of the terms and conditions of this permit, unless authorized in writing, shall be treated as a violation of the Environmental Conservation Law, If any of the permit conditions are unclear, the permittee shall contact the Division of Regulatory Affairs at the address on page one or telephone (516) 444--0365. C. If project design modifications become necessary after permit issuance, the permittee shall submit the appropriate plan changes for approval by the Regional. Permit Administrator prior to undertaking any such modifications. The permittee is advised that substantial modification may require submission of a new application for permit. D. At least 48 hours prior to commencement of the project, the permittee and contractor shall sign and return the top portion of the enclosed notification form certifying that they are fully aware of and understand all terms and conditions of this permit. Within 30 days of completion of the permitted work, the bottom portion of that form shall also be signed and returned, along with photographs of the completed work and, if required, a survey. E. For projects involving activities to be undertaken in phases over a period of more than one year, the permittee shall notify the Regional Permit Administrator in writing at least 48 hours prior to recommencing work in subsequent years. F. The granting of this permit does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of obtaining a grant, easement, or other necessary approval from the Division of Land Utilization, Office of General Services, Tower Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12242 (516) 474-2195 , which may be required for any encroachment upon State-owned lands underwater. DEC Permit No. 1-4738-01138/00001-0 page 4 of 4 • • • • mw - a .. .. . Y/G/N/ry A"10 f,Qoy f�i 6'fT.L�AM B � NYSDEC APPROVED 0//j G/ DATA LOUT/O.v M.I.v f� Sai�ac�c-�a�rr�/7•�x� o4v fcry /ie -as-P9 r � r d'4 e AraJaCT air toc..r,a ,Eb �,4YP.PflY�/LpTG/�G75��Wl L017�Y14rfl,4.P.Ff/�x G�rrt[7�.aG C4PP. I�/3T�LL 7�'Y4L''.�',4CC�j1 �i/R3 fir 72L. 5%0-44a7- //yam .P2A-2W .6.�Xla O'C4 0VZe Wl5; Wri,—o 0 �.�►�txy, Baass�+��r,P�. �ir,� - GliTurQsvE.i/y. /�9jf . 2 ✓A/✓�A. +�lva.--8zrs�f�lv�,rt� � -e�¢ss/.1�,4v,2Y,cir,@�. �DU��� Nr ii�S G!/T�Gr6C/6 GPU�Tf/Qr fl/i�'e2"�C' �J R7Z-,:0 �/f..fr�/gIF.0 NYS � tL APPROVED DATEivio I o �- "tT ��.�> -M .00, XpxB �L��✓277y�?Tps/ P�vG •.war X � � + r /v ulrcr,�is�v 1 • 1 a7G�/�� Pf�i�fAf/�4D s L[) rroar tx^firws ,r�,�,� � f a.► roe I �w � C.tD�7yr�r/ .e'l=.�dq'T!AA/�X/t TiYRr/ �fi�WTr Z>Q t/Of1iV1iZ01M �ceo�vciry, /✓y/��ra -8�45"rtGff�tvi?�.4�• ct�t,�tasv�- Cvuv7yo�- f ' Dios ���L G P°� Y S D E C p ►,A Appp oV ED tA /-Y`-738 - U/1.3910DC�o1 DATE. OP. f �i000d Txhr 1.s �• -' 10rA6eArWU 77.E✓•F7,p! S�slF PS r� ' �%• �� • I,�S�+'!.1 r�.�t.4ct•�J�i.�r�ca-� A400WO-fiv"AMC. D.P. t1oHN.9La1,t h c� &„y s .�rsv�rCYa l95-20•f �887}—gd New York State Department of Environmental Conservation NOTICE oboeerr► Now The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has issued permit(s) pursuant to the Environmental Conservation Law for work being conducted at this site. For further information regarding the nature and extent of work approved and any Departmental conditions on it, contact the Regional Permit • Administrator listed below. Please refer to the permit number shown when contacting the DEC. Regional Permit Administrator Permit Number /r / ����0 /�Q ROBERT A. GREEN Expiration Date • NOTE: This notice is NOT a permit • • • • • • • • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One " Ank Building=- SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (631)444-0365•_ FAX: (631)444-0360 John P.Cahill Commissioner Letter of Non-Jurisdiction-Tidal Wetlands Act John and Vera Aloia August 17, 2000 39 Nassau Blvd. _.. Garden City NY 11935 �� - 8£ �-- i, 1 1 777 I Re: Aloia Property,8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchugue SCTM# 100-118-04-09' JUN 2 9 2001 Application# 1-4738-01138/00007 Dear Mr. and Mrs.Aloia: Based on the information you have submitted,the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has.determined that: „ The property that is landward of the pre-existing(prior to.8/20/77).bulkhead which is more tan h 100 feet in length, as seen on the aerial photograph(exposure 71-2002)produced by Aerographics and on infrared aerial photograph#974, is beyond the jurisdiction of Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). Therefore,in accordance with the current Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661).no permit is required under the Tidal Wetlands Act. Please be advised,,.howvcr,,that no construction, sedimentation,or disturbance of any kind may xace seaward.of the tidal wetlands JJun"`3is ct"ioonal boundary,as indicated above,without a ermit. It is your responsibility to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken to pre en any se imentation or other alteration or disturbance to the ground surface or vegetation within Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction which may result from your project. Such precautions may include maintaining adequate work area between the tidaLwetland jurisdictional boundary.and.�+pur ject.(i.e.a 15'to 20'wide construction area)or erecting a tnporary fence,barrier, or.ha`y-bale ° Please be further advised that this letter does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies. Sincerely, is C. Carrara Permit Administrator cc: BME? J. Costello Walsh, Costello Marine Contracting Corporation Pile ♦Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order ♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ Page 1 of 3 New York State Department of Env iron mental Conservation Services ,Pra rams Subject Index Search �i hfi hts Cont ct Us NQ me Commissioner Order for Mary Risi and Alan Risi More information from this division: office QP Hwwjngs end M diafion Decisions - Updated regularly. STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION In the Matter of Alleged Violations of Articles 15 and 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Parts 608 and 661 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York -by- MARY RISI and ALAN RISI, Respondents. ORDER DEC File No. R2-0303-98-02 WHEREAS: 1. Pursuant to the notice of hearing dated June 4, 1999 and amended complaint dated January 3, 2003, an administrative enforcement hearing was held before Helene G. Goldberger, Administrative Law Judge ("ALI"), on February 3, 4, 5 and 13, 2004 at the Region 2 offices of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC" or "Department") located in Long Island City, New York. Department's Region 2 staff appeared by Udo M. Drescher, Assistant Regional Attorney, and respondents appeared by Periconi LLC, James P. Periconi, Esq. and John H. Paul, Esq., of counsel. 2. Respondents Mary Risi and Alan Risi reside at 154-43 Riverside Drive, Beechhurst, New York 11357 ("Risi site"). The Risi site is located on the East River, which is a navigable water of the State of New York, and abuts a http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Orler • • • • • Page 2 of • State-regulated tidal wetland. 3. I hereby adopt ALJ Goldberger's hearing report, a copy of which is attached, subject to the comments in this order. Based on my review of the • record, I conclude that: a. The record establishes that respondents constructed a revetment and placed fill in a regulated tidal wetland, its adjacent area and the navigable waters of the State of New York in violation of a permit that was issued to respondent Mary Risi by Department staff on or about October 23, 1996 ("1996 permit"). The 1996 permit was issued pursuant to articles 15 and 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") and parts 608 and 661 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York ("6 NYCRR"). The construction and placement of fill have eliminated functions • of the tidal wetland and its adjacent area at the Risi site. In addition, respondents constructed a deck, a wall, a utility line to serve the deck and other improvements without the required permit ("unpermitted structures"); b. The record further establishes that respondents violated various special • conditions of the 1996 permit by failing to notify Department staff prior to the commencement of the work and by failing to establish erosion controls as part of the construction; c. By conducting activities unauthorized by or otherwise in violation of the • 1996 permit including but not limited to: (a) the placement of fill in the regulated tidal wetland, its adjacent area, and navigable waters, (b) constructing the revetment further seaward than what was permitted, (c) constructing unpermitted structures, and (d) allowing sediment runoff during construction, respondents violated ECL 15-0505 and 25-0401 and 6 NYCRR • parts 608 and 661; d. In light of respondents' violations and unauthorized activities, respondents are being directed to remove the unpermitted fill that was placed in the regulated tidal wetland, its adjacent area and navigable waters, to remove the unpermitted structures, to restore the beach at the Risi site to its pre-fill • size, and to modify and relocate the existing revetment so as to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1996 permit (collectively, "restoration activity") and are to be assessed a civil penalty; and e. Because a tidal wetland enforcement matter is pending against the owners • of an adjacent property ("Winkle property") involving similar alleged violations, I concur with the ALI that it would be preferable to coordinate the restoration activity with any work that may be ordered or agreed upon at the Winkle property. However, I have also considered Department staff's recommendation that, if the Winkle property enforcement matter is not • resolved in a timely fashion, restoration activity relating to the Risi site should not be further delayed. Therefore, if a consent order is not executed, a Commissioner's order after hearing is not issued, or no other resolution of the enforcement proceeding is reached with respect to the Winkle property within 180 days of the signing of this order, Department staff, at its sole • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 iMary Risi an Alan Risi - Order • • ! • • Page 3 of 31 • discretion, may direct respondents to commence restoration activity relating to the Risi site. In that event, Department staff may require respondents, as necessary, to limit or delay certain aspects of the restoration activity at the Risi site until such time as the enforcement matter concerning the Winkle property is resolved. 4. The AU has reviewed the civil penalty proposed by Department staff in consideration of such factors as economic benefit, environmental harm, cooperation and deterrence. Given the recognized expense of the restoration activity and other circumstances relating to this case, the AU has recommended a reduction in the proposed civil penalty to $170,000, of which $50,000 would be payable within sixty (60) days of the date of this order and $120,000 would be suspended contingent upon respondents' completion of the restoration activity. • 5. I have further considered the penalty calculation in light of the anticipated cost of the restoration activity at this residential property, the arguments raised by respondents in their post-hearing brief and reply brief in support of a reduction of any penalty, as well as other aspects of the record in this proceeding. Based on that consideration, I have determined to lower the civil penalty to $150,000, of which $30,000 is to be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. The payment of the remaining $120,000 would be suspended contingent upon respondents' completion of the restoration activity. 0 6. To ensure that the restoration activity is satisfactorily implemented, respondents must prepare a restoration plan that describes the work to be undertaken pursuant to this order. Respondents must submit the restoration plan to Department staff for its review and approval prior to the • commencement of the restoration activity. 7. The AU recommended that Department staff commence re-mapping of the boundary of the regulated tidal wetland at the Risi site. Based on my review of this record, I am not imposing any requirement in this order that 41111 the area be re-mapped, but I am referring the AU's recommendation to the Department's Region 2 natural resources staff for consideration. However, the record in this proceeding demonstrates that the restoration activity that respondents are being directed to undertake by this order is in no way contingent or dependent upon a re-mapping or alteration of the regulated • tidal wetland boundary. See, e.g., Hearing Report, at 15. NOW, THEREFORE, having considered this matter and being duly advised, it is ORDERED that: I. Respondents are adjudged to have violated ECL 15-0505 and 25-0401 and 41 6 NYCRR parts 608 and 661. II. Respondents are jointly and severally assessed a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). The payment of one hundred twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) of this sum shall be 0 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi anlAlan Risi - OAder Page 4 of 3 suspended contingent upon respondents' removal of unpermitted fill that was placed in the regulated tidal wetland, its adjacent area and navigable waters and removal of unpermitted structures, restoration of the beach at the Risi site to its pre-fill size and modification and relocation of the existing revetment so as to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1996 permit. III. Payment of the civil penalty shall be by certified or cashier's check or money order payable to the order of "NYSDEC" and mailed (by certified mail, . return receipt requested), sent by overnight delivery, or hand-delivered to: Udo M. Drescher, Assistant Regional Attorney, NYSDEC, Region 2, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11101. The unsuspended portion of the penalty ($30,000) shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the date of this order. The suspended portion of the penalty ($120,000) shall be paid within sixty (60) days of a written notice to respondents by Department staff that respondents have failed to comply with the provisions and terms of this order. IV. Department staff shall notify respondents of the execution of an order on consent, the issuance of a Commissioner's order after hearing or other resolution of the enforcement proceeding with respect to the Winkle property. Within thirty (30) days of respondents' receipt of the notification or such later date as Department staff may determine to be appropriate, respondents shall submit to Department staff a restoration plan relating to 0 the Risi site. However, if within 180 days of the date of this order, no order on consent is executed, no Commissioner's order after hearing is issued, or no other resolution of the enforcement proceeding is reached with respect to the Winkle property, Department staff, at its discretion, may so notify respondents and direct respondents to submit a restoration plan within thirty (30) days or such later date as Department staff may determine to be appropriate. In that event, Department staff may identify areas where respondents shall either limit or delay restoration activity until such time as the enforcement matter concerning the Winkle property is resolved. V. Respondents shall submit a restoration plan that describes the work to be undertaken to Department staff for its review and approval prior to the commencement of the restoration activity. Department staff may direct that changes be made to the restoration plan. The restoration plan shall include, but not be limited to, a description of the manner in which respondents shall: remove the unpermitted fill that was placed in the regulated tidal wetland, its adjacent area, and navigable waters; remove the unpermitted structures; restore the beach at the Risi site to its pre-fill size; and modify and relocate the existing revetment so as to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the 1996 permit. The restoration plan shall also include an implementation schedule for the restoration activity. VI. Respondents may not commence any restoration activity until they are notified in writing by Department staff that the restoration plan has been approved, provided that Department staff, at its discretion, may make http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi ant Alan Risi - Ofder • • • • Page 5 All exceptions for certain restoration activities. VII. Respondents shall notify Department staff: at least five (5) business days prior to the date when the restoration activity is to commence at the Risi site; on the date when the restoration activity is completed; and such other intermediate dates as specified by Department staff. Such notifications shall be made in the manner established by Department staff. VIII. Respondents shall provide Department staff with access to the Risi site in order that Department staff may determine the sufficiency of the restoration plan that respondents have submitted to Department staff for review and approval, and the compliance of the ongoing and completed restoration activity with this order and the approved restoration plan. IX. All communications between respondents and the Department concerning • this order shall be made to Udo M. Drescher, Assistant Regional Attorney, NYSDEC, Region 2, 47-40 21st Street, Long Island City, New York 11101. X. The terms and conditions of this order shall bind respondents, their heirs and assigns in any and all capacities. • New York State Department of Environmental Conservation • __ /s/ By: Erin M. Crotty, Commissioner Albany, New York October 29, 2004 • To: James J. Periconi, Esq. John H. Paul, Esq. Periconi, LLC • 475 Park Avenue South, 30th Floor New York, New York 10016 Mary Risi 154-43 Riverside Drive Beechhurst, New York 11357 Alan Risi 154-43 Riverside Drive Beechhurst, New York 11357 Udo M. Drescher Assistant Regional Attorney NYSDEC - Region 2 47-40 215t Street Long Island City, New York 11101 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 !Mary Risi anckan Risi - Order 0 ! ! ! ! Page 6 A, STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 625 Broadway Albany, New York 12233-1550 ! In the Matter - of - Alleged Violations of Articles 15 and 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Parts 608 and 661 of Title 6 of the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations by MARY RISI and ALAN RISI 154-43 Riverside Drive Beechhurst, New York 11357 Respondents. Case No. R2-0303-98-02 HEARING REPORT by /s/ Helene G. Goldberger Administrative Law Judge June 3, 2004 Proceedings Pursuant to Part 622 of Title 6 of the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), an administrative enforcement hearing was convened to consider allegations by the staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC or Department) against respondents Mary Risi and Alan Risi, 154-43 Riverside Drive, Beechhurst, New York 11357. The staff alleged that the respondents failed to adhere to the conditions set forth in a 1996 permit issued to the Risis pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Articles 15 and 25 and Parts 608 and 661 to build a revetment - a type of retaining wall designed to reduce shoreline erosion. In addition, staff alleges that the respondents failed to provide Department staff with notice of intent to commence work and constructed a deck, two walls alongside said deck and utilities without a tidal wetlands permit pursuant to Articles 15 and 25 of the ECL and Parts 608 and i http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi antAlan Risi - Order S Page 7 of 31 661 of 6 NYCRR. Staff also complains that respondents failed to maintain erosion control measures at the construction site, in violation of a permit condition. Staff served the respondents with a notice of hearing and complaint dated June 4, 1999. Staff served an amended complaint on or about January 3, 2003. After a period of discovery and motion practice, on October 23, 2003, staff filed a statement of readiness with the Office of Hearings and Mediation Services. Subsequently, respondents retained new counsel, James J. • Periconi, Esq., and during a conference call on December 5, 2003, the parties agreed to retain the dates of January 13-15, 2004 that were previously set for hearing. On December 22, 2003, in another conference call, the parties agreed to delay the hearing in order to accommodate an expert witness of the respondents. By motion dated January 23, 2004, respondents moved to adjourn the hearing scheduled for February 3-5, 2004: (1) to apply for a new permit based upon their view that DEC staff failed to adhere to Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) requirements in processing the Risi permit and (2) to obtain a new determination of the Department's tidal wetlands jurisdiction. Staff opposed this adjournment. I denied this motion in a ruling dated January 26, 2004. On January 30, 2004, in response to respondents' motion for leave to file an expedited appeal of my ruling, Chief Administrative Law Judge James T. McClymonds conveyed Commissioner Crotty's decision to deny the motion. The hearing took place in DEC's Region 2 offices in Long Island City on February 3-5 and 13, 2004. The Department staff was represented by Udo Drescher, Assistant Regional Attorney, DEC Region 2. The respondents were represented by Periconi, LLC, James J. Periconi, Esq. and John H. Paul, of counsel.(1) Department staff presented the following witnesses in support of its case: Jeffrey Rabkin, DEC environmental analyst; Stephen Zahn, DEC regional . manager, Marine Resources Program; Susan Bauer-Maresca, DEC biologist, Marine Habitat Protection Bureau; Roman Gregory Rakoczy, DEC environmental engineer, Coastal Erosion Management; and William Daley, former DEC Director, Bureau of Flood Protection, Division of Water. • Respondents presented the following witnesses in support of their case: Henry Bokuniewicz, Professor of Oceanography, Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY at Stony Brook; Michael Niebauer; Michael P. Bontje, President, B. Laing Associates; and respondent Alan Risi. The Charges and Relief Sought The Department staff alleged that the respondents constructed a revetment in a location and manner that violated the terms of the permit that was issued to Mary E. Risi in February 1996. In addition, staff alleges that the http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 8 of 31 respondents built additional structures in the regulated tidal wetland zone and adjacent area without a permit. The amended complaint also contains allegations concerning the Risis' failure to provide sediment controls and to provide DEC staff with notice of the start of construction in accordance with the issued permit. Staff seeks the removal of the revetment and the additional structures and a payable civil penalty of $330,000. Staff bases this penalty on the loss of valuable tidal resources, the respondents' construction of additional structures after receipt of a notice of violation, and a lack of cooperation in resolving these allegations. Also, staff argues that the 4 deterrent value of a large penalty is important in this case due to the respondents' actions. Respondents' Position 41 The respondents allege that the 1996 permit is vague and staff failed to provide sufficient guidance during the permitting process and are thus responsible for any misunderstanding related to the construction of the revetment. In addition, the respondents maintain that because the 1974 tidal wetlands boundary reflected an area of land (hereinafter referred to as the eagle's head) north of the Risi property that was formerly part of their property, the Risis were entitled to fill in that area to reflect past conditions. The respondents also posit that the Department's tidal wetland jurisdiction falls short of the slope north of the Risi house based upon the 10 foot contour limitation set forth in 6 NYCRR § 661.4(b)(iii). The respondents maintain that due to the construction that has taken place along the shoreline that abuts their home and the strong erosive forces at work, they had little choice but to place the revetment as they did. The Risis respond to staff's pursuit of restoration work by stating that a new permit application process should ensue that is in conformity with Part 661. Respondents argue that due consideration must be given to the lack of tidal wetland values and their coastal erosion concerns. Respondents maintain that the penalty is not in keeping with precedent in other tidal wetland enforcement proceedings and given the lack of environmental damage is unwarranted. The Risis argue that to the extent that there have been violations resulting from the work 40 performed, it was due to staff's unprofessional review of the permit application and the respondents are not responsible. Respondents claim that staffs actions in this matter are due to political pressure and not based upon the environmental circumstances. In their answer, the Risis also state that any filling of adjacent areas and deposition 0 of sediment in a tidal wetland occurred, if at all, as the result of the actions of other individuals. Respondents also set forth a number of other legal claims in their answer such as laches, selective enforcement, and that respondents' actions were in response to an emergency. Orientation To facilitate the reader's understanding of this report, I have attached three http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Orter • 0 0 0 0 Page 9 of] 0 exhibits - Exhibit 15 - a copy of the 1974 tidal wetlands map that shows the approximate location of the Risi property and the previously existing eagle's head; Exhibit 28 - an aerial photograph showing the Risi residence marked with an "X" prior to the construction at issue; Exhibit 29 - a copy of an aerial • photograph also showing the Risi residence after the construction.(2) In all of these exhibits, north is towards the water. In Exhibits 28 and 29, the Winkle property is the next property to the east of the Risis' location. The Mattina property, also referenced in this report, is the property located east of the Winkle property. Exs. 24a, 24c. The condominiums which were referenced during the hearing are located to the west of a cove which is located west of the Risi property. Ex. 32g. FINDINGS OF FACT 0 Permit Application Process 1. Mary E. Risi is an owner of property at 154-43 Riverside Drive, Beechhurst, New York. She purchased this property in December 1995. Exhibit (Ex.) 4. This property is located on the East River in the Borough of Queens between the Whitestone Bridge to the west and the Throg's Neck Bridge to the east. Exs. 4, 14. 2. On or about February 26, 1996, based upon information received from the Army Corps of Engineers with respect to DEC's jurisdiction, the respondents applied to the Department for a permit, pursuant to Articles 15 and 25, to "Construct a Clean StoneWaII-Constructed of 1/4 to 1 Cubic Yard Stone. Backfilled with smaller stone and earth." Ex. 5a. The stated purpose of this project was to prevent further erosion of the ground behind the home. Ex. 5a. As part of this application, the Risis provided a wave break detail of what • they intended to construct. Ex. 5g. At the time of the application, to the north of the house was a sloped wall consisting of an unorganized jumble of rock and rubble. Exs. 5c, 36. Based upon a lack of erosion protection, sections of ground on the Risi property were deteriorating and washing away. Ex. 5e; TR 929-930. • 3. When this application was received in DEC's Region 2 office, the Division of Environmental Permits (DEP) staff forwarded it to the Bureau of Maine Habitat Protection for review by the technical group that reviews permit applications. TR 20; Ex. 6. • 4. In response to the DEP staff's notification of availability for review, Stephen Zahn reviewed the application materials and determined that the applicant's approach would not serve to establish a stable slope. TR 96. During this review process, Mr. Zahn visited the site with DEC Marine Habitat 0 Protection Bureau biologist Susan Bauer-Maresca. TR 101, 122-124. As part of his site visit, Mr. Zahn identified the then existing top of the slope which would be the starting point for any new structure. TR 102-103. Mr. Zahn confirmed that the top of the slope, as shown on the applicant's initial submission, was approximately 20 feet from the back of the house. Mr. Zahn http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 • • • • • • • • Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 10 of 3 also concluded from this visit that this area was the landward termination of the Department's adjacent area jurisdiction. TR 103-104, 115; Ex. 5g. During this site visit, Mr. Zahn determined the location of the apparent high water line on the beach which indicated the tidal wetland boundary. TR 104-105, 106. 5. The Department's official tidal wetlands map for this area - map 600-516 - was created in 1974. Ex. 14. This map shows that the type of tidal wetlands in existence in this area is littoral zone (LZ). Ex. 14. Littoral zone is a tidal wetland habitat that is permanently inundated by water. TR 112; 6 NYCRR § 661.4(hh)(4). In addition to the littoral zone, at the time of the application by the Risis, other habitat types existed at the Risi site - shoal or mud flat areas and adjacent area - the area between the mean high water line and the slope. TR 197; Exs. 24a, 24b, 24i, 40, 41; 6 NYCRR § 661.4(hh)(3). 6. The tidal wetland map shows that in 1974 at least part of the property now owned by the Risis contained a spit of land that jutted out northward into the East River. Exs. 15, 47, 60. This eagle's head no longer exists, making the tidal wetlands boundary more landward. See, e.g., Ex. 29; TR * 112. 7. As a result of his review and site visit, Mr. Zahn critiqued the proposed application by stating that the "[p]roject would result in an unstable stone bank. Applicant needs to redesign as a conventional revetment. Plan should include: a. Capstone (1/2 - 1 ton); b. over Corestone (50 - 100 Ibs.); c. over bedstone (5 -10 Ibs); d. over filter fabric (anchored at toe which is buried 3 - 6 feet below grade at MHW [mean high water]); e. slope not to exceed 1:2 . . . Applicant should indicate removal of existing C & D [construction and demolition debris] that presently lines the slope." These comments also provided that the staff should send to the applicant the "attached sheet" which was a one page description and drawing of a revetment. Exs. 7a, 7b. This description came from an Army Corps of Engineers manual. TR 25. On the drawing Mr. Zahn noted where the filter fabric would go and also provided the slope of the revetment - 2: 1. These instructions were in • addition to the printed labels on the drawing that identified the overtopping apron, graded stone filter, armor layer, and toe protection. Ex. 7b. Above and below this drawing there is a description of the purpose of a revetment and the method of construction. In this version of the attachment there are a few words that appear highlighted and a few words that appear struck out. There is no indication of the amount of fill that would be needed to provide a stable foundation for the revetment. Staff admits that any voids that existed would have to be filled but that this would not amount to a significant amount of fill. TR 385. 8. A revetment protects shoreline from erosion of soil and also dissipates r wave energy. TR 181. The design of the revetment is meant to hold the soil particles in place. To accomplish this goal, a filter fabric is the base layer - this is placed across the top of the soil itself to prevent soil particles from moving through the fabric. This material must be anchored by folding it back and wrapping it among the stone layers. TR 183. Then there are three layers • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi al Alan Risi - Order Page 11 of of stone placed beginning with the smaller stone and graduating to the top layer of armor or capstone that will take the brunt of the wave energy. TR 185, 452. The mean high water should be below the overtopping apron. TR 186. See also, Ex. 36. 41 9. Mr. Zahn also spoke with Mr. Risi regarding staff's recommendations for the design of the revetment. Mr. Zahn explained how the information provided by staff would improve the stability and effectiveness of the revetment. TR 188. Mr. Zahn discussed with Mr. Risi the location of the tidal wetland boundary in 1996 - the apparent high water line. Because the applicant was not proposing to do much work in the adjacent area, Mr. Zahn did not emphasize the boundaries of the adjacent area. TR 331-332, 352, 361. 10. After he received the response from Mr. Zahn to the notice of availability for review, on July 17, 1996, Jeffrey Rabkin of DEP forwarded the information to Mr. Risi and also called him to discuss the application. TR 25; Exs. 7a and b, 31. 11. On or about July 23, 1996, Mr. Risi sent Mr. Rabkin a revised plan to construct the revetment. With this drawing is a cover letter dated July 23, 1996 that is signed by Mr. Risi and advises Mr. Rabkin that enclosed was "our plan to construct a stone wall at our residence." The letter is stamped "received" by the Region 2 office on July 24, 1996. Ex. 8a. The drawing is based upon the one that Mr. Zahn had forwarded to the Division of Environmental Permits and contained measurements indicating that the top of the revetment would start 20 feet from the back (north side) of the house and that the revetment would go out an additional 30 feet to the north. Above these measurements is a notation that the entire distance from the back of the house to the toe of the revetment would be 50 feet. This plan also indicates the stone that would be used: bed - 5-10 lbs.; core 50-100 lbs; cap - 1000-2000 lbs. Ex. 8b. 12. On or about October 23, 1996, staff issued to Mary Risi a permit pursuant to Articles 15 (Water Resources) and 25 (Tidal Wetlands) and 6 0 NYCRR 608 (Water Quality Certification) and 6 NYCRR 661 (Tidal Wetlands - Land Use Regulations) to "[r]econstruct approximately 80 linear feet of rip- rap revetment." Ex. 9. Among the requirements of the permit, special condition 18 required that the work comply "with the unattributed, undated drawing, 'Risi Residence: 154-43 Riverside Drive Beechhurst NY 11357,' f stamped 'received by the Department on 24 July 1996. . ." Special condition 19 prohibited sediment, construction and demolition debris or any solid waste from entering the waterways. Condition 20 required that the revetment be composed of clean, natural stone and that all broken concrete, asphalt and comparable material on the site at the time be removed. Special 0 condition 21 required that the permittee "[n]o less than five business days prior to the commencement of the subject work, . . .deliver a completed copy of the attached 'Notice of Intent to Commence Work' to Stephen M. Zahn . . ." Ex. 9. http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.htm1 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order • • • • • Page 12 of 1 13. Mr. Risi owns a company that employs 40 people - Georal International - that installs doors for commercial buildings with two locations in the United States. TR 992-994. . Project Construction 14. After receiving the permit, the applicants did not commence this project for approximately one year. TR 953-954. Prior to alerting the Department that he was commencing work pursuant to the permit, Mr. Risi arranged for approximately 40 truckloads of fill to be brought onto the site and stockpiled the rock to be used in the revetment construction. TR 196, 955. In approximately January or February of 1998, he started to install the wall. TR 959. • 15. Staff did not receive any prior notification that the respondents had commenced work at the site. TR 362, 366. It was at a March 1998 meeting with the respondents that staff first viewed the letter the respondents claim they sent to the Department to notify them of the start of work and the intention to modify the existing plan. TR 366. • 16. On February 24, 1998, in response to complaints from the local community board, Ms. Bauer-Maresca went to the Risi site and observed that the revetment was not built in conformity with the permit. TR 137, 143, 384; Exs. 20, 23. There had been a hard rainfall the day before the site visit and a significant amount of sediment had been allowed to move off the site into the water. Ex. 19b; TR 135, 145, 147. The respondents had no erosion controls in place. TR 136. 17. From the corners of the Risi house to the top of the slope of the revetment, the distance was 80 feet instead of the 20 feet that the permit instructed. TR 137. The respondent placed 4800 square feet of fill in the East River, wetlands, and adjacent area. TR 286; Exs. 19a, d, 32d, e, f. 18. Based upon these observations, Ms. Bauer-Maresca sent Mary Risi a notice of violation dated February 24, 1998. Ex. 21, TR 141. • 19. In addition to the placement of the revetment and the lack of sediment controls, the construction of the structure was also not in conformity with the permit requirements. TR 261. Small stones were on top of the structure where the largest sized capstone should have been placed. TR 261. The material appeared to be randomly dumped over the shoreline. TR 411-412, 505, 545-547, 617. The filter fabric, if placed, is buried but the method of construction - dumping rather than placement - could have resulted in piercing the fabric and defeating its purpose. While the revetment may do an adequate job in protecting the Risi property, its duration may be limited due to the nature of the construction. 20. In the summer of 1998, the respondents retained an architect, Anthony Cucich, to design additional improvements to their property - including a patio. Ex. 62. • http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi an�Alan Risi - Oraer • • Page 13 0 1 21. The respondents installed a 30 foot cement patio, planted 40 feet of lawn, installed boards on top of the revetment supported by 4 foot by 8 foot wood sheets with a railing on top, built a wall on the western side of the property and installed a utility line on that wall. Exs. 30a, 30c; TR 1029 - 1033, 1049 - 1050. The Risis did not submit a permit application to the Department for any of this work. TR 281, 1028. Revetment Efficacy 22. The erosion at the Risi location is caused by wind and currents, with the main source of wave energy coming from wind. TR 454-455. Fetch is the distance that wind-driven water can travel to reach a site. TR 161, 456. The distance that wind can travel without obstruction drives and creates waves. TR 457. The distance, velocity, and the length of time contribute to the force of those waves. TR 457. At the Risi site, the farthest point the wind can travel from the east without obstruction to create that wave energy is Hewlett Point - about 3 miles. TR 462; Ex. 16. Because of the shallow water near the Risi property, the fetch would be a shorter distance. Because of the short distance in the northwest direction (Old Ferry Point) and the shallow water, there is little opportunity to create a great deal of energy from that direction. TR 463-464; Ex. 16. Waves are relatively small in this area. TR 467-469. Erosion in this area is generally caused by storm-related events rather than currents. TR 473. 23. The Risis were seeking to protect their property from erosion. Ex. 5a, 5e, 5f. The permitted revetment, placed twenty feet from the home, would have fulfilled this intention had it been constructed properly. Ex. 36. By placing the revetment into deeper water than the Department had permitted, the wave height that will affect the revetment is increased because wave height is directly related to water depth. Ex. 36, TR 472. • 24. Flood protection requires raising an area above the level of the flood from which protection is sought and must include the anticipated height of storm- driven waves. Ex. 36. The Flood Insurance Study for New York City indicates that the area of Queens where the Risi property exists is fronted by a V11 zone - elevation N.G.V.D. (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1919). Exs. 35, 36. In a 100-year storm event resulting in elevations of still water of 14 N.G.V.D., the lower floor of the Risi residence would be flooded. Ex. 36. The location of the revetment would not make a difference in such circumstances. Ex. 36. There is no absolute protection from coastal storms and their effects if property is located on the coast. TR 584. 25. The placement of the fill material at the Risi and Winkle properties has resulted in an abrupt transition in the shoreline at properties farther to the east along this shoreline. TR 523-524. This condition has the potential to • focus wave energy in that area and erode current structures and shoreline. In addition, due to the placement of the fill, there is potential for erosion immediately to the west of the Risis - between the condominiums and the Risi property where there remains a small beach area. TR 525-526. To avoid this result, the unpermitted fill should be removed and the natural beach http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi an?Alan Risi - Omer + Page 14 ofil • restored to the pre-fill size and composition. The Risi revetment should be removed and re-established with the slope set forth in the July 1996 drawing. Ex. 36. Resource Impacts 26. Along the East River shoreline in the northern portion of Queens -- as exists in most of New York City -- there is a good deal of development. TR 154, 242, 598. At the time of the Risi application, in front of the old shoreline protection structure at the applicants' property there was a gently sloping • beach. TR 114; Ex. 28. Remnants of this beach can be seen in properties to the east and west of the Risi property. Ex. 24a, 24h, 24i. The current status of the revetted shoreline at the Risi and adjacent properties shows the loss of this shoreline. Exs. 24d; 29. • 27. In addition to the littoral zone tidal wetland habitat that is permanently inundated, prior to respondents' filling, there also existed shoal or mud flat areas that would provide wildlife habitat. TR 197. These different types of wetland provide habitat for different species of fish including juveniles as well as benthic organisms. TR 197-198, 233. Horseshoe crabs need sandy soils to • reproduce and because development has eliminated a lot of this habitat in the metropolitan area, the remaining areas are important. TR 241-243. Horseshoe crab eggs are an important food source for wading birds. TR 241- 243. • 28. In May and August 2003, trawl studies of the area, including the waters near the Risi property, revealed a variety of fish species that use this area as habitat. TR 200-202; Exs. 25 and 26. According to 1993 impingement and entrainment studies performed for Consolidated Edison, there are approximately 20 species of fin fish and invertebrates in the area near the 0 Astoria/Ravenswood power plant that is between 1 and 2 miles from the Risi property. TR 231-233. 29. The Risi property is within the normal foraging range of bird species that inhabit North and South Brother Islands, which are roosting and nesting • areas 1 - 2 miles west of the Risi site. TR 204. DISCUSSION It is the conclusion of this ALJ, based upon the testimony and evidence • produced by the DEC staff, as well as by evidence submitted by the respondents, that the Risis violated Articles 15 and 25 of the ECL and Parts 608 and 661 of 6 NYCRR by building their revetment in a different location than was allowed by the 1996 permit. The respondents do not deny that they built the revetment in a different location than the permit provided. Instead, • the Risis claim that they modified the location based Upon a number of factors discussed below. I also found credible the Department staff's testimony that they did not receive the applicant's notification of intent to commence work. While there is no way to determine whether or not the http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order • • • • Page 15 of 1 applicant actually sent the January 28, 1998 letter to staff, Mr. Risi admitted that he had begun to bring fill and stone onto the site prior to having sent the letter. Ex. 11. Staff also demonstrated that the respondents violated Article 25 of the ECL and Part 661 by building additional structures in the adjacent area of a tidal wetland without a permit. With respect to this allegation as well, the respondents did not contest that they did not submit a permit application for this additional work. And, as staff's evidence showed, the respondents failed to place erosion controls at their site during construction resulting in the entry of sediment into the East River. • I have rejected the defenses of the respondents for the reasons described below. Unclean Hands - Compliance with Uniform Procedures Act • The respondents' first defense is that they are homeowners without any specific professional expertise in this subject. They state that at the time of the permit application, they were ignorant of the law's requirements and depended on DEC staff to ensure that the permit process was thorough and that their conduct was in compliance with the relevant mandates. Specifically, the respondents now claim that staff violated the Uniform Procedures Act (UPA) by not requiring the applicant to adhere to each and every element contained in 6 NYCRR § 621.4(k). This regulation requires: • (1) A complete application must include: (i) plan and profile sketches of the proposed project; (ii) a map at a scale of 1" = 2,000' or larger showing its location; (N) project plans at a scale of 1" = 100' with a contour interval of two feet and showing the mean high water line (if the project is in the water) • and/or the tidal wetlands boundary as delineated at the site by DEC staff or an environmental consultant, or an accurate representation of the tidal wetland • boundary as taken from the official tidal wetlands maps; (iv) a description of the project including its proposed use; 40 (v) the names of adjacent landowners; (vi) a statement of feasible alternatives; and (vii) a statement of methods to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts to tidal http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi andAlan Risi - Order • • • • • Page 16 o• 0 wetlands. Staff acknowledged that the respondents' application did not include a number of the above mentioned requirements such as a plan view of the proposed project, scaled survey, or a statement of alternatives. Mr. Rabkin explained that for small projects of this size by private homeowners, the Department staff attempts to lessen the application burdens as long as there is sufficient information provided for staff to assess the impacts and make a determination. TR 56-59, 73-75. Mr. Rabkin explained that he spoke with Mr. • Risi and determined that the applicant understood what the Department sought in this application and could follow the instructions. TR 75. Mr. Zahn visited the site, identified the apparent mean high water line and the Department's area of jurisdiction, and communicated his observations with Mr. Risi. TR 188, 331-332, 352, 361. This review provided enough additional • information to allow staff to develop permit requirements and the revetment design so that the Risis would attain their shoreline protection goals and the tidal wetland resources would be minimally affected. TR 344-352. Respondents are attempting to take the staffs decision not to dogmatically apply certain requirements for the homeowners' benefit and use this flexibility as their defense. I agree with staff that it is clear that Mr. Risi understood the requirements of the permit. They were simple. The location of the revetment is clearly marked on the drawing that Mr. Risi submitted in July 1996 to DEC staff. Ex. 8b. It is true that the drawing itself is not date- stamped as indicated in special permit condition 18. However, this condition references the drawing received by the Department on July 24, 1996. Since the cover letter submitted by Mr. Risi with the drawing indicates a date stamp of July 24, 1996, there can be no confusion about what drawing the staff had indicated in the permit.(3) This is particularly the case where it was • Mr. Risi, in response to Mr. Zahn's critique, who had revised the initial drawing that accompanied the application. Exs. 5g, 7b. Mr. Risi does not claim that he did not understand how to build the revetment. Even now he insists it was done properly despite the consensus a of almost every witness, including Professor Bokuniewicz, that the stone appears to have been poured on the site rather than engineered. TR 617. Mr. Risi is an experienced businessman who appears well capable of following directions. TR 992-994. • I do not find it credible that in between the time of the permit application and the commencement of the work, Mr. Risi researched the tidal wetlands map and the original survey of his property to conclude that the permit entitled him to fill in the area of the former eagle's head previously located north of the current shoreline. Resp. Br. 7, TR 941, 951. Even if that was the case, • given the application process, including the communications between staff and the respondents, it is beyond cavil that the Risis would not contact DEC prior to acting upon this new understanding of the permit's terms. This is apparent from the candid statement of Dr. Bokuniewicz when he reported a conversation he had with Mr. Risi regarding a letter Mr. Risi sent to the • http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi andAlan Risi - Order + • • Page 17 of 31 Department; "about modifying the structure and went ahead and modified it, but hadn't gotten a response from the DEC or something like that." [emphasis added.] TR 622. Mr. Risi acknowledged that he did understand that the permit references to "reconstruct approximately 80 linear feet of rip-rap revetment" did not mean he could build the structure 80 feet from his house. TR 941. Rather, after getting the permit, he claims he researched the historical conditions of the property to better understand what "reconstruct" meant. TR 941-942. He claims that in looking at the tidal wetlands map of 1974 and some other documents, he concluded that the property was 80 to 100 feet less than it was in 1974. TR 942. It is upon this thin reed that the respondents rely to explain their illegal filling. Even in the pictures that accompanied the respondents' application, there is evidence of a former structure that apparently had served as a shoreline protection device, albeit in a less than perfectly engineered fashion. Ex. 5c. This rip rap structure was referenced by several of the witnesses. TR 103, 387, 446. It is apparent that this was the structure that the permit references to reconstruct. If the respondents were unclear about the 0 meaning of this language, the logical step was to contact DEC staff rather than go on some historical search that the Risis claim led them to act out of compliance with the clear mandate of the permit conditions. The Risis claim that they sent staff a letter in January 1998 that included a 0 revised drawing of the revetment. This drawing indicates that the structure would start 80 feet from the rear of the house rather than the twenty feet set forth in the approved drawing. Exs. 11, 12, 8b. Staff testified that nothing was received by the Department from the respondents indicating that work was to begin or that the Risis proposed to change the location of the 0 revetment. TR 196, 384. I believe that staff did not receive this information; however, there is no way to tell whether or not the respondents did send it. (.4) In any case, by virtue of its content, it is clear that the Risis understood that the structure they intended to build was not the formation that was • approved in the 1996 permit. Ex. 9. Having not heard from Department staff regarding this critical change in their project, it was incumbent upon the respondents to contact DEC. I conclude that while the Risi application certainly could have been more sophisticated, the applicants' lack of expertise was not the cause of the permit violations. Nor was the staff's decision not to require certain elements set forth in Part 621. The respondents claim that there was no discretion on staff's part not to require each and every item in § 621.4(k). I agree with staff's conclusion that Environmental Conservation Law § 70-0105(2) requires that a complete application is one that provides the information necessary for staff to make its findings and determination. The applicants provided this information with the staff's guidance and therefore, respondents' UPA argument fails as a defense. 0 http://www.dec,state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order • • + Page 18 o•1 Jurisdiction Eagle's Head Location In further support of the respondents' justification that they were merely filling in land that had previously been part of their property, their consultant constructed an elaborate historical theory. Mr. Bontje testified that he used the 1974 tidal wetlands map along with a survey of the property and a 1998 photograph to calculate the location of the eagle's head. TR 713-723. Based • upon these calculations, Mr. Bontje concluded that there was more land in the East River that would have been part of the Risi property than is shown on the 1995 survey. TR 725. Specifically, Mr. Bontje testified that on the western side of the Risi property the land would extend 100 feet further to the north than the approximate high water line on the survey and on the eastern side of the Risi property the area of fill would extend approximately 85 feet north of this mark. TR 722. It is this conclusion that the respondents' consultant deems a sufficient foundation for the Risi's unpermitted filling. According to the Risis and their consultant, the respondents were merely trying to recover the land that natural or man-induced forces had taken away. In response to further questioning on this theory on the last day of the hearing, Mr. Bontje provided some additional measurements that he deduced from a survey of the Risi property and an aerial photograph. Exs. 46, 47. He used these to create a third document - Exhibit 48 - the aerial photograph that contains Mr. Bontje's delineation of the Risi property lines. These lines indicate that the site formerly contained a substantial portion of the eagle's head. Ex. 48. Mr. Bontje compared the distances from the edge of the pavement where the property begins at Riverside Drive to the northern edge 0 of the eagle's head and from the pavement edge to the northern edge of the Risi revetment. Again, this was meant to demonstrate that the respondents had only filled in an area that previously held fill. Initially, Mr. Bontje testified to a distance of 260 feet to the northern end of the eagle's head and 290 feet to the edge of the Risi revetment. TR 817-820. From these measurements, I would conclude that even if one were to accept the rationale - the respondents filled an additional 40 feet beyond the nonexistent spit. Under additional questioning by respondents' attorney, the witness eventually came up with measurements that better coincided with the respondents' actions. TR 822. Mr. Bontje admitted that these distances were not precise: "[k]ind of hard to tell because of the driveway curves there." TR 822. Regardless of the accuracy of these measurements, I reject this evidence for the following reasons. 1111111 It is true that the tidal wetlands boundary in 1974 shows the boundary of the wetland going around the eagle's head that no longer exists. Ex. 14. However, in 1996 when the applicants applied for their permit, this spit had already disappeared. TR 112. Mr. Zahn identified the apparent mean high water line for the respondents as it existed at that time in accordance with 6 http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 19 of 31 • NYCRR § 621.4(k)(1)(iii). TR 104. It is this line, rather than some historical demarcation, that was the tidal wetland boundary. Because the Risis did not buy the property with this eagle's head or spit, they could not have had an expectation of its use when they negotiated for the purchase of their home. In addition, as staff pointed out in their closing brief, the structure and fill that the Risis placed in the waters off their land in no way replicates the shape and depth of the eagle's head. TR 302. Historical Photograph - Shoreline Quality The respondents' next defense is also based upon a historical theory developed with the consultant Bontje. The theory is that the shoreline at the Risi property is primarily composed of artificial fill and that the Department's jurisdiction ended at a location closer to the water's edge than what staff had • identified during the permit process. Mr. Bontje relies on Ex. 38 - a photograph produced by a neighbor of the Risi's - Michael Niebauer. Mr. Niebauer grew up in Beechhurst and now owns a public relations company called "Spin Doctor." TR 658. Mr. Neibauer testified that the photograph was taken in the 1970's. TR 663. Mr. Niebauer identified a building in the photograph as the Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) home as well as the St. Andrew's school. TR 659. The witness also identified the CYO house on the tidal wetlands map - east of the Risi/Winkle/Mattina properties and south and west of the beach club which is a prominent structure that juts out into the East River. The witness started out testifying that the photograph was taken • in 1970. In response to counsel's statement that the witness said ". . .late 1970s," Mr. Niebauer responded "during the 1970s". TR 662. While the witness never stated that the photograph was taken in the late 1970's, counsel referred repeatedly to the time period as the late 1970's. • When Mr. Niebauer was asked why he thought the photograph was taken during the 1970's, he responded because the condominium was built in 11198011, 118111. TR 662. But the photograph does not include the area where these buildings were constructed which was to the west of the Risi property. TR 662, 152. As these statements indicate, Mr. Niebauer's testimony with respect to this photograph was far from certain. As to identification of the time period, he testified that if it was earlier there would be boats from the yacht club in the water. TR 664. This is unlikely as the photo is taken in the winter and there is very little water visible. Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he believed the photograph was taken in the general vicinity of what he believes to be the Risi property. TR 666. When the respondents' counsel tried to clarify this testimony further on re-direct, it only became more vague. TR 666-669. This photograph was the foundation for Mr. Bontje's further theories regarding the shoreline's quality and DEC's tidal wetland jurisdiction. Based upon Mr. Niebauer's descriptions, Mr. Bontje determined that the picture was taken half-way onto the Risi property looking east to the cove on the east side of the eagle's neck projection and towards the Winkle property. TR 738. Comparing the photograph to the tidal wetlands map, I found it very difficult to agree with this conclusion even assuming that the building in the • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi andAlan Risi - Order • ' • , • Page 20 o•1 • background is the CYO home that Mr. Niebauer identified. Exs. 14, 38. In my comparison of these two documents, it would appear that the photograph could have been taken in a number of locations along this shoreline including areas significantly east of the Risi property and possibly even to the west of the site. Mr. Bontje used this photograph which shows a snow-covered shoreline to conclude that the shoreline is filled extensively with pieces of concrete and rubble. TR 739. Again, even assuming that the photograph was taken on or • near the Risi land, given the snow cover, it is impossible to get a full view of what comprises this shoreline. More importantly, this record includes more recent photographs of the shoreline at or near the Risi property showing a pebble and sand beach that had been in existence prior to the Risis' placement of fill. Exs. 5c, 24h, 24i, 24n. Using a tidal chart (Ex. 45) and performing some calculations to account for changes in sea level over the years, consultant Bontje concluded that there was an elevation of 7.6 feet for spring high water at the time of the photo. Ex. 38. In looking at the vegetation that appears in this photograph, Mr. • Bontje found that DEC's jurisdiction would be at elevation 10 between the vegetation and the spring high water mark. TR 750. Mr. Bontje concludes that the photograph demonstrates that this filled shoreline from the Risi property at the top of that fill was likely out of DEC's jurisdiction at the time of this photograph. I find these conclusions to be based on weak evidence and to be speculative at best. There is absolutely no reason to use "forensic" theories when there is current documentation of the conditions of the Risi property prior to the filling. Accordingly, I reject these defenses of the respondents. • Adjacent Area Boundaries - Cliff, Bluff, Hill Section 661.4(b)(1) provides that: Adjacent area shall mean any land immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland . . • • Section 661.4(b)(1)(i) states: 300 feet landward of . . . a tidal wetland, provided, however, that within the boundaries of the City of New York this distance shall be 150 feet . . .; or (iii) to the elevation contour of 10 feet above mean sea level, except when such contour crosses the seaward face of a bluff or cliff, or crosses a hill on • which the slope equals or exceeds the natural angle of repose of the soil, then to the topographic crest of such bluff, cliff, or hill. • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order g � � � � � � � � Pa a 21 of•1 Staff maintains that the Department's adjacent area jurisdiction goes to the landward edge of the top of the slope that is exhibited in Ex. 5c. See, staff brief, pp. 8-10. Mr. Zahn testified at the hearing that the adjacent area jurisdiction extends to the top of the existing slope citing the United State Geological Survey map of this area to establish the ten foot contour line that the tidal wetland regulations reference. TR 115-120; Ex. 16. Respondents argue that the slope in question is of manmade origins and therefore does not meet the criteria of 6 NYCRR § 661.4(b)(1)(iii) because bluff, cliff, and hill are all natural formations. See, respondents' brief, p. 10. Accordingly, the respondents claim that DEC's jurisdiction is limited to the ten foot contour line above mean sea level. The Risis argue that this line is 34 feet from the rear of their home on the western edge and 40 feet on the eastern edge. Accepting this jurisdictional boundary would render certain • work performed by the respondents out of DEC's tidal wetland jurisdiction. However, this defense would not account for the placement of the revetment directly into the waters of the State - beginning 80 feet from the back of the Risi residence. TR 137. Both parties have come up with a variety of definitions for bluff, cliff, and hill to bolster their contrary views of the nature of these structures. Respondents' brief, p. 22; staffs brief, p. 9. The regulations provide no definition and dictionary definitions do not shed light on the issue of natural vs. manmade. Cliff is defined as "a steep rock-face esp. at the edge of the N sea." Bluff is defined as "having a vertical or steep broad front." Among a number of definitions that the dictionary provides for hill is "a naturally raised area of land, not as high as a mountain." See, e.g., Oxford Enyclopedic English Dictionary (1991). These definitions all emphasize the common characteristic of steepness; as does the definition of bluff cited by A the respondents that is contained in the coastal erosion regulations - 6 NYCRR § 505.2(d): Bluff means any bank or cliff with a precipitous or steeply sloped face adjoining a beach or a body of water. . . .The landward limit is 25 feet landward of the 0 bluffs receding edge, or in those cases where there is no discernible line of active erosion to identify the the receding edge, 25 feet landward of the point of inflection on the top of the bluff. r The respondents point to this definition to support their position that the slope at the Risi residence is not a bluff, hill or cliff as it is manmade in nature. This definition does not specify the composition of the bluff and in terms of regulatory protection requires a setback even greater than what is set forth in the tidal wetlands regulations. Compare, 6 NYCRR § 661.4(b)(iii). • Given the lack of information in the definitions with respect to the nature of these formations, the purpose of the jurisdictional demarcation must be examined. The purpose of the adjacent area is to provide a buffer of protection to a wetland. See, e.g., In re Application of Croton Watershed http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order • • • • • Page 22 of 1 Clean Water Coalition, Inc., 2 Misc 3d 1010 (Sup. Ct. Westchester Co. 2004). M As explained by staff in its closing brief (pages 10-12), where the shoreline has a gentle slope, the 10 foot contour line is sufficient protection between the wetland and the non-regulated upland. But, where there is a steep slope which is less stable and thus more subject to erosion, it is important that the entire slope is protected in order to secure the wetland resource. Therefore, I find that the purpose of 6 NYCRR § 661.4(b)(iii) is to ensure that the resource is adequately shielded by including the entirety of a steep slope in the adjacent area boundary; whether it is manmade or not. • Elevations Respondents raised a last argument related to the boundaries of the Department's jurisdiction based upon an examination of former elevation levels of the Risi property. Using a 1995 survey of this property upon which elevations were drawn in 1999, Mr. Bontje attempted to establish DEC's adjacent area jurisdiction. Exs. 46, 49; TR 837. The witness testified that though these elevations were taken after the fill was placed seaward of the approximate high water line shown in the 1995 survey, he extrapolated from photos taken in 1995 and 1999 to "reconstruct" DEC's jurisdictional line. TR 837. Mr. Bontje stated that photos of the retaining wall between the Risi and Winkle properties show a "weathering line" indicating that there was some sort of fill material that was deeper on the property than the photo suggests. TR 841; Ex. 50. He concluded from this photograph that the slope of the • finished floor of the house to the top of the slope would be a "relatively flat area." TR 842; Exs. 49, 50. He found that there has been an 1.8 foot drop between the finished floor elevation and the top of the slope. Exs. 46, 49, 50; TR 845-846. As a last step, Mr. Bontje calculated between the high water line and the elevation of the property he calculated (at 14 feet) to find the approximate location of the ten foot adjacent area jurisdictional line. TR 847- 848, 858. I come to the same conclusions about this argument that I did for the preceding ones. First, Mr. Bontje's speculations here about the drop in fill are based upon a line on a wall on the Risi property. On cross-examination, Mr. Bontje admitted that this line could have been caused by other phenomena than fill. TR 910. More importantly, as stated previously in this report, staff performed an inspection of this property at the time of the permit application and made determinations with respect to the extent of DEC's jurisdiction. I find that the observations of staff in 1996 are more reliable than evidence obtained by piecing together various documents combined with speculation about historical incidents for which there is no strong foundation. In addition, as Mr. Bontje admitted, there is no question that the Department's jurisdiction exists at the toe of the slope of the old revetment and northward. • TR 798-791. Staff's jurisdiction was not challenged by the applicant during the application process or at its conclusion. In effect, in this enforcement proceeding, the respondents are attempting to bring a collateral attack on the 1996 • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.htm] 11/17/2004 _ • _ • • • • • Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 23 of 3 determination of the Department to issue the tidal wetlands permit to them. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR § 621.7(f), the Risis had 30 days to request a hearing to challenge the permit conditions. Once the Commissioner rendered a determination on that challenge, if still unsatisfied, the respondents would ' have had 30 days from that decision to bring an Article 78 proceeding in State Supreme Court. ECL § 25-0404. Respondents' Other Defenses In their answer, the respondents raised several defenses which they did not pursue at the hearing or in their post-hearing arguments. Respondents claimed that the Department was barred from pursuing these violations because it did not object to the work performed by the respondents until it was completed. Ex. 2, Answer, ¶ 32. Laches is not a valid defense against the State. The State Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA) sets a reasonable time standard for all parties in an administrative hearing to be given the opportunity for a hearing. SAPA § 301. Whether or not this standard is met is governed by (1) the nature of the interests allegedly compromised by the delay; 2) the actual prejudice to the party; 3) the causal connection between the conduct of the parties and the delay; and 4) the underlying public policy advanced by government regulation. Cortlandt Nursing Home v. Axelrod, 66 NY2d 169, 178 (1985). The respondents did not provide any evidence of prejudice based on the Department staff's alleged delay in these proceedings. Moreover, soon after the Region 2 office was informed of the respondents' work, Ms. Bauer-Maresca went to the Risi property to investigate. Exs. 21 and 23. I am persuaded by staff that the Department did not receive the respondents' letter of January 28, 1998 to staff until mid- March of 1998. Ex. 11. In any case, Mr. Risi admitted that the respondents began receiving fill and rock at the site and preparing the area prior to notifying staff of the work. TR 1001. • Respondents also claim in their answer that their actions were in response to an emergency situation. Ex. 2, Answer ¶ 34. The Department staff acknowledged that the respondents' application to address the erosion issues at their property was legitimate. TR 102. In its review of this project, staff's goal was to balance the interests of the Risis to protect their property against the State's interest in environmental protection. TR 102, 191. However, even after the permit was issued, the respondent did not act for about a year. TR 953-954. Therefore, there is no support for the respondents' claim that they acted out of an emergency. Even in the event of an emergency, 6 NYCRR § • 621.12 requires notification to the Department and the issuance of an emergency authorization. Respondents allege in their answer that the Department acted out of political pressure. Ex. 2, Answer ¶ 23. The Department did receive a copy of a letter dated February 18, 1998 from Total Community Management Corp. to Community Board 7 regarding the work the Risi performed along the shoreline. Ex. 23, However, I fail to understand what is improper about this information being relayed to the staff and the staff responding by investigating the complaint and issuing a notice of violation based upon a • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 24 of 31 biologist's observations. Ex. 21. The respondents also complain in their answer of selective enforcement by Department staff. Ex. 2, Answer ¶ 27. The respondents provided no evidence at the hearing to support this claim. TR 1043-1045. The Department has prosecutorial discretion to pursue violations as it deems appropriate so long as it does not act with an "evil eye" against a class that has been selected for some reason other than effective regulation. Matter of 303 West 42"d Street v. Klein, 46 NY2d 686, 694-5 (1979). While Mr. Risi claimed that there were many fill violations along this shoreline that the Department had not addressed, as respondents know, staff has a pending proceeding against the Winkles, adjacent landowners to the Risis, for similar alleged violations of the ECL. Moreover, even when such discrimination occurs, this claim raises a constitutional issue that belongs in the appropriate judicial forum. Id. Remedy and Penalty In its amended complaint, staff requested that the Commissioner impose a penalty of a minimum of $120,000 based upon provisions contained in ECL §§ 71-1107, 71-2503 and 71-4003. With respect to remediation, staff requested, in part, that the Commissioner order the respondents to remove the illegally constructed revetment, fill, deck, walls and utilities from the site and the adjacent property and to restore those portions of the tidal wetland and adjacent area adversely affected by the Risi's unpermitted activities. Ex. In its closing brief, staff has requested a penalty of $330,000 that is based upon the following calculations of the maximum allowable penalties: ! -Excavation in navigable waters - ECL § 15-0505 and 6 NYCRR § 608.5 $5,000 -Placement of fill in navigable waters and wetlands based upon an excess of 50 truck loads - ECL Articles 15 and 25 ($5000 for each violation of Article 15 x 50 truck loads and $10,000 for each violation of Article 25 x 50 truck loads) 750,000 Erosion of sediment - violation of permit conditions - ECL § 71-2503(c) 10,000 -Violation of special condition 21 - submission of notice of intent 10,000 -Construction of deck, wall and utility line without permit 80,000 Staff concluded in its closing brief (page 20) that a penalty of $250,000 for non-compliance with the permit, placement of fill and the construction of the revetment would be appropriate with an additional $80,000 penalty assessed for the deck, wall and utility construction.-(5) Because the respondents had r already been served with the notice of violation prior to the latter work, staff argues that a maximum penalty is appropriate. The 1990 Civil Penalty Policy and Tidal Wetlands Enforcement Guidance Memorandum use similar factors in guiding the development of penalties in s http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi anAlan Risi - Order • • • • Page 25 of 31 cases involving violations of Articles 15 and 25. Economic benefit, environmental harm, violator conduct and deterrence are relevant in this determination. Economic Benefit Respondents' construction was for the purposes of erosion control and enhancing property qualities. Respondents did not submit any evidence on the amount of funds they spent on this work. Given the amount of fill placed at the site, they expanded the usable space of their property. There is no evidence in the record on the value of these enhancements but there has been an economic benefit based upon these improvements. Damage to Natural Resources Staff produced evidence of the benefits of the environmental resource through the submission of photographs showing the nature of the beach that existed prior to the Risis' work. Exs. 24a-n. Staff testified that this resource would be suitable habitat for horseshoe crabs that in turn would provide valuable food for shore birds. TR 241-243. Ms. Bauer-Maresca observed shore birds in the vicinity of the Risi property. TR 155, 170-171. North and South Brother islands are roosting areas for such species and staff provided that the Risi shoreline would be within range for these animals to forage for food.(7) TR 204. Mr. Zahn testified as well that in addition to the littoral zone habitat that is inundated, at the time of the application, this area contained shoal or mud flat areas in addition to some adjacent area. TR 197-198. Trawl studies as well as the Con Edison impingement/entrainment study at the Astoria/Ravenswood power generating facility produced by staff demonstrated that a variety of species of fish inhabit the waters in the vicinity of the Risi property. TR 200-203; Exs 25, 26, 58. The respondents counter staff's assertions by stating that most of this shoreline is hardened by artificial fill thus minimizing its environmental benefit. TR 598, 601, 703, 761, 740, 826-828. Respondents submitted a December 2002 proposed remedial action plan (PRAP) for Fort Totten, a Coast Guard Station. Ex. 55. In this report, the Army Corps of Engineers found that mercury is present in the sediment of Little Bay adjacent to Building 615 at this Coast Guard Station which is approximately one mile southeast of the Risi site. TR 882. The Army Corps of Engineers observed • that while mercury was found above guidance values in the sediment at this location - it was not so found in the surface water or fish. PRAP, pp. 5, 7. Respondents relied upon this PRAP along with the speed of the current in this vicinity to demonstrate that the environmental quality at the Risi site is degraded. TR 883-885. The respondents did not produce any evidence with respect to the levels of contamination in the waters, sediments or fish at the Risi site. Mr. Risi also testified that the habitat in this area had been degraded by the pesticide spraying related to West Nile virus. He stated that after the • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 4V4ary Risi andkan Risi - Oiler r Page 26 of#1 e revetment was built but prior to the spraying there were a great many water birds such as ducks and swans near his home. TR 1047-1048. Without any objective scientific evidence or any records to document this alleged degradation of habitat attributable to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's spraying, I do not find this testimony persuasive. In their closing brief (p. 34), respondents cited a listing of the Upper East River adjacent to the Risi property as impaired by polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) contaminated sediments. See, 6 NYCRR § 622.11(a)(5). The Risis argue that such contamination combined with the Fort Totten PRAP serve as ! evidence that this area is potentially contaminated and therefore the placement of 4800 square feet of fill does not warrant the penalties that staff has requested. Respondents' Br. pp. 34-35. Mr. Zahn testified that through Clean Water Act initiatives, the enactment of • New York's Tidal Wetlands Act as well as other laws and regulations, there has been dramatic improvement in the water quality of the East River, providing a healthier habitat for a variety of species. TR 216. Ms. Bauer- Maresca testified that the majority of the New York City shoreline is based upon fill; however that there are ". . . vast sections of functioning tidal • wetlands that exist on this fill material." TR 154. This witness specifically identified northeastern Queens as a location that contains "very active and very vibrant tidal wetlands communities that exist on fill material." TR 154. She noted that given the lack of natural tidal wetland areas, the Department places value on wetlands that survive on fill. TR 154. Moreover, based upon # extensive experience with fill removal, this witness described how fill removal in an intertidal area results in the return of species. TR 175. Based upon the studies submitted by staff, the testimony of Mr. Zahn and Ms. Bauer-Maresca regarding the shoreline both at the Risi property and in its vicinity, as well as the conclusions of the PRAP with respect to surface water quality and fish S contamination, I disagree with the respondents' characterizations of the Risi shoreline as an entirely degraded environment. Mitigating Circumstances While the Risis determined that the placement of the structure that had been approved by DEC was not sufficient for protection, several coastal experts at DEC found the permit's provisions sufficient for protection. Exs. 33, 36. While I considered Professor Bokuniewicz's testimony about the superior placement of the current revetment, his perspective appears to be solely one of shore • protection without concern for tidal wetland resources.($) It is the Department's job to balance both of these interests which staff did in this case. The respondents also maintain that because the permit did not specify the • amount of fill required for the placement of the revetment, their liberal use of fill was in compliance with the permit. Mr. Zahn agreed that some fill was necessary to supply a stable foundation for the revetment. However, the large amount of fill that the Risis employed exceeded this limited purpose. 0 http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 • • a • • • • • • Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 27 of 31 In mitigation of their actions, the respondents claim that the location of the revetment was necessary to protect their shoreline and property. The respondents point to an incident of a boat crashing against their revetment as proof of the need to protect their property with the revetment as located. TR 1036. Staff countered that this incident demonstrated that the revetment represented a navigational hazard. TR 1052-1053. Respondents' Cooperation With respect to the respondents' conduct in this matter, staff emphasizes the Risis' construction that occurred after the notice of violation was served upon them. Ex. 20. The Risis' defense with respect to this allegation - stated for the first time in their closing brief - is that they were confident that the NOV was in error and that staff misunderstood their permit. Respondents' Br., pp. 0 9-10. Staff also references the Risis' resistance to a site visit after these enforcement proceedings were commenced requiring the intervention of the administrative law judge. See, ALJ Ruling, October 29, 2002. 0 I agree with staff that based upon the Risis' decision to ignore the staff's directives -- in the permit conditions, in response to the NOV, and when staff sought access to the property for inspection purposes - they have not demonstrated cooperation. Deterrence With respect to deterrence, respondents argue that the penalty requested by staff is out of proportion to the facts of this matter and not in accord with Department precedent. In addition, the Risis point out that Mr. Zahn testified that it would take approximately $120,000 to re-locate the revetment and the expense of any work should be considered in any penalty calculation. TR 292; Respondents' Reply Br. p. 10. Respondents also argue that they should be entitled to seek an after-the-fact permit based upon staff's establishment of the jurisdictional boundary. In support of this theory, respondents cite the DEC Commissioner's decisions: In the Matter of Tomaino, 2000 WL 214769 (1/25/00); In the Matter of Tubridy, 1998 WL 939494 (12/31/98); In the Matter of Frie, 1994 WL 734523 (12/12/94); In the Matter of Mills, 1992 WL 406388 (11/5/92) and In the Matter of Hansen, 2000 WL 214678 (1/3/00). The major distinction to be drawn between these cases and the case before me is that in all these other situations the respondents did not have a permit for the particular construction at issue. In the Risi matter, there already has been a permit application, review, and permit issued for the revetment construction. Therefore, the respondents already had an opportunity to present the circumstances entitling them to their erosion control. Staff was able to review the environmental circumstances and balance the need to protect the tidal wetlands against the homeowners' interest in shoreline protection. Despite this review, the respondents chose to ignore the permit's requirements and i http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 • • • • • • • • • Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 28 of 3 • now seek a second opportunity to make their case. Such an appeal does not appear to be in line with past precedent. I agree with staff that respondents have shown a poor history of compliance with the Environmental Conservation Law. I am wholly unpersuaded that the Risis' actions, particularly after the notice of violation was served, were driven by their presumption that DEC had erred. Rather, based upon the entire record including statements of the respondent Al Risi at the conclusion of the hearing regarding what others had done along this shoreline, I am 41 convinced that the Risis decided to ignore the Department's instructions in order to maximize what they deemed most beneficial for themselves. TR 1044. With respect to the quality of the resource, there is no question that this is an urban and well-developed shoreline that is not of a natural pristine quality. However, improvements in water treatment have caused corresponding improvements in the water column providing better habitat for fish and the species that feed upon them. TR 216; Exs. 25, 26, 58. Also, based upon the scarcity of tidal wetland habitat in this urban setting, the protection of these areas is paramount. TR 154. See, In the Matter of American Marine Rail, Issues Ruling, 2000 WL 12995*10, *15 (August 25, 2000) (although parkland in this vicinity was already surrounded by industrial uses, its scarcity in the community made it much valued). • In support of their position that the Department has established a precedent for allowing the filling of these kind of shorelines, the respondents cited to the Decision Conference Report in Matter of Thwaites S.S. Keansburg, Inc. (Buhrmaster/Drew 3/9/90). In Thwaites, the applicant applied to the Department for a permit to expand its existing marina in City Island, the Bronx. As part of this project, the applicant proposed the construction of a bulkhead and backfilling behind it. The applicant had begun work on this project without a permit. As part of settling the enforcement matter, the applicant agreed to complete the permit application process as well as restore the wetlands and adjacent area in the event the permit was denied. The purposes of the project were to expand the area for parking and winter boat storage. The areas north and south of the site were heavily developed with marinas, boat storage facilities, and other commercial establishments that drew many visitors. An actual analysis of the spoil taken from beneath the applicant's piers revealed no organic material and only one species of • pollution tolerant fish - the mummichog - was found in the nearby waters during a limited inspection. While acknowledging the destruction of 10,000 square feet of littoral zone, the administrative law judges determined that the benefit to the public outweighed the negative effect of the filling. Thwaites is distinguishable from the matter before me. The City Island project was proposed for an area of much more intense development. In addition, the project - while of benefit to the applicant -- was also designed to enhance public access to the water. Finally, as the Thwaites report is 15 years old -- a time when the waters surrounding this facility were much further degraded -- the comparison is not useful. Moreover, in Thwaites there • http://www.dee.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order Page 29 of 3 was evidence of the specific environmental condition of the site based upon the spoil analysis and the fish survey. In this matter, staff provided two studies showing that there is abundance of fish populations in the vicinity of the Risi property. In addition, the respondents did not persuasively demonstrate that the Risi site is contaminated. I cannot find that any determinations with respect to the nature of the affected resource in Thwaites are at all relevant to the circumstances in the waters and wetlands surrounding the Risi property. * In Matter of Ciampa Bell (Commissioner's Decision 8/21/81), also cited by the respondents, which concerned the permitting of a development on the East River to the west of the Risi property, the Commissioner determined that the filling of tidal wetlands would not be significant based upon the DEC staff's finding that this wetland was part of an "impoverished or stressed littoral zone." One of the other factors the Commissioner considered was the applicant's proposed improvement to the surface water run-off conditions on the site that would minimize the pollutants that were flowing into the East River from this area. This decision was made 23 years ago. The conditions of our waterways have changed for the better. TR 216. In addition, there is a • greater understanding of the importance of these tidal wetland resources even in greatly developed areas. In his decision of February 1, 1980 concerning the Ciampa Bell development, Commissioner Flacke noted that there were concerns related to the potential for future adverse cumulative impacts and directed staff to address those concerns in reviewing future 0 projects. It is that kind of review that Region 2 staff performed in the Risi permit application. CONCLUSIONS 40 Section 17-1107 of the ECL provides for a penalty of up to ten thousand dollars for each violation of ECL § 15-0505. ECL § 71-2503 sets forth a penalty of ten thousand dollars for every violation of Article 25 and provides that each day of violation is a separate violation. Accordingly, as demonstrated by staff, the potential maximum penalty in this matter is very * large. While I do find that the tidal wetlands and adjacent area have been adversely affected, the penalty recommended by staff is not in accord with that imposed in other tidal wetlands enforcement proceedings. While I am confident that the respondents were fully aware of their responsibilities pursuant to the permit they were issued by Department staff, they are i private homeowners. There was no testimony provided on the resources of the Risis other than the information concerning Mr. Risi's ownership of a business. However, given the large expense of the remediation required in this matter (approximately $120,000), I am reluctant to also recommend the large penalty staff has recommended. I am not using the number of truck 0 loads of fill (a minimum of 40 according to Mr. Risi) to calculate the penalty. Accordingly, I recommend: a) a payable penalty of $10,000 for illegal filling in the navigable waters of the State; b)a payable penalty of $30,000 for violations of the permit conditions including: the illegal placement of the 1 http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 Mary Risi andAlan Risi - Order ` Page 30 o•1 + revetment, for commencement of work without notification to the Department staff, and failure to place erosion controls as part of this construction and; c) a $10,000 payable penalty for the additional work performed in the adjacent area without a permit - such work involving the deck, wall, and utilities. In addition, I recommend a penalty of $120,000, payment of which would be suspended contingent upon the respondents' removal of the revetment and other unpermitted structures and restoration of the tidal wetland and adjacent area. I agree with respondents that this work should be coordinated with any remediation that may be required on the adjacent Winkle property in order to minimize environmental damage and expense in the event that the Commissioner orders similar relief on that site. . In addition, based upon the change in the tidal wetlands boundary at this site, I recommend that staff commence a re-mapping procedure as soon as possible. In concert with the remediation measures necessary at the Risi property, staff should delineate the tidal wetlands and adjacent area boundaries to ensure that further work is in conformity with the goal of protecting these resources. 1 I granted permission for Mr. Paul to participate in the hearing in response to Mr. Periconi's request based on Mr. Paul's pre-admission status. TR (transcript) 224. i 2 The parties did not concur on the exact location of the Risi property on the 1974 wetlands map. See, e.g., Exhibit 48. By referring to Exhibit 15, I am attempting to orient the reader as to locations generally and I have not adopted the staff's identification of the exact location of the Risi property on this document. 3 Despite the inordinate amount of hearing time spent on discussions of whether it is Department policy to annex all approved drawings to permits, I did not find that Department staff always act in a particular manner. The practice appears to vary depending on the project and the region. TR 166, 324, 686; Exs. 52, 53, 54, 56, 57. This issue is irrelevant as there is no question that the Risis knew what drawing was referenced by the permit conditions. 0 4 The first time staff viewed this document was in a meeting with the respondents in March 1998. 5 While this case concerns regulation of a freshwater wetland, there are 6 many similarities in the regulatory protection schemes contained in Articles 24 and 25 of the ECL and the related regulations. 6 In its complaint, staff alleged that the respondents constructed two walls subsequent to receipt of the NOV and without a permit. Ex. 1, $ 16(b). Mr. • http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.htmi 11/17/2004 •Mary Risi and Alan Risi - Order • • • • Page 31 o•1 Risi testified at the hearing that he only installed the wall to the west of his property and it was Mr. Winkle who installed the one to the east. TR 1030; Ex. 30c. • 7 The Department of State has designated these areas as significant coastal fish and wildlife habitat. Matter of American Marine Rail, 2000 WL 1299571*9 (August 25, 2000). 8 Staff's deference to this witness's expertise has also been noted. TR 597. However, the professor's entry into this matter based upon a phone call from someone at NYC DEP who is a friend of the Risi's is unclear. TR 594-595, 621. Moreover, his lack of documentation and lack of memory on many details weakened his presentation. TR 621-622, 624, 630, 632. Back to too_.of cage • • • • • • • iittp://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/decis/risio.html 11/17/2004 • • • • • • • • ,Search- 3 Results- accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 1 of 16 Source: New York>Cases>NY Cases,Administrative decisions&Attorney General Opinions,Combined Di Terms: accretion and sand and wetlands and groins (Edit Search) ,FSelect for FOCUS rm or Delivery El • 1991 N.Y. ENV LEXIS 48, In the Matter of Alleged Violations of Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") Articles 15 and 25 by JOSEPH NIECKOSKI, RESPONDENT DEC File No. 1-3742 • New York Department of Environmental Conservation 1991 N.Y. ENV LEXIS 48 April 3, 1991, Decided • CORE TERMS: wetland, tidal, bulkhead, adjacent, retaining wall, fence, groin, beach, fill, seaward, facsimile, timber, sand, water, site, regulated, berm, feet, excavation, lawn, horizontal, high water, spring, grass, tide, eel, elevation, landward, coastal, shoals FINAL-DEC-BY: [*1] • JORLING FINAL-DECISION: THOMAS C. JORLING, COMMISSIONER r ORDER WHEREAS: 1. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing and Complaint dated August 28, 1989, an enforcement hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge ("ALI") Robert P. O'Connor on October 11, 1989 and on November 13, 1989 • in the Department of Environmental Conservation ("Department") Region 1 Office, Building 40, SUNY Campus, Stony Brook, New York. 2. The Department appeared at the hearing by Mary E. Carpentiere, Esq., Assistant Region 1 Attorney. The Respondent appeared by the law firm of Block, Amelkin and Hamburger (Richard Hamburger, Esq., of Counsel). • 3. Upon review of the record of this proceeding and ALI O'Connor's Hearing Report (copy attached), I concur with and hereby adopt the Report's Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations as my own, subject to my additional comments below. 4. The facts of this case establish that Respondent placed and/or caused the placement of fill in a tidal • wetlands adjacent area, that he erected a fence in a tidal wetlands adjacent area, both actions without the required permits in violation of ECL Article 25; and that he constructed a retaining wall/bulkhead facsimile and two groins within [*2] a regulated tidal wetland, which actions were done without the required permits in violation of ECL Articles 15 and 25. Respondent admitted undertaking all such actions on his property located at 10 Point Road, Bellport, New York and acknowledged that he had no permits for such actions. • S. These actions of the Respondent have destroyed and/or diminished numerous of the values and benefits of the coastal shoals, bars and flats tidal wetland at the site, have increased the potential for more damage to the wetland and have significantly worsened a storm-related flooding situation on a neighbor's lower-lying property. 6. The gravity of Respondent's actions is heightened upon consideration that Respondent had prior knowledge • littps:/hvNN-w.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5ee15al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_f ntstr=... 1 I/17/2004 4earch- 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 2 of 16 of the statutory and regulatory provisions relating to tidal wetlands and protection of waters through his previous involvement in both permit and enforcement proceedings for the same site within a year of the dates upon which he committed the actions specified in the instant proceeding. 7. I note as well that the defense raised by Respondent in response to many of the charges, i.e. that his • actions would not have any adverse environmental impact, is as [*3] a matter of law inadequate. Respondent incurred liability by undertaking regulated activity in an inventoried tidal wetland or adjacent area without first obtaining the required permits. Whether the activities were permittable or would have the potential to cause an adverse environmental impact could only be considered in fashioning appropriate relief but are irrelevant to the issue of whether a violation was committed in the first instance. • NOW, THEREFORE, having considered this matter and being duly advised it is ORDERED that: I. Respondent JOSEPH NIECKOSKI is found to have committed four (4) violations of ECL § 15-0505(1) and seven (7) violations of ECL § 25-0401(1) on his property located at 10 Point Road, Bellport, New York, as specified in Paragraph 4 above. • II. Respondent is to pay to the Department a civil penalty totalling Forty-Four Thousand Dollars ($ 44,000) for such violations within 60 days of service of this Order upon Respondent. III. Respondent is to restore the affected tidal wetland and its adjacent area to their conditions prior to such violations, insofar as that is possible, within a reasonable time, under the supervision of the Department's Region 1 Staff. [*4] Specifically, unless prior approval of an alternate form of remediation is obtained from • the Region 1 Staff (which alternative shall be deemed to have been ordered herein), Respondent shall: A. Remove the fill placed in the adjacent area between his house and the prior existing retaining wall so as to reestablish the pre-violation elevations as shown on an August 11, 1987 survey of Respondent's property and revegetate the area with low maintenance rye and/or fescue; • B. Remove all of the horizontal boards used to construct the bulkhead facsimile and all of the horizontal timbers used to construct the groins, thereby allowing the remaining vertical members of these structures to gradually deteriorate in order that the beach and tidal wetland on Respondent's property may naturally assume the same profile and character as the neighboring areas to the east and west of Respondent's property, thus restoring the values and benefits provided by the coastal shoals, bars and flats of the tidal wetland at the site; • C. Notify the Department's Region 1 Staff in writing at least 48 hours prior to conducting any restoration work on his property under this Order. IV. Respondent is hereby put [*5] on notice that any future alteration of the tidal wetland or adjacent area on his property by means of conducting regulated activities without the benefit of the necessary application • and requisite permit will be considered a very serious violation of the Environmental Conservation Law and will be vigorously prosecuted to the maximum extent allowed under law. V. All communications between Respondent and the Department concerning this Order shall be made to the Department's Region 1 Director, Building 40, SUNY Campus, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356. VI. The provisions, terms and conditions of the Order shall bind the Respondent, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns and all persons, firms and corporations acting for or on behalf of the Respondent. INIT-DEC-BY: O'CONNOR • INITIAL-DECISION: HEARING REPORT by Robert P. O'Connor, Administrative Law Judge PROCEEDINGS The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("Department" or "DEC"), through its Region • ittps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5ee 15al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr=... 11/17/2004 •Search- 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 3 of 16 1 Office, Building 40, SUNY Campus, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356, served a Notice of Hearing and Complaint dated August 28, 1989 upon Joseph Nieckoski ("Respondent"), 10 Point Road, Bellport, New York 11713. [*6] Said notice directed Respondent to appear for an administrative enforcement hearing in the Department's Region 1 Office at the above address on October 11, 1989 at 10:00 A.M. to answer charges of alleged violations of Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") Articles 15 - Water Resources and 25 - Tidal Wetlands, as well as alleged violation of the terms of an Order on Consent previously executed between the Respondent and the Department, caused by the Respondent's actions on his property at the above address in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County (the "Site"). Subject to an adjournment duly taken, said hearing was conducted before Administrative Law Judge ("AU") Robert P. O'Connor in the Department's Region 1 Office at 10:00 A.M. on November 13, 1989. The Department Staff was represented by Mary E. Carpentlere, Esq., Assistant Regional Attorney in the Department's Region 1 Office in Stony Brook, New York. Appearing as witnesses for the Department Staff were Fred Mushacke and Joseph Enrico, both Marine Resources Specialists in the Department's Division of Marine Resources, Bureau of Marine Habitat Protection; and Joanna and Frank Fowler, owners of property at 12 Point Road, Bellport, [*7] New York which adjoins the Respondent's property. 1 The Respondent was represented by the law firm of Block, Amelkin and Hamburger, 202 East Main Street, Smithtown, New York 11787-2813 (Richard Hamburger, Esq., of Counsel). Respondent Joseph Nieckoski appeared as a witness on his own behalf. The stenographic transcript of the hearing was received in the Department's Office of Hearings on January 22, 1990. Subsequently, closing statements and reply briefs were respectively received from the Department Staff on February 20, 1990 and May 14, 1990 and from the Respondent on April 20, 1990 and June 4, 1990. The hearing record was closed on June 15, 1990. The Charges The Complaint served upon Respondent by the Department's Region 1 Staff alleges ECL Section ("§") 15-0501 (1) and § 25-0401(1) were violated when Respondent conducted excavation, filling and construction activities related to the installation of a retaining wall, groin and fence in and adjacent to regulated tidal wetlands on his property without the required permits. Furthermore, Staff alleges that Respondent's actions also violated the terms of a March 1988 Consent Order stemming from Respondent's prior violations of [*S] ECL §§ 15- 0505 and 25-0401 which required Respondent to cease and desist from any and all further violations of the ECL. Following a notation in the Respondent's closing brief that ECL § 15-0501 requires a permit from the Department before altering the course, channel or bed of a stream and that no stream disturbance was proved in this matter by Department Staff, the Staff, in its reply brief, moved to amend the charges against • the Respondent so as to allege violations of ECL § 15-0505 vice 0501. ECL § 15-0505 requires a Departmental permit before conducting dredging or filling activities in the navigable waters of the state or in adjacent marshes or wetlands. As provided by Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York ("6 NYCRR") § 622.6, "Any party may amend a pleading at any time prior to the submittal of the hearing officer's report to the commissioner by leave of the hearing officer or commissioner on good cause shown." In the instant case, Staff requested the amendment of the charges in the Complaint to correct a "typographical error". The Respondent, in his reply brief, maintained that the Staffs error was "compositional", [*9] not typographical, and that the amendment of the charges should not be allowed. Whether the error was compositional or typographical has little import in this matter. There is not, nor has there ever been in the instant proceeding, any claim by the Department Staff that Respondent conducted any activities which disturbed a stream bed. A 1986 application by the Respondent for Tidal Wetlands and Stream Protection Permits for the same Site was based upon a proposal to install a bulkhead and place fill in the navigable waters of the state or in adjacent marshes or wetlands, although a subsequent modification of the application to move the bulkhead and fill area farther landward on the Site removed the proposed project from the jurisdiction of ECL Article 15. The aforementioned Consent Order dated March 8, 1988 specifically cited Respondent's violation of ECL § 15-0505, in addition to ECL § 24-0401, although the narrative for the • littps:l/www.lexi s.comlresearch/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5 ee 15 al f955 ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr--... 11/17/2004 4earch- 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 4 of 16 Article 15 violation incorrectly recited the language of ECL § 15-0501. More importantly, Respondent's defense in the instant case clearly hinged solely upon supposed alleged violations of ECL § 15-0505. All testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, [*10] by both Staff and Respondent, is keyed specifically to filling activities occurring in the navigable waters of the state (Great • South Bay) or in adjacent marshes or wetlands. No mention was made of "stream bed disturbances" or the error in the Department Staff's Complaint until Respondent submitted his closing brief to the ALI on April 19, 1990, some 5 months after the conclusion of the formal hearing in this matter. It is readily apparent in reviewing the record of this proceeding that Respondent knew exactly what the Department Staffs charges entailed, despite the error in the Complaint. There is no evidence in the instant record that Respondent was prejudiced by the error in the Department Staff's Complaint. • As supplemented by my comments above, I also consider correction of errors and/or mistakes to be good cause for amendment of pleadings, and therefore, the Department Staff's request to amend the Complaint to reference Respondent's alleged violations of ECL § 15-0505, vice § 15-0501, is hereby granted. I would strongly encourage, however, that in the future all such materials should be carefully proofread and reviewed for accuracy and content prior to their being served [*ill upon respondents. • The Answer The Respondent provided an answer to the Department's charges in which he admitted directing that topsoil be placed in an area adjacent to a tidal wetland, but denied that such action violated the ECL. He admitted removing cross members of a functional bulkhead and groin and then replacing such timbers, but denied constructing either a bulkhead or groin, and affirmatively averred that the bulkhead and groin were functional at the time of such removal and that his subsequent actions were not intended to be proscribed by the ECL. He further admitted that the location of the bulkhead in which he replaced cross members was at approximately the same location as the bulkhead in his original application for a tidal wetlands permit, but affirmatively averred that the dimensions, purposes and characteristics of the existing bulkhead and the proposed bulkhead were entirely dissimilar. Respondent also admitted constructing a fence in an area adjacent to a regulated tidal wetland, but denied that such action constituted a violation of the ECL. Respondent denied that the March 1988 Order on Consent required him to cease and desist from any and all further violations [*12] of the ECL, and averred that the language of the Consent Order pertained only to those violations of the ECL "which are the subject of this Order on Consent." Respondent further denied the charges that excavation had occurred in the tidal wetland and adjacent area in connection with the bulkhead and groin work which took place on the Site. In general, Respondent denied that any of his actions constituted violations of the ECL and requested that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. The Relief Sought • The penalty provisions of ECL § 71-1107 provide for assessment of a civil penalty of not more than $ 5,000 for violation of ECL § 15-0505. The penalty provisions of ECL § 71-2503 in effect at the time of the alleged violations provide for a civil penalty of not more than $ 3,000 for each violation of ECL Article 25. Additionally, following a hearing, the Commissioner may direct a violator to cease his violation and to restore the affected tidal wetland/adjacent area to its condition prior to the violation, insofar as is possible, within a reasonable time and under the supervision of the Commissioner. In the instant case, the Department Staff requested in its Complaint that [*13] Respondent pay a penalty of $ 5,000 per day for each violation of ECL Article 15 and a penalty of $ 3,000 per day for each violation of ECL Article 25. Additionally, the Staff demanded Respondent cease and desist from any and all such violations of the ECL and that he perform the necessary restoration of the Site in accordance with the Department Staff's • instructions, as well as such other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances. The assessment of monetary penalties on a daily basis, if it was allowed for such violations, could result in a total civil penalty of approximately $ 5,664,000, figuring the number of days from the dates of the alleged violations to the initial date of the hearing, October 11, 1989. However, ECL § 71-1107 does not provide for the assessment of penalties on a continuing, "per day" basis, and while a revision to ECL § 71-2503, effective • https:llwww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5alf'955ae314c4dc64&docnum=1&_fntsti=... 11/17/2004 •Search - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 5 of 16 January 1, 1990, does provide authority for assessment of penalties on a continuing, "per day" basis, the prior statute which did not provide such authority for administrative sanctions is applicable in the instant matter. Nevertheless, whereas a daily penalty assessment for continuing [*14] violations is not allowed, it is noted • that the applicable statutes for enforcement of both ECL Articles 15 and 25 would allow assessment of penalties for multiple separate and distinct violations where activities related to any given project were proved to have occurred on several separate dates prior to the completion of the project. In a November 28, 1989 letter to Respondent's attorney, the Department Staff clarified its request for restoration of the Site and assessment of a civil penalty. The Staff seeks removal of all fill (an area 109' long • x 43' wide x 6" deep) placed by Respondent in May and June 1989 so as to equal elevations shown on an August 11, 1987 survey of the Site; removal of the boards placed to construct the groin and bulkhead; and removal of the two most seaward of four sections of fence placed in the adjacent area. As for the requested fine, the Department Staff revised its request downward to include nine separate and distinct violations of both ECL Articles 15 and 25 at $ 8,000 ($ 5,000 - Article 15 and $ 3,000 - Article 25) for • each combined violation related to the groin and bulkhead construction = $ 72,000; and seven separate violations of Article 25 at [*15] $ 3,000 related to the placement of fill and location of the fence in the adjacent area = $ 21,000; for a total requested maximum monetary penalty of $ 93,000, although it is herein noted that the Staff's November 28, 1989 letter incorrectly summed the above amounts to a total of $ 88,000. The Staff seeks the maximum allowed penalty in view of the Respondent's past behavior. FINDINGS OF FACT Background 1. On July 7, 1982, Respondent purchased property located at 10 Point Road, Bellport, New York, the Site, as identified above. Respondent testified that, at the time of purchase, he was unaware the property was in a • regulated tidal wetlands area. When Respondent acquired the Site, the property contained both a timber retaining wall for the lawn area some 45 to 60 feet seaward of the residence and a deteriorating bulkhead located approximately 27 feet seaward of the timber retaining wall. Said bulkhead was flanked by short groins, also in a state of disrepair, which extended approximately perpendicularly from the bulkhead into Great South Bay. A photograph taken of the shoreline area in February 1982 before Respondent purchased the property (Exhibit No. 35) clearly [*16] shows that horizontal timbers were missing in the groin • structures, and somewhat less clearly, due to the angle from which the photograph was taken, shows that portions of the bulkhead structure were missing both horizontal and vertical members. The horizontal boards remaining in the old bulkhead structure at that time did not appear in the photograph to rise to the tops of the vertical timbers. 2. In approximately late 1985/early 1986, Respondent removed horizontal members (boards and timbers) • from the deteriorated bulkhead and groin structures in preparation for rebuilding the structures. He also cut off many of the upright or vertical members (timbers or piles) in the bulkhead structure which were rotting and left in place those which appeared to be sound. Upon notification by a neighbor, frank Fowler, that such activities were regulated and that a permit was required, Respondent hired a consultant to prepare an application to construct 130 linear feet of bulkhead (retaining wall) with 45 foot and 30 foot returns along his shoreline fronting on Great South Bay. Such bulkhead was to be located approximately 10 feet seaward of the • existing timber retaining wall, with the beach [*17] area between the two structures to be filled and seeded, thus providing Respondent with approximately 1300 square feet of additional lawn area between his residence and the Bay. Integral to the proposal was a plan to totally remove the remaining portions of the existing deteriorated bulkhead located approximately 20 feet seaward of the proposed new retaining wall. 3. The Department Staff determined Respondent's application for the new retaining wall to be complete on • April 16, 1986. An adjudicatory public hearing on the proposed project was conducted on August 6, 1987 and September 22, 1987. The hearing was delayed between October 1987 and February 1988 due to the Town of Brookhaven exercising lead agency status under the State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA"), ECL Article 8. During the intervening time, the Department Staff also instituted an enforcement action against the Respondent for causing the placement of fill and construction of a return of the existing retaining wall in an area adjacent to tidal wetlands. The enforcement action was satisfied when Respondent entered into an ittps:IhvNvw.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_frntsti—... 11/17/2004 4wearch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 6 of 16 Order on Consent with the Department on March 8, 1988, agreeing to cease and desist [*18] from any and all further violations of the ECL which were the subjects of the Consent Order, to remove a pile of fill which was at the time located on the southwest corner of the property and to replant the area landward of the existing retaining wall with low maintenance rye or fescue. Respondent did, in fact, remove the pile of fill and reseed the area, as directed by the Consent Order. w 4. Upon resolution of the enforcement action, the permit hearing was continued and also concluded on March 8, 1988. Fallowing the submission of closing statements by the parties, on August 5, 1988 the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation issued a Decision denying the application on the basis that the proposed project would be located within an area adjacent to tidal wetlands and would result in a reduction of wetlands benefits. Further, Respondent's sole desire to increase his lawn area was insufficient to S demonstrate that undue adverse environmental impacts would be outweighed by any substantial social or economic benefits. Additionally, the Commissioner's Decision noted that the proposed project would tend to exacerbate the tendency for eel grass to accumulate on the Fowler's neighboring [*19] property to the west of the Site. The August 5, 1988 Commissioner's Decision and appended Hearing Report, as well as the previous March 8, 1988 Order on Consent, were received in evidence in the instant proceeding as Exhibit No. 10. • Circumstances Leading to Current Charges 5. Following the removal of the horizontal members of the bulkhead and groins, Respondent observed what he termed as erosion occurring in the beach area between the existing retaining wall and the dismantled bulkhead. A survey of Respondent's property, dated August 11, 1987, plotted mean high water ("MHW") at approximately elevation 1.9 feet, with the closest location of MHW to the retaining wall being on an area of the sandy beach approximately 17 feet seaward of the retaining wail. The survey showed that the spring or perigee tide * washed the Bay's waters to elevation 2.3 feet, thereby bringing the spring high tide line to within approximately 15 feet of the retaining wall. However, based upon Respondent's personal observations, with the horizontal boards and timbers removed from the structures, the action of the bay waters had apparently eroded the beach so that MHW was approximately eight feet from [*20] the retaining wall, with the spring high tide line being even closer to the retaining wall. * A "spring or perigee tide" is a tide of increased range which occurs approximately every two weeks, corresponding to the new and full phases of the moon, at the time when a point in the orbit of the moon is • nearest the earth. - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -6. Respondent testified that, based upon the awareness of the ECL and rules and regulations pertaining to tidal wetlands gained through the above-noted permit and enforcement proceedings, and because of his perception of continuing erosion, he "figured I better put back that which I took illegally." Thus, in fall of 1988 and then in the spring of 1989, Respondent reconstructed the bulkhead and groins which three to three and one-half years earlier he had disassembled. 7. Respondent used new pressure-treated 2" x 8" or 2" x 10" boards to rebuild the bulkhead facsimile, adding • the new boards above old boards which he had not previously removed since they were partially below the level of the sand. The first level of new boards was added above the old boards in November 1988, with [*21] the second level of boards being placed in May 1989, after the sand had accreted somewhat behind the first level of added boards. Respondent testified that no excavation was required to merely lay the new boards atop the existing ones. The new boards are located on the landward side of the remaining vertical members of the old bulkhead and are fastened together with bolts. The new horizontal boards have been • installed to a height approximately even with the height of the tallest of the remaining vertical timbers to form a low barrier approximately 104 feet long, located approximately 27 feet seaward of the existing retaining wall. 8. It is herein noted that the August 11, 1987 survey of Respondent's property depicts the western groin and 99 feet of the bulkhead facsimile as being contained within Respondent's property line, while the easternmost • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5 ee 15a 1 f955 ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtsti=... 11/17/2004 arch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 7 of 16 five feet of the bulkhead facsimile and the eastern groin appear to be located beyond Respondent's property fine, upon the land of Respondent's neighbors, the Gaglianos, to the east. 9. In June 1989, Respondent rebuilt each of the two groins using a combination of new materials and old timbers which he had stored since the earlier [*22] dismantling of the structures. The eastern groin was rebuilt entirely with the old timbers. The western groin was rebuilt with some old timbers and some new creosoted 8" x 8" timbers. In the groin reconstruction, the horizontal members were spiked to each other and to the upright pilings which remained from the original construction. Both groins project into Great South Bay for an undetermined distance, with some of the original construction extending into and under the water beyond the portions which Respondent rebuilt. 10. The inundation of Respondent's yard caused by Hurricane Gloria in 1985 resulted in the death of a large number of shrubs due to exposure to saltwater. Prior to replanting, Respondent decided to raise the most seaward portion of his lawn in an attempt to minimize saltwater intrusion into the area of his landscape plantings during future storms. In the approximate period of May 17 to 20, 1989, Respondent had several truckloads of fill and topsoil delivered to the site. The soil material was spread and graded over a 43 foot wide by 109 foot long portion of the lawn area between Respondent's house and the existing retaining wall, creating a slightly raised [*23] berm area, approximately six inches high, the highest elevation of which appears to be located approximately eight to twelve feet landward from the retaining wall. 11. When a Department Staff member visited Respondent's property on May 17, 1989, he observed not only the first two of several six to ten cubic yard piles of soil which had been dumped in preparation for constructing the aforementioned berm area, but also an area of disturbed soil beside the eastern side of r Respondent's house. Respondent testified that prior to May 17, 1989 he had to dig up the area on the east side of his house in order to work on the septic system and that when the work was finished he had not reseeded the area. Respondent uses the area along the east side of his house as a parking area for his vehicles. As noted above, additional fill was deposited on the site south of Respondent's house on May 18, 1989 and May 20, 1989. 12. Respondent also, in approximately June 1989, installed a 34 foot extension of a existing fence which separates his property from the neighboring Fowler property to the west. The fence extension consists of chainlink fence fabric which has been nailed to four wooden timbers [*24] installed vertically as fence posts. A minimal amount of excavation was required to install the four timber fence posts. 13. Respondent stated that the fence extension was designed to end above the spring high tide line, as he had checked with the Department's Region 1 office in Stony Brook prior to the fence construction and was told by an unidentified female staff member that no DEC permit would be required if the seaward end of the fence was above spring high tide. There was no evidence submitted during the instant proceeding to conclusively indicate the seaward end of the fence is in the water at times of spring high tide. In fact, Respondent's neighbor, Mr. Fowler, testified his observation was that spring high tide is in front, seaward, of the fence. 14. However, evidence was presented that two posts and one section of the fence do project into the waters of Great South Bay under the combined circumstances of high winds and high tides, when storm surge drives the tide farther ashore. During times when these circumstances occur, the bay waters clearly reach to the seaward edge of the dune grass on the neighboring Fowler property and deposit eel grass along the seaward [*25] base of the dune grass. It is at these times when the most seaward section of the fence causes an impediment to the movement of eel grass across the beach. 15. Additionally, Respondent conjectured that the sandy beach around the most seaward end of the fence extension had been eroded by storm runoff from the Fowler property in August 1989, thus allowing the bay waters to encircle the most seaward section of his fence during times of combined high winds and high tides. Respondent has applied to the Department's Region 1 Office to refurbish his portion of the beach where he contended this erosion has occurred. Environmental Impacts of Activities Undertaken by Respondent 16. The waters of Great South Bay, including Bellport Say, are assigned the classification "SA", the highest (best) classification assigned to the saline surface waters of New York State. The best usage of such Class SA waters shall be for shellfishing for market purposes and for primary and secondary contact recreation. The ittps:/hvvvw.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr=... 11/17/2004 ,bearch - 3 Results -accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 8 of 16 waters of Bellport Bay and Great South Bay in the vicinity of Respondent's property are open to shelifishing and, in fact, shellfishermen frequent these waters on a regular basis. [*26] 17. The old, previously existing, bulkhead and groins may have been functional at one time, even at the time Respondent acquired the property in 1982. However, as the various vertical and horizontal members of the bulkhead and groins rotted and deteriorated, the functionality of the structures diminished. When Respondent removed the horizontal members of the structures and cut off the rotted vertical members of the structures in 1985-86, the bulkhead and groins were rendered totally non-functional. 18. Finding of Fact Number 6 in the Hearing Report from the aforementioned permit proceeding in 1988 noted that the cleared beach area in front of Respondent's property is much more prominent than the natural partially vegetated beach areas on either side of Respondent's property. At the time Respondent purchased the property in 1982, the beach area was partially vegetated and resembled the areas to the east and west of Respondent's property. Finding Number 4 stated that the gently sloping sandy beach area in front of Respondent's property had been naturally vegetated, and then became "devoid of vegetation at different times during the summer of 1986. The area . . . remained devoid [*27] of vegetation through March 8, 1988.", the last day of the permit hearing. 19. Finding Number 7 in the same Hearing Report was, "There was no dispute that the shoreline is stable (and has not eroded) at this Site." Photographic evidence presented by both the Department Staff and Respondent during the instant proceeding demonstrates that the Respondent's addition of horizontal boards to the bulkhead facsimile has changed the contour of the beach between the bulkhead facsimile and the retaining wall and has caused an accretion of sand on both the seaward and landward sides of the bulkhead facsimile. The beach in the immediate area of the bulkhead facsimile is now at an elevation higher than portions of the beach between the bulkhead facsimile and the retaining wall. 20. Respondent's property is included on the Department's Tidal Wetlands Map No. 672-510, with the tidal wetland boundary line being the line of mean high water. The tidal wetland area on Respondent's property, i.e. - the area of the beach seaward of the mean high water line, is within the ecological zone identified as coastal shoals, bars and flats, defined in 6 NYCRR § 661.4(hh) (3). 21. The effect of Respondent's [*28] reconstruction of the bulkhead facsimile and groin structures is to capture sand and vegetative material, e.g. - eel grass, which is carried by littoral drift in the waves and currents of Great South Bay/Bellport Bay, causing sedimentation and a build-up of these materials in the immediate vicinity of the structures, thus filling in the area of coastal shoals, bars and flats. The filling of this area of Respondent's property has diminished and will eventually eliminate the benefits associated with tidal wetlands. 22. On Respondent's property, the coastal shoals, bars and flats encompass an area which is valuable for marine food production. The tidal wetland provides habitat in which various marine organisms, among them, the horseshoe crab, can reproduce and live. The bulkhead facsimile, in particular, isolates the foreshore * and prevents access to the tidal wetland by these organisms. The build-up of sand in the wetland displaces water and prevents shore birds and other marine animals from feeding on marine organisms which may have inhabited the coastal shoals, bars and flats. * The "foreshore" is the face of the beach which lies between the high water and low water tidal marks. - - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*29] 23. The displacement of water by the sand and eel grass eliminates the ability of the tidal wetland area to temper and control the effects of flooding, hurricanes and storms. The eel grass accumulation cannot be washed off the beach, because the rebuilt structures diminish the wave and tidal action normally responsible for flushing the beach of foreign material and cleansing of the ecosystem. The build-up of eel grass and other organic material in the wetland overloads the wetland's ability to absorb silt and organic materials by creating a very heavy mulch material on the beach surface. Additionally, as the eel grass decays in place it consumes the oxygen from any water or wet areas remaining on the beach, effectively suffocating any ittps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5ee 15a l f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr=... 11/17/2004 #earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 9 of 16 organisms living on the beach. In the summertime, the decaying eel grass generates unpleasant odors, thus causing an adverse aesthetic impact on the tidal wetland area. The heavy accumulation of eel grass and organic material effectively becomes a pollutant if it cannot be flushed off the beach. 24. Adjacent area in the context of the Tidal Wetlands - Land Use Regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 661, is any land • immediately adjacent to a tidal wetland [*30] within 300 feet landward of the most landward boundary of the tidal wetland as shown on an inventory map, such boundary in this case being the MHW line as described in the previous Finding. The area adjacent to tidal wetlands on Respondent's property consists of all the beach area between the line of mean high water and the retaining wall and extends landward from the retaining wall to encompass virtually all of Respondent's parcel, save for the immediate footprint of the • residential structure on the property. 25. The impacts of filling within the adjacent area on Respondent's property, e.g. - creating the berm described in Finding No. 10 above, relate in large part to a change in drainage patterns from the lawn area seaward of Respondent's house. Prior to the berm being constructed, the surface of the lawn was slightly depressed in an area approximately halfway between Respondent's house and the retaining wall in a generally north-south orientation, i.e. - the land surface nearest the house to the north and the elevation of the top of • the berm to the south were slightly higher than the elevation of the lawn between these two locations. In an east-west direction, the surface [*31] of the depressed area was slightly higher in the middle of the property, than on either the west or east sides, thus causing any water which could temporarily accumulate on the lawn to flow towards the east and west property boundaries and generally towards the beach in an area seaward of the house, but only slightly landward of the retaining wall. • 26. Following the placement of fill in the area between Respondent's house and the retaining wall, the soil material was shaped into the berm configuration, such that any water which now accumulates on the lawn area is directed also towards the east and west property boundaries, but considerably more landward from the retaining wall than occurred previously. Such runoff, to the west in particular, is one of several factors, the others of which are unrelated to the instant matter, which during times of storm events has contributed to an exacerbation of a standing water condition and flooding on the lower-lying Fowler property to the west. . The flood waters from the Fowler property, in turn, flow southward along the retaining wall which Respondent constructed several years ago at the border of his property with the Fowler property, exiting [*32] the Fowler property in the vicinity of Respondent's fence described in Findings Nos. 12 through 15 above. 27. Following a heavy rainstorm on August 11, 1989, the Fowler property was severely flooded, at a time . when the filled area of Respondent's property exhibited no standing water. When the flood waters exited the Fowler property, they caused substantial erosion of the beach in front of the Fowler property and in the area around Respondent's fence. 28. The berm on Respondent's property is configured such that the retaining wall is no longer the highest seaward location on the property. The top of the berm is now the highest seaward location on Respondent's • property, the surface area of the lawn is increased and the seaward face of the berm slopes down to the retaining wall. Any loose soil, fertilizers, pesticides or other material on the seaward face of the berm is subject to being washed down the slope of the berm, over the seawall, onto the beach in the adjacent area and thence into the coastal shoals, bars and flats tidal wetland on Respondent's property. In addition to increasing the potential for pollutants to be carried into the adjacent area and wetland, the potential [*33] for erosion of the adjacent area and wetland is also increased, should heavy rains be directed onto the beach from the slope berm. • Regulatory Requirements 29. The actions undertaken by Respondent as described above are actions which are identified as regulated activities by the Department's Region 1 Staff, using the definitions of "regulated activity" in 6 NYCRR § 661.4 . (ee)(1): "(i) any form of draining, dredging, excavation or removal, either directly or indirectly, of soil, mud, sand, shells, gravel or other aggregate; (H) any form of dumping, filling or depositing, either directly or indirectly, of any soil, stones, sand, gravel, mud, rubbish or fill of any kind; • ?ittps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5a 1 f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtsti=... 11/17/2004 6earch- 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 10 of 16 (iii) the erection of any structures or construction of any facilities or roads, the driving of any pilings or placing of any obstructions, whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the tide; • (iv) any form of pollution; (v) any portion of a subdivision of land located in any tidal wetland or adjacent area; (vi) any other new activity within a tidal wetland or on an adjacent area which directly or indirectly may substantially alter or impair the natural condition or function of any tidal wetland." • 30. The [*34] "use guidelines" in 6 NYCRR § 661.5 designate the uses classified for the various categories of tidal wetlands and for adjacent areas. A chart of such uses in paragraph (b) of this section lists Use No. 29 - "Construction or (sic - of) groins, bulkheads, and other shoreline stabilization structures" as being a "generally compatible use - permit required" in a coastal shoals, bars and flats area of tidal wetlands. • 31. Use No. 30 - "Filling" is listed as a "generally compatible use - permit required" in an adjacent area. 32. Use No. 32 - "Construction of berms" is listed as a "generally compatible use - permit required" in an adjacent area. 33. The Department Staff testified that the installation of a fence within an adjacent area would be considered under Use No. 57 - "Any type of regulated activity not specifically listed in this chart and any subdivision of land," and was a use for which a permit would be required. 34. The term "generally compatible use" is defined in 6 NYCRR § 661.5(a)(2) as any type of use for the type of area involved which is generally compatible with that type of area and with the preservation, protection and enhancement of the present and potential [*35] value of tidal wetlands if undertaken in that area. The compatibility of a particular use depends on the particular location, design and probable impact of the proposed use. 35. During the period of time in late 1988 through the spring of 1989, when the various activities described in the preceding Findings occurred, Respondent did not file any applications for the requisite tidal wetlands permits. During the same time period, the Department Staff did not issue Respondent any tidal wetlands . permits authorizing such activities. Further, it was the testimony of the Department Staff that permits would not have been issued to the Respondent for the placement of fill and construction of the berm in the adjacent area nor for the construction of a bulkhead facsimile or groins in the tidal wetland because of the adverse environmental impacts such activities would have and/or would potentially have upon the values and benefits provided by the coastal shoals, bars and flats. The Staffs testimony regarding Respondent's installation of the fence was that a permit would have been granted for any portion of the fence which did not interfere with the tidal action at the site. • CONCLUSIONS [*36] 1. Respondent has admitted undertaking the various activities related to the placement of fill and construction of a berm in the adjacent area, installation of a fence in the adjacent area and construction of a bulkhead facsimile and two groins in a tidal wetland during the approximate times related in the above Findings of • Fact. He further acknowledged that he made no application to the Department and that no permits were issued by the Department for such activities. The Placement of Fill on the Site 2. Paragraph NINTH of the Department's Complaint in the instant matter alleges, "(0)n or about May 25, 0 1989 the Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused the placement of fill in an area adjacent to a regulated tidal wetland without the required permit," on his property in violation of the statutory provisions of ECL Articles 15 and 25. The act of placing fill in an adjacent area does not constitute a violation of ECL Article 15, and in fact, the Department Staff has withdrawn the charges of violating Article 15 for this action. • 3. The placement of fill in an adjacent area without a permit is a violation of ECL Article 25. In fact, the fill attps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5ee l5al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fntsti=... 11/17/2004 4jearch- 3 Results -accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 11 of 16 was deposited on the [*37] site on three separate occasions - May 17, 1989, May 18, 1989 and May 20, 1989 - thus constituting three separate violations of ECL Article 25. The grading and shaping of the fill into a berm has altered the drainage characteristics on Respondent's property, contributing to an increased level of flooding during heavy rainstorms on the neighboring Fowler property to the west. As a consequence of the increased flooding, runoff from the Fowler property has caused severe erosion of the beach in front of their • property and in the area of Respondent's fence. 4. The seaward face of the berm has increased the surface area readily exposed to the natural elements and raised the lawn surface to an elevation higher than the existing retaining wall. In constructing the berm in this manner, Respondent has greatly increased the potential for loose soil, pesticides, fertilizers and other foreign materials to easily be washed into the tidal wetland by runoff from the seaward side of the berm. • 5. It is noteworthy that the prior enforcement proceeding, concluded by an Order on Consent which Respondent signed on March 8, 1988, required Respondent to remove a pile of fill material from the southwest [*38] portion of his lawn, within the adjacent area, precisely because of the potential adverse impacts which runoff from such pile could have on the tidal wetland portion of his property. The Construction and Excavation Pertaining to the Retaining Wall/Bulkhead Facsimile and Groins 6. Paragraph TENTH of the Staffs Complaint alleges, "(0)n or about June 6, 1989, the Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused the construction of a retaining wall in a regulated tidal wetland with out the required permit," on his property in violation of the statutory provisions of ECL Articles 15 and 25. Also, Paragraph THIRTEENTH of the Complaint alleges, "Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused," excavation in conjunction with the construction of said retaining wall, also in violation of ECL Articles 15 and 25. It was determined at the hearing that the "retaining wall" referred to in the Complaint is actually the bulkhead facsimile which Respondent constructed some 27 feet seaward of the existing retaining wall on his property. 7. Paragraph FOURTEENTH of the Complaint alleges, "(0)n or about June 27, 1989, the Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused the construction of [*39] a groin in a regulated tidal wetland without the required permit," on his property in violation of ECL Articles 15 and 25. Also, Paragraph FIFTEENTH of the Complaint alleges, "Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused," excavation in conjunction with the construction of said groin, also in violation of ECL Articles 15 and 25. 8. There is ample evidence, and in fact, admission by Respondent as noted in Conclusion No. 1 above, that • Respondent constructed the retaining wall/bulkhead facsimile and the groins without the required permits from the Department Staff. The evidence that the location of these construction activities is below the mean high water line and in a regulated tidal wetland is uncontroverted. Therefore, the Department has jurisdiction over these activities under both ECL Articles 15 and 25. 9. The pertinent provisions of ECL Article 15 are found in § 15-0505(1), in that no person shall excavate or • place fill below the mean high water level in navigable waters or in tidal marshes and wetlands that are adjacent and contiguous to navigable waters and are inundated at mean high water level or tide, without a permit from the Department. ECL Article 25, in [*40] § 25-0401(2), regulates any form of excavation, either directly or indirectly, of sand from any tidal wetland, and requires a permit from the Department to conduct such activities. r 10. Although the Department Staff contended there was a potential need for excavation to place the lower level of boards in the construction of the bulkhead facsimile, Respondent denied that any excavation was needed or occurred when he installed the first level of new boards on top of the existing boards. No one witnessed any excavation taking place, and at most, one could envision that if the old existing boards were slightly below the level of the sand, Respondent might have had to move the sand aside with his hands or even with a shovel in order to expose the old boards and provide a bearing edge for placement of the new boards. No sand was removed from the beach, and any excavation, if it occurred at all, must be considered de minimis. 11. With respect to the allegations of excavation in conjunction with Respondent's construction of the groins, the record contains no testimony or evidence related to either a necessity for or the occurrence of such excavation. • Izttps://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5a1 f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr=... l 1/17/2004 • • • • • • • • • 4earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 12 of 16 12. Therefore, without any [*41] evidence to support the allegations of excavation for the construction of either the bulkhead facsimile or the groins, the Department Staff has not met its burden of proof on the charges that Respondent violated ECL Articles 15 and 25 by causing excavation in the tidal wetland. • 13. ECL § 25-0401(2) also regulates "any form of dumping, filling, or depositing, either directly or indirectly, of any soil, stones, sand, gravel, mud, rubbish, or fill of any kind; the erection of any structures or roads, the driving of any pilings, or placing of any other obstructions, whether or not changing the ebb and flow of the tide, and any other activity within or immediately adjacent to inventoried wetlands which may substantially impair or alter the natural condition of the tidal wetland area." • 14. ECL § 15-0505(1) defines the fill which one is prohibited from placing in navigable waters and in tidal wetlands adjacent to navigable waters without a permit as including, among other materials, sand, "whether or not enclosed or contained by (1) crib work of wood, timber, logs, concrete or metal, (2) bulkheads or cofferdams of timber sheeting, bracing and piling or sheet steel piling or steel H [*42] piling, separated or in combination." • 15. The testimony and evidence adduced in the instant matter undeniably supports a conclusion that Respondent violated both ECL Articles 15 and 25 by constructing the bulkhead facsimile and groins. Two separate violations related to the bulkhead facsimile construction occurred in November 1988 and May 1989. Two separate violations also occurred in June 1989 when Respondent constructed each of the groins on his property. Respondent, as noted above, has admitted these construction activities without making application to or receiving a permit from the Department. Both the bulkhead facsimile and the groins are structures • located below mean high water and within an inventoried tidal wetland which have, in fact, changed the ebb and flow of the tide in the vicinity of Respondent's property. These structures have also substantially impaired and altered the natural condition of the coastal shoals, bars and flats in front of Respondent's property. 16. The bulkhead facsimile and groins have caused an accretion of sand below the line of mean high water in the tidal wetland. Vegetative material has also built up within the tidal wetland. Furthermore, [*43] the • structures effectively prevent the normal tidal action from flushing these materials from the beach. As a consequence, the fill in the tidal wetland which has resulted from Respondent's activities has diminished or eliminated the values of this tidal wetland for marine food production, marine habitat, flood, hurricane and storm control and cleansing ecosystems. Additionally, the build-up of eel grass and other organic material results in a decaying mass of vegetation which in the summertime can adversely impact the aesthetic appreciation of the wetland with foul odors. The sand and vegetative material further prevents the wetland • from providing the benefit of absorbing any other silt and organic material which may be carried by the littoral drift. 17. The accumulation of fill, i.e. - sand, and the build-up of eel grass in the wetland are the direct result of Respondent's activities. The consequent diminution and elimination of the wetland's ability to cleans ecosystems and to absorb silt and organic matter are precisely the impacts predicted in the Hearing Report • and Commissioner's Decision dated August 5, 1988 which resulted in the denial of Respondent's application for [*44] permits to construct an even longer and higher bulkhead/retaining wall slightly landward of the current bulkhead facsimile. 18. Respondent perceived an erosion of his beachfront only after he removed boards from the existing deteriorated non-functional bulkhead. The uncontroverted testimony in the prior permit proceeding was that • the shoreline was stable and had not eroded at the site. A tidal shoreline is a prime example of a naturally dynamic system. While the rain, wind, wave and tidal action of a particular storm event may remove sand from a beach area such as Respondent's, a subsequent storm might just as well replenish the lost sand or even increase the quantity of sand over what had previously existed. Erosion or accretion of a tidal shoreline cannot be viewed on a short term basis, but rather should be evaluated over an extended period of time. The testimony and evidence in the instant proceeding is clear that, while some sand is lost or gained within the • tidal wetland which includes Respondent's shoreline depending on the direction and severity of any given storm, over the long term - in the case of Respondent's neighbors, the Fowlers, a period of 15 years - the beach [*45] in the area of Respondent's property has not suffered any appreciable erosion; one only has to look at photographs of the shoreline on the properties to the east and west of Respondent's property to confirm this. • littps://w,N-w.lexis.com/researchYretrieve?—m=98bca496fe5eel S a 1 f955 ae314c4de64&docnum=l&_f ntsti=... 11/17/2004 4earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 13 of 16 19. Through his previous experience with the Department in both permit and enforcement proceedings, Respondent was well aware of the regulatory protocol necessary prior to engaging in any activities which might impair the functions or alter the natural conditions in a tidal wetland. The August 5, 1988 Hearing Report concluded that Respondent's sole purpose in seeking to construct the requested bulkhead and backfill behind it was to create a larger lawn area. The Report further concluded that Respondent's beach "could • revert to a naturally vegetated shore line buffer area if it is left alone." It is apparent that Respondent could not leave it alone. In his quest to increase his real estate, both in area and presumably in value as well, Respondent flaunted his disdain for the regulatory authority of the Department by deliberately undertaking activities without application or notification to the Department in areas of his property which he knew were within the jurisdiction [*46] of the Department. • The Erection of the Fence 20. Paragraph SIXTEENTH of the Complaint alleges, "(0)n or about July 6, 1989 the Respondent caused and/or permitted to be caused the construction of a fence in an area adjacent to a regulated tidal wetland without the required permit," on his property in violation of ECL Articles 15 and 25. Installation of a fence in an adjacent area is not a violation of ECL Article 15, and the Department Staff has withdrawn the charges of • an Article 15 violation. 21. ECL Article 25, as noted above, prohibits the erection of any structures, the driving of any pilings, e.g. - as here, large timber posts as fence posts, or the placing of any other obstructions in an area immediately adjacent to inventoried wetlands unless a permit is obtained from the Department. • 22. Respondent acknowledged installing the timber posts and chain link fence fabric as a barrier to his neighbors, the Fowlers. His affirmative defense of a telephone conversation with a Department Staff "female duty officer" who told him no permit would be necessary if the fence was located above spring high water can be accorded little, if any, weight. Respondent never made [*47] an appropriate application for the installation of the fence. He does not know the name of the Staff person he talked to. He summarized the supposed conversation in three lines of the transcript in the instant proceeding, and one can only imagine the • extent of the conversation and degree of detail regarding his plans which might have been discussed. In short, the Department is not in the business of granting or waiving permits on the basis of telephone conversations. On the basis of his prior dealings with the Department, Respondent should have well known that an appropriate written application was required for his proposed fence project. In fact, on the basis of his prior dealings with the Department, one could surmise that Respondent deliberately chose not to submit a written application for the activities which he ultimately undertook. • 23. Respondent's fence, on the basis of the evidence and testimony in this proceeding, does not extend below the line of spring high tide, and under normal circumstances is not an obstruction to the ebb and flow of the tide. It is only during times of the combined effects of high winds and high tides that the fence, per se, is an impediment [*48] to free movement of eel grass along the beach. The fence is, however, a structure suspended on timber posts or pilings and is located immediately adjacent to inventoried tidal wetlands, and • because of its location it does have the potential to substantially impair or alter the natural condition of the tidal wetland area. Therefore, Respondent required a permit for the construction of the fence, and he violated ECL Article 25 by erecting the fence without a permit. The Prior Order on Consent • 24. Paragraphs ELEVENTH and TWELFTH of the Complaint are merely statements regarding the location of the retaining wall/bulkhead facsimile being approximately the same location as the bulkhead/retaining wall which was denied in Respondent's prior permit proceeding, and alleging that Respondent knew such location did not meet with the approval of the Department Staff or Commissioner. Based on these two statements, the Staff has drawn the conclusion that Respondent violated the prior Order on Consent by conducting the activities alleged and admitted to as described in the above Conclusions. • 25. In fact, Respondent did not violate the prior Order on Consent by his actions which are [*49] the subject of the instant proceeding. Schedule "A" of the prior Consent Order required Respondent to "cease and desist from any and all further violations" of the ECL "which are the subject of this Order on Consent." Further, Respondent was to remove "the pile of fill located on the southwest corner of the property" and "have the area planted . . . with low-maintenance rye or fescue," not later than June 1, 1988. • https:/hvww.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5alf955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtsti 11/17/2004 4earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 14 of 16 26. The subjects of the prior Consent Order related to a single pile of fill located as above and to the construction of the return of a retaining wall in the adjacent area. There was no evidence introduced in the record of the instant proceeding that Respondent did not fully comply with the terms of Schedule "A" of the Consent Order on a timely basis. The subjects of the instant proceeding are new, separate and distinct from M the prior enforcement action against Respondent. The Dates of the Alleged Violations 27. Lastly, the dates specifically mentioned in the Complaint do not coincide exactly with the dates upon which Respondent undertook various of the actions detailed above. In several instances, Respondent, himself, • clarified such dates; in other instances, [*50] evidence and testimony submitted by the Department Staff has clarified either the actual dates of Respondent's activities or a narrow time frame during which the activities did occur. Furthermore, the Staff, in the Complaint, categorized the activities as having occurred "on or about" certain dates, thereby allowing a certain degree of latitude in the timing of the alleged violations. The hearing record has sufficiently clarified the specific dates or a reasonably narrow time frame in which the violations occurred, such that the dates in the Complaint are not an issue in this matter. DISCUSSION The Tidal Wetlands Act, ECL Article 25, was passed by the legislature in 1973 for the purpose of preserving and protecting the state's tidal wetlands which "constitute one of the most vital and productive areas of our natural world." (Legislative Findings, Section 1 of L.1973. c.790, eff. Sept. 1, 1973.) The Act's implementing • regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 661 and the Tidal Wetlands permits issued by the Department are designed to protect the environmental interests related to tidal wetlands. Although not mentioned by the Department Staff in their closing briefs in the instant matter, the Commissioner [*511 of Environmental Conservation promulgated a Tidal Wetlands Enforcement Guidance Memorandum on February 8, 1990. The purpose of this document is to relate the Department's overall • enforcement policy, enunciated in a companion document - Civil Penalty Policy dated June 20, 1990, to the Department's enforcement of statutory provisions, regulations, permit conditions and orders pertaining to tidal wetlands. The document sets a fundamental goal to enhance the preservation and protection of New York's tidal wetlands through firm but fair enforcement against violators of the tidal wetlands laws. This goal contemplates Departmental action in response to enforcement situations which will accomplish the following: restore tidal wetland values and benefits lost as a result of illegal activity; punish those who commit ECL Article 25 violations; deter future violations; and assure that no economic gain is derived from failure to comply with the law. With respect to the administrative sanctions for violating ECL Article 25 which are available under ECL Article 71, Title 25, while specifically directing itself to the sanctions authorized by the January 1, 1990 revision of ECL § 71-2503, the [*52] document cites the use of both monetary civil penalties and the ability of the Commissioner to order restoration of a tidal wetland and adjacent area, both remedies which were authorized by ECL § 71-2503 prior to the noted revision. With respect to the monetary penalty sought by Department Staff for a particular violation of ECL Article 25, • the document states the calculation of the recommended penalty should begin at the maximum penalty amount, with consideration given to the following mitigating factors: (1) Economic benefit reaped by landowner/violator as a result of the violation; (2) Environmental threat posed by the violation; w (3) Violator conduct, with relevant considerations including willfulness, repetitiousness, willingness or unwillingness to settle in lieu of litigation, and awareness of regulatory restrictions; (4) Deterrent effect against future violations; and littps://xvNvw.lexis.com/research/retrieve?—m=98bca496fe5eel5al f355ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtsti=... 11/17/2004 • • • • • • • • • 40earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 15 of 16 (5) Other factors or circumstances peculiar to the case. In the instant case, accretion of sand on Respondent's beach will add to his real estate, both in area and presumably in value, thus bringing Respondent an economic benefit. The adverse environmental impacts caused by Respondent's actions [*53] are well documented in this Report, as is the conduct of Respondent. 0 The deterrent effect of any assessed penalty is speculative, particularly given Respondent's past history with respect to the statutory and regulatory requirements regarding tidal wetlands. There were no mitigating factors presented at the hearing. Therefore, based upon the above circumstances, no reduction of any assessed civil penalty is warranted. The Department has not issued any program-specific guidance for the enforcement of ECL Article 15, Title 5 • and attendant regulations in 6 NYCRR Part 608 concerning protection of waters. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. In consideration of all the foregoing, i hereby recommend that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $ 3,000 for each of three violations of ECL Article 25 by placing fill on his property in an area • adjacent to an inventoried, regulated tidal wetland without the required permit. The deposition of such fill on Respondent's property occurred on May 17, 1989, May 18, 1989 and May 20, 1989. The total assessed penalty for these three violations should be $ 9,000. 2. I further recommend that Respondent be assessed civil penalties in the amounts [*54] of $ 5,000 and $ 3,000 ( = $ 8,000) for each of two violations of ECL Articles 15 and 25 by constructing a retaining • wall/bulkhead facsimile below mean high water in an inventoried, regulated tidal wetland on his property without the required permit, beginning such construction in November 1988 and finishing the work in May 1989 and prior to June 6, 1989. The total assessed penalty for these two violations should be $ 16,000. 3. 1 further recommend that Respondent be assessed civil penalties in the amounts of $ 5,000 and $ 3,000 ( = $ 8,000) for each of two violations of ECL Articles 15 and 25 by constructing two groin structures below • mean high water in an inventoried, regulated tidal wetland on his property without the required permit in June 1989. The total assessed penalty for these two violations should be $ 16,000. 4. 1 further recommend that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of $ 3,000 for one violation of ECL Article 25 by installing a fence on his property in an area adjacent to an inventoried, regulated tidal wetland without the required permit in June 1989. 5. Additionally, I recommend Respondent be required to perform remedial work on his [*55] property in accordance with plans approved by the Department's Region 1 Staff to remove all fill placed in the adjacent area such that elevations of the lawn area between Respondent's house and the prior existing retaining wall be returned to the elevations shown in an August 11, 1987 survey of the property in evidence in the instant proceeding as Exhibit No. 15, and to revegetate the lawn area with low maintenance rye and/or fescue. • 6. Further, also in accordance with Department-approved plans, Respondent should be required to remove the horizontal boards used to construct the bulkhead facsimile and the horizontal timbers used to construct the groin structures on his property. Such actions should eventually allow the coastal shoals, bars and flats tidal wetland to revert to a natural condition and will allow for restoration of the values and benefits of the tidal wetland either destroyed and/or diminished by Respondent's violations of the Environmental Conservation Law. 7. It is particularly noted that the fence installed by Respondent, although erected illegally without a permit and functioning as an obstruction to the movement of vegetation across the beach during times of [*56] combined high tides and high winds, is not an obstruction to the normal ebb and flow of the tide, either at mean high tide or at spring high tide, and therefore, no remedial action by Respondent with respect to the �► fence should be required. Source: New York>Case s> NY Cases,Administrative Decisions&Attorney General Opinions, Combined[� Terms: accretion and sand and wetlands and groins (Edit Search) View: Full ittps://www.lexis.com/researchJretrieve?_m=98bca496fe5eel5al f955ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_f ntstr=... 11/17/2004 i • • • i • ! • • 40earch - 3 Results - accretion and sand and wetlands and groins Page 16 of 16 Date/Time: Wednesday,November 17,2004-7:45 PM EST About_f exisNexis I Terms and Conditions Copyright_O 2004 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. i https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=98bca446fe5 ee 15 a l f955 ae314c4dc64&docnum=l&_fmtstr=... 11/17/2004 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.Q. Box 1179 Telephone Q 0�.. Southold, New York 11971 (516)765-1801Ql SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TO: Southold Town Board of Trustees FROM: Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council DATED: June 22, 1995 RE: Recommendations from Meeting of June 21, 1995 The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council met Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 4,30 P.M. at the Southold Town Hall. Present were CAC Chairman Stephen Angell, and CAC members Bruce Loucka, Robert Keith, John Hagerty III, Betty Wells, and Allan Connell. The following applications were discussed and recommendations given. RECOMMENDATION OF WETLAND APPLICATIONS No.'1271 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Robert Keith, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees PARTIAL APPROVAL of the Wetland Application of DR. JOHN ALOIA 118-4-9 to rebuild 14' offshore end of jetty; rebuild 3' x 3' access stairway from existing platform to bulkhead; install 3' x 8' access stairs from bulkhead to beach; rebolt top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends approval to rebuild the 3' x 3' access stairway; install 3' x 8' access stairs; and rebolt the top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends DISAPPROVAL TO REBUILD 14' OFFSHORE END OF JETTY Y. The jetty is not currently functioning and is not needed. The Council also recommends the applicant plant the area behind the bulkhead with beachgrass to prevent erosion during overwash. 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion carried. . 1 No. 1272 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Allan Connell, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS of the Wetland Application of EILEEN VILLANI 86-6-10 Search - 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 1 of 13 Source: New York>Agency&Administrative Materials>NY Department of Environmental Conservation Decisions U Terms: ordinary maintenance and repair (Edit Search) iSelect for FOCUST'" or Delivery 2000 N.Y. ENV LEXIS 62, In the Matter of Alleged Violations of Article 24 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and Part 663 of Title 6 of the Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, by FRANK ZACCARO, Respondent • File No. R4-2083-98-08 New York Department of Environmental Conservation 2000 N.Y. ENV LEXIS 62 i August 24, 2000, Decided CORE TERMS: wetland, map, parcel, adjacent, mapping, trailer, ditch, railroad, bed, site, drainage, freshwater, filling, roll, photograph, notice, regulation, regulated, tax assessment, grading, civil penalty, access road, incompatible, remediation, dirt, widening, clearing, construct, ownership, notified FINAL-DEC-BY: [*1] CAHILL FINAL-DECISION: By: John P. Cahill, Commissioner ORDER WHEREAS: 1. Pursuant to a ruling dated January 21, 2000, denying a motion for order without hearing that had been • made by Department Staff, Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Edward Buhrmaster conducted an enforcement hearing in this matter on March 6, 2000, at the Department's Region 4 office in Schenectady, New York. Department Staff appeared by Ann Lapinski, an assistant regional attorney, and the Respondent appeared by Stephen Angel, a partner in Esseks, Hefter &Angel, of Riverhead, New York. 2. Upon a review of the record of this proceeding and the ALJ's attached hearing report, including its Findings • of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations, I hereby adopt the report as my own. All of the Department's charges are sustained, except the one concerning construction of a road through freshwater wetland H-12, which is dismissed. NOW, THEREFORE, having considered this matter, it is ORDERED that: I. The Respondent is assessed a civil penalty of Eight Thousand Dollars ($ 8,000), which shall be considered apportioned among the charges as the AU recommended in his report. II. Six Thousand Dollars ($ 6,000) of this penalty shall [*2] be suspended on the condition that the Respondent completes the remediation directed in paragraph IV of this order within the established sixty-day time frame. • III. The unsuspended portion of the penalty, Two Thousand Dollars ($ 2,000), shall be paid to the Department within thirty (30) days of receipt by the Respondent or his attorney of a conformed copy of this order. IV. Within sixty (60) days of his or his attorney's receipt of a conformed copy of this order, the Respondent shall complete the following remediation activities: • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 411�earch- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 2 of 13 A. Pushing back into the drainage ditch the soil that was removed from the ditch; B. Removing from the wetland and its adjacent area the fill that was used to construct the field (or clearing) along the site access road; • C. Moving the trailer now along the railroad bed to an upland location outside the wetland's adjacent area; and D. Removing from the wetland's adjacent area the structure described in the record as a small barn or outhouse, and the two container boxes alleged to contain tools and seeds, unless the Respondent receives Department approval to leave them where they are, or the Department determines that they are not subject to regulation. [*3] V. The Respondent shall notify the Department immediately upon completion of the remediation ordered in the preceding paragraph, so that the Department may conduct a site inspection for the purpose of verification. VI. Should the Respondent fail to complete the remediation specified in paragraph IV of this order within the established 60-day time frame, the suspended portion of the civil penalty shall be considered immediately due and payable to the Department. VII. All communications from the Respondent to the Department concerning this order shall be made to the Department's Region 4 Director, 1150 North Westcott Road, Schenectady, New York, 12306-2014. VIII. The provisions, terms and conditions of this order shall bind the Respondent, his agents, servants, employees, successors and assigns and all persons, firms and corporations acting for or on behalf of the Respondent. r INIT-DEC-BY: BUHRMASTER INITIAL-DECISION: HEARING REPORT - by - • /s/ Edward Buhrmaster Administrative Law Judge • PROCEEDINGS This enforcement matter was initiated by service of a motion for order without hearing by Region 4 Staff of the Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC" or "the Department"). Staffs papers, dated November [*4] 19, 1999, alleged that the Respondent, Frank Zaccaro, undertook various unpermitted • activities, as further described below, in a DEC-regulated freshwater wetland located on property he owns in the Town of Claverack, Columbia County, in violation of Section 24-0701(1) of the Environmental Conservation Law and Section 663.4 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"). Pursuant to a time extension agreed to by DEC Staff, the Respondent's counsel, Stephen Angel, submitted a response to Staffs motion that was received by DEC's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services ("OHMS") on • January 10, 2000. In a six-page ruling dated January 21, 2000, I denied Staffs motion on all causes of action, finding that summary judgment in Staffs favor would not be appropriate because of the parties' conflicting factual assertions, which I found required adjudication. Because the motion was denied, I ordered that the moving and responsive papers be deemed the parties' complaint and answer, respectively, and that a hearing be held on the charges. I presided over the hearing, • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 • • • • • • • • • •Search- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 3 of 13 which was held on March 6, 2000, at the Department's Region 4 office in Schenectady. DEC Staff appeared [*5] by Ann Lapinski, an assistant regional attorney. Because of illness, the Respondent did not appear personally; he was represented at the hearing by Mr. Angel, a partner in Esseks, Hefter & Angel, of Riverhead, Long Island. • DEC Staff presented the following witnesses: (1) Howard Montague, chairman of the Claverack Town Board of Assessment; (2) Stanley Koloski, Claverack building inspector; • (3) Larry Dysard, a Claverack resident who lives near the Zaccaro property; (4) Peter Brinkerhoff, a DEC Environmental Conservation Officer ("ECO"); and (5) Maynard Vance, a wildlife biologist in DEC's Division of Fish and Wildlife. The Respondent presented the following witnesses: (1) James Monahan, the owner of a title insurance agency; (2) Sharon Klos, a friend of Mr. Zaccaro and a visitor to his Claverack property; and • (3) Joseph Lauri, a relative of Mr. Zaccaro who sold the property to him in 1982. The record includes 25 exhibits and 233 pages of transcript. The exhibits include Staff's papers for the motion for order without hearing (Exhibits No. 1 - 4), Mr. Zaccaro's response as filed by Mr. Angel (Exhibits No. 5 - 8), and my ruling denying the motion and ordering that [*6] a hearing be held (Exhibit No. 9). At the close of the hearing, the parties agreed to provide written closings after receipt of the transcript. The transcript was received on April 19, 2000; various corrections to it have since been made by agreement of the parties, and by rulings I made in a letter dated May 16, 2000. Pursuant to a schedule they agreed to, the parties submitted their closings on June 2, 2000. The record in this matter closed on June 5, 2000, when the closing were received by my office. • POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES --Position of Department Staff Department Staff alleges that Mr. Zaccaro undertook various prohibited activities on property he owns in and around freshwater wetland H-12, on the north side of Route 23, 1.7 miles east of the Taconic State Parkway • in the Town of Claverack, Columbia County. These activities, which are alleged to have occurred during 1997, consist of: (1) Deepening and widening a drainage ditch in the wetland; (2) Filling the wetland with dirt from the drainage ditch; (3) Filling the wetland to construct a field; (4) Grading in the wetland's adjacent area; (5) Constructing a road through the wetland; and • (6) Placing a trailer [*7] in the wetland's adjacent area. All these activities are alleged to constitute violations of ECL Section 24-0701(1) and 6 NYCRR 663.4, which require Department permission to conduct certain activities in officially mapped freshwater wetlands or their adjacent areas. • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fintstr... 11/17/2004 111111�earch - 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 4 of 13 Department Staff requests a Commissioner's order assessing a civil penalty of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($ 18,000), Three Thousand Dollars ($ 3,000) for each of the six alleged violations. Staff also seeks the following remedial action: • (1) Pushing back into the drainage ditch the soil that was removed from the ditch; (2) Removing from the wetland and its adjacent area the fill that was used to construct the road and the field; and (3) Moving the trailer to a location at least 100 feet from the wetland's edge. --Position of the Respondent The Respondent contends that he bought the subject property on February 6, 1982, several months before the Department began the process leading up to the official mapping and designation of wetland H-12 in 1985. The Respondent claims that he was never notified of the tentative mapping or the final designation of the wetland at the times those events occurred, which he attributes [*8] to DEC's alleged failure to comply with legal notice requirements. Because of this failure, he says, the mapping should be considered void as to his property, and that any attempt by DEC to challenge activities undertaken there prior to March or April of 1998, when he was first cited by the Department, should be dismissed. The Respondent also contends there is no probative evidence to support DEC's charges. He admits that a • construction trailer was brought to the site, but says this occurred in 1986, not 1997, as Staff charges, and that it was done to replace a smaller trailer that had been at the site since 1981. He says that the road described by Staff was in place as far back as 1980. He admits to ordinary maintenance and repair of the road and the drainage ditch, but not to their substantial alteration. FINDINGS OF FACT • 1. The Respondent, Frank Zaccaro of Patchogue, New York, owns a land parcel of about 30 acres in the Town of Claverack, Columbia County. This property is located on the north side of Route 23 (the Old Columbia Turnpike Road), 1.7 miles east of the Taconic State Parkway. Bisecting the parcel from northwest to southeast is the abandoned bed of the New York [*9] and Harlem Railroad Company, from which the tracks and ties have been removed. On the part of the parcel between Route 23 and the railroad bed is a portion of state- regulated freshwater wetland H-12. On the other side of the railroad bed, in the northeast portion of the parcel, is a hill with a grassy field on top. 2. Mr. Zaccaro has owned this parcel since February 2, 1982. Between December 26, 1980, and February 2, 1982, the parcel was owned by Joseph A. Lauri of East Meadow, New York. Mr. Lauri bought the parcel from Robert O'Connor of Peekskill, New York. • 3. Wetland H-12 initially was mapped from aerial photographs and follow-up ground checks by DEC Staff. Once the wetland's boundaries were tentatively established, the Department held a mapping hearing on May 19, 1982. A Columbia County tax map was used to identify affected land parcels. The county tax office then provided the Department with a list of the parcels' owners, as determined from tax assessment rolls, and the Department sent them certified letters about the mapping hearing. • 4. The Department issued the final map for wetland H-12 pursuant to a Commissioner's order dated March 6, 1985. Again, a county tax map was [*10] used to identify affected land parcels, and the local tax assessment rolls were used to determine the parcels' owners, who were notified by mail of the Department's action. 5. Although he owned property constituting a portion of wetland H-12 at the time the mapping hearing was held in 1982 and at the time the mapping order was issued in 1985, Mr. Zaccaro was not notified of either action by the Department. This was because the county tax maps in use at those times were inaccurate with respect to the location of his property. This inaccuracy was not corrected until 1987, after the map of wetland H-12 was finalized. [Hearing Exhibit No. 14 is the 1987 tax map No. 143 for the Town of Claverack, Columbia County, with the Zaccaro parcel highlighted in blue ink as parcel No. 39 of block No. 1.) • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 iSearch - 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 5 of 13 6. The county's annual tax assessment rolls have accurately reflected the land parcel's changes in ownership from O'Connor to Lauri to Zaccaro. Though the 1982 tax assessment roll shows Mr. Lauri to be the owner of the parcel, Mr. Lauri, like Mr. Zaccaro, was not notified of the mapping hearing. Until November 1997, when he was confronted at the site by an Environmental Conservation Officer, [*11] Mr. Lauri was not aware that 0 the Department considered the parcel to contain regulated wetland. 7. Mr. Lauri and Mr. Zaccaro are relatives, and though he sold the parcel to Mr. Zaccaro in 1982, Mr. Lauri continues to use the parcel for hunting and other purposes, on average about once a month. He performs site maintenance and improvements, and pays the taxes and other expenses. 0 8. The property is currently undeveloped except for an old construction site trailer, about 8 x 24 feet, which provides shelter to people using the property. Also described as an office trailer, it is located along the old railroad bed at its junction with a 600-foot-long access road from Route 23. The trailer is not used for overnight stays. 9. The access road enters the property near the end of a state Department of Transportation pull-off along i Route 23, and runs close to the highway for a short distance before curving in the direction of the railroad bed and crossing wetland H-12. In 1980, when Mr. Lauri bought the property, the road was narrow and had a rutted dirt surface. 10. Since 1980, Mr. Lauri has maintained the road. He has raked it, repaired soft spots, shoveled dirt into ruts, and back [*12] bladed the surface to remove debris. Shortly after the ties were removed from the i railroad bed in the 1980's, Mr. Lauri used some of the railroad bed materials (crushed rock and tinder) to surface the road as it passes through the wetland. A culvert has been placed under the road in the wetland area. At some point between December 15, 1998, and the end of February, 2000, some widening of the road may have occurred. 11. There is a small clearing, about one-quarter of an acre in size, in the wetland portion of the property, on the right side of the access road as one comes in from Route 23. The trees that were in this area in 1980 were subsequently removed by Mr. Lauri. At some point in 1997 or early 1998, the area was filled and graded by a bulldozer. 12. In 1981, Mr. Lauri put a small trailer (about 8 x 12 feet) at the edge of the clearing, to be used as a place to get out of the cold. In 1986, this trailer was replaced by a larger one from a former construction site in Suffolk County. The new trailer was placed along the old railroad bed at the end of the access road, in the wetland's adjacent area. It has remained in the same general area ever since, though it has been moved [*13] slightly at least once. The trailer does not rest on the ground; it has wheels and a vinyl fabric skirting. 13. About 15 to 20 feet away from the trailer, also in the wetland's adjacent area, is a structure that appears to be either a small barn or outhouse, which was placed at the site at some point after March 9, 1998. Resting i on the ground in the adjacent area are two locked container boxes (about 15 feet long, 8 feet high, and 10 feet wide) that were delivered to the site in 1999. They contain various tools and seeds. 14. A drainage ditch runs through the wetland alongside the railroad bed on the Zaccaro property. This ditch has been there since before Mr. Lauri bought the property in 1980. At some point in 1997, a 600-foot length of the ditch was deepened and widened, since it had become congested with vegetation and some old railroad • ties. About a quarter of an acre of wetland (on the south side of the ditch, away from the railroad bed) was filled with the excavated spoil material, mostly dirt. 15. Also in 1997, 0.12 acres of the wetland's adjacent area, on the south side of the railroad bed, were 16. Mr. Lauri's intent is to use the upland portion of the property, on [*14] the north side of the railroad • bed, for agricultural purposes. He wants to brush-hog the tall grass in the field atop the hill and plant apple and other fruit trees, as well as sorghum and other grains. He wants to bring a tractor onsite to help him with his projects. 17. Wetland H-12 contains spotted turtles. These turtles are recognized by the Department as a species of special concern, meaning that they are species native to New York State for which a welfare concern or risk of i https://w,,vw.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=322468OccOf4dO47lb5d9659a8l d95bd&docnum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 *Search- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 6 of 13 endangerment has been documented. Any work done in the wetland would affect the habitat of these turtles. DISCUSSION This matter involves six alleged violations of the freshwater wetlands law, with regard to the undertaking of 0 certain activities in a mapped wetland without DEC permits. None of these activites was observed as it happened by DEC Staff or witnesses called on its behalf. Instead, Staffs evidence is entirely circumstantial, relying on inferences drawn from observed site conditions. Staffs investigation was prompted by Lawrence Dysard, who has lived on the south side of Route 23, near the Zaccaro property, since 1987. Mr. Dysard testified that, in the summer of 1997, while biking along [*15] e Route 23, he noticed for the first time a road entering the Zaccaro property. This observation was passed on to ECO Peter Brinkerhoff, who visited the property on November 11, 1997. While there, ECO Brinkerhoff met Mr. Lauri and saw the construction trailer, the length of the access road, the field (which might better be described as a clearing) along the road in the wetland, and the drainage ditch, which appeared to have been deepened recently. Mr. Brinkerhoff says that he discussed the permitting requirements of the wetland regulations with Mr. Lauri, and told him that he would contact Maynard Vance, a DEC biologist, about • violations that might have occurred. Mr. Vance went to the property on December 18, 1997, and March 9, 1998. Mr. Vance concluded that the violations charged in this matter occurred in 1997 because when he was there then, the work appeared to be "very fresh." For instance, he said, there was no vegetation growing on the dirt in the roadside clearing, which would suggest that the area had been filled not long before. Mr. Vance took photographs of his observations 0 on March 9, 1998 (Exhibits 4 G - L), many of which suggest recent filling and grading. On March [*16] 25, 1998, ECO Brinkerhoff wrote tickets for both Mr. Lauri and Mr. Zaccaro, charging them with altering a protected freshwater wetland without a permit. On June 15, 1998, the ECO returned to the site with Mr. Vance and an attorney for Mr. Lauri and Mr. Zaccaro, pointing out the particular violations Staff alleged, and discussing Staff's recommended remediation. Stanley Koloski, Calverack's building inspector, has also been to the site, having been called there on December 15, 1998, to observe the construction trailer. Mr. Koloski and Mr. Vance returned to the site a week before the hearing, and their testimony indicated that site improvements have continued since ECO Brinkerhoff issued his tickets. In particular, Mr. Koloski testified that the road had been widened, and Mr. Vance testified that two container boxes and a small building had been placed in the adjacent area. --Determinations Concerning Alleged Violations Of the various violations alleged by DEC Staff, all but one (the construction of the roadway) have been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence, as discussed below: (1) Deepening of the drainage ditch in the wetland, and filling the wetland with dirt from [*17] the drainage ditch. These two violations are demonstrated by the observations of ECO Brinkerhoff and Mr. Vance. Exhibit 4 - G, one of Mr. Vance's photographs, shows a fairly wide, unobstructed drainage ditch running along the south side of the railroad bed, and, next to it in the wetland, a great deal of what is obviously fresh spoil material, with no apparent vegetative cover. As Staff points out in its closing brief, the amount of spoil material indicates that the ditch was not simply "maintained" (as Mr. Lauri says) but actually widened and deepened. Mr. Lauri admitted in his testimony that he used a machine to take rotted railroad ties and debris out of the ditch. Rather than deny the Department's charges, he said that if he did expand or deepen the ditch, "it was not intentional," acknowledging that by using a machine for the work, "I'm sure it [the ditch] would have changed a little bit." Expanding or substantially modifying a drainage ditch in a wetland, except as part of an agricultural activity, is incompatible with a wetland and its functions and benefits, as is filling of a wetland. These are separate activities that both require permits from the Department. [See 6 NYCRR [*18] 663.4(d) (19), (20).] (2) Filling the wetland to construct a field. Like the two violations above, this violation was demonstrated by the observations of ECO Brinkerhoff and Mr. • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 Search -7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 7 of 13 Vance. Exhibits 4 - J and 4 - K, both photographs of Mr. Vance, show an area of fill that is devoid of vegetation, in sharp contrast to the surrounding woods. As Staff points out, the area appears to have been bulldozed, given the thoroughness of the clearing. ECO Brinkerhoff could even see the machinery tracks when he was at the site on November 11, 1997. Mr. Lauri claimed that the area Staff describes as the "field" was a sparsely treed, grassy area when he bought the property in 1980. Sharon Klos, a friend of Mr. Zaccaro's who first went to the site in the mid- 1980's, described it as a flattened-out area that has lost some trees over the last 15 years "through storms or whatever." These depictions are not consistent with the appearance of the "field" as described by Staff's witnesses and Mr. Vance's photographs. In fact, the "field" has no trees or grass; it is simply an area of fill, and whatever natural vegetation that had been there obviously has been covered or cleared away, apparently to create [*19] parking space. As noted above, filling in a wetland is considered incompatible with the wetland and its functions and benefits, and would require a permit from the Department. [See 6 NYCRR 663.4 (d)(20).] (3) Grading the wetland's adjacent area. The grading of the adjacent area next to the railroad tracks is depicted in Exhibit 4 - H, one of Mr. Vance's photographs. The photograph clearly indicates the movement of fill by heavy machinery. Because no vegetation is established on the fill, one can infer that the activity was conducted not long before the picture was taken. Grading in the adjacent area of a wetland is considered usually incompatible with the wetland and its functions or benefits, although in some cases it may be insignificant enough to be compatible. At any rate, • it requires a Department permit. [See 6 NYCRR 663.4(d)(25).] (4) Placing a trailer in the wetland's adjacent area. The location of the trailer along the railroad bed was observed by ECO Brinkerhoff, Mr. Vance, and Mr. Koloski. [Exhibit 4 - I is a photograph of the trailer, taken by Mr. Vance.] Though the trailer rests on wheels, it is not a vehicle. It has skirting around its bottom, and has remained [*20] in the same general location since 1986, by Mr. Lauri's admission. Trailer placement is not an activity specifically addressed by the wetland regulations; however, building construction in a wetland or its adjacent area requires a permit from the Department. The trailer is a building since it is a roofed, walled structure that has been constructed for permanent use. Within the regulations for buildings, placing the trailer may be equated to "constructing a residence or related structures or facilities" [6 NYCRR 663.4(d) (42)], since the trailer functions as a residence would in providing shelter for property users, even though no one lives in it, and it is not, as the Department • charged, a camp. Constructing a residence "or related structure" in the adjacent area of a wetland is considered by law to be usually incompatible with the wetland and its functions or benefits. The trailer was placed in the adjacent area in 1986, not 1997, as Staff alleges. In any event, it was placed there after issuance of the final map for wetland H-12 in 1985. • (5) Construction of Access Roadway Of all the charges, only the one about construction of a roadway through the wetland is not adequately [*21] demonstrated. Mr. Lauri credibly testified that, except for the last 15 or 20 feet of it that connects with the railroad bed, the road was there when he bought the property in 1980. Ms. Klos also • testified believably that the road was there when she first went to the site at the end of 1985 or the beginning of 1986. In 1980, it was apparently a narrow dirt road that was not easily driven. Mr. Lauri acknowledges that, over the last 20 years, he has maintained and repaired the road, filling in ruts and surfacing the road with crushed stone and cinder from the railroad bed. A short extension now connects the road to the railroad bed, but Mr. Lauri denies making it himself, and there is no evidence to contradict him. (In fact, the extension may have been made by someone else when the ties were removed from the railroad bed.) At any rate, based on my review of the wetland map, this extension likely was made in the adjacent area, not the wetland itself. Department Staffs case for the road's construction in 1997 is entirely circumstantial, as no witness claimed to see the road being built. Mr. Dysard, who lives on Route 23, some distance down the road from the property, claimed that the [*22] road "appeared" to him during 1997, but also admitted he did not see its construction. The evidence indicates that the road is not clearly discernable from Route 23; in fact, Mr. Koloski • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ccOf4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&doenum=l&_f ntstr... 11/17/2004 Search- 7 Results- Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 8 of 13 testified that when he first went to the site in 1998, he drove by the property at least twice before he found it. All the evidence indicates that the road does not intersect with Route 23 squarely, but instead at a very sharp angle. Mr. Dysard noticed the road for the first time while biking along Route 23; to someone in a faster- moving car, the road would not be as apparent. 0 To support Staff's charge, Mr. Vance referenced aerial photographs from 1974 (Exhibit No. 21) and 1994 (Exhibit No. 23) that encompass the project site. Based on his review of the photographs, Mr. Vance concluded that when they were taken, the road had not yet been constructed. This assertion is not convincing in light of Mr. Lauri's and Ms. Klos's credible testimony about traversing the road when they first encountered the property in 1980 and the mid-1980's, respectively. Also, both photographs do show a line across the wetland in the vicinity of the DOT pulloff on Route 23, where the road in question is located. Mr. 0 Vance [*23] acknowledged that the line represented "something obviously man-made," but "what it was, I don't know." Mr. Vance could not identify the feature based on his visits to the property, but denied that it could be the road in question, based on its position in relation to particular white pine trees he said he could identify both from the photographs and site inspections. This testimony was not convincing given that the road passes through a heavily wooded area, the trees in that area are not well distinguished in the photographs, and, over the course of 24 years, any one of the trees could be expected to have grown 0 substantially or even died, as Mr. Vance himself acknowledged. While I find that the road goes back to at least 1980, as Mr. Lauri claims, I also find that it has been subject to various improvements over the years which have made it smoother and easier to use. Also, some broadening of the road has occurred since Mr. Zaccaro and Mr. Lauri were ticketed, if one credits Mr. Koloski's testimony of his two site visits, the first in December, 1998 (when he found the road to be narrow) and the second a week before the hearing (when he found it to be much wider). Ordinary maintenance [*24] and repair of the road (which would encompass the work acknowledged by Mr. Lauri) would be considered exempt from DEC regulation [6 NYCRR 663.4(d)(10)]. However, widening the road (which he denies) would not, since it would involve regulated activities (such as filling and grading) in the wetland, outside the pre-existing road bed. While not specifically charged, any recent widening of the road should be a legitimate concern of the Department. --Validity of Wetland Mapping The Respondent claims that the mapping of his property as freshwater wetland is void because of failure by the Department to comply with statutory and regulatory notice provisions. The parties have stipulated that Mr. Zaccaro was not notified of either the 1982 mapping hearing or the 1985 mapping order. In his testimony, Mr. Lauri made the same claim for himself, and DEC Staff did not try to refute it. A mapping hearing is required by ECL Section 24-0301(4) to afford an opportunity for any person to propose additions to or deletions from a tentative freshwater wetland map. The law requires notice of the hearing by newspaper publication as well as mailings to the officials of each local government within the [*25] boundaries of which any such wetland or a portion thereof is located. Also, the commissioner shall mail notice of such hearing "to each owner of record as shown on the latest completed tax assessment rolls, of lands designated as such wetlands as shown on said map." [See ECL Section 24-0301(4).] The 1982 tax assessment roll showed Mr. Lauri to be owner of the Zaccaro parcel. (Mr. Lauri sold the property to Mr. Zaccaro in February of that year.) However, Mr. Lauri was not mailed notice of the hearing because the local tax map was inaccurate. Department Staff uses tax maps to obtain parcel numbers of affected properties; these numbers are then used to obtain names and addresses of the parcel owners from the tax assessment rolls. Because, in this case, the tax map did not suggest that the Zaccaro parcel would be affected by the mapping, no notice was sent to Mr. Lauri. The law requires notice not only of the mapping hearing, but of the mapping order as well. A copy of the order promulgating a final wetland map, along with a copy of the map itself, must be filed in the office of the clerk of each local government in which each such wetland or a portion thereof is located. Also, notice [*26] of the order must be given by mail "to each owner of lands, as shown on the latest completed tax assessment rolls, which are designated as wetlands." [See ECL Section 24-0301(5).] Finally, notice of the order must be given to the chief administrative officers of local governments within the boundaries of which a wetland or portion thereof is located, and a copy of the order must be published in at least two local newspapers having • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO471b5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_f ntstr... 11/17/2004 Search - 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 9 of 13 general circulation in the area where the wetlands are located. [ECL Section 24-0301(5).] The 1985 tax assessment roll correctly showed Mr. Zaccaro's ownership of his parcel, but he was not mailed notice of the order because, once again, the local tax map inaccurately failed to suggest that his property • would be affected. Because Mr. Lauri was not notified by mail of the mapping hearing and Mr. Zaccaro was not notified by mail of the mapping order, the Respondent contends that the mapping of the Zaccaro parcel as freshwater wetland is void. I disagree. The Respondent's argument is premised on an alleged failure by the Department to follow the notice procedures prescribed in its own statutes. In fact, those procedures were followed, despite the fact that [*27] Mr. Zaccaro and Mr. Lauri were not noticed personally. The Department did use the tax assessment rolls to identify the owners of what the tax maps indicated to be the affected parcels. The problem was not with the rolls, but with the tax maps, which were prepared not by the Department, but by Columbia County. Mr. Monahan, the Respondent's witness, pointed out that the county's tax maps have carried disclaimers about their accuracy since he began searching titles in 1981. Their wording, which may have varied over the years, now is as follows: "These maps were prepared for reference purposes only. They are not intended for use in the conveyance of land. Absolutely no accuracy or completeness guarantee is implied or intended. All the information on the maps is subject to such variations and Mr. Monahan paraphrased this language as "do not rely upon"; however, if the maps are unreliable, then what is the point of maintaining them? I read the disclaimer as acknowledging the maps' suitability for reference use, but urging caution since the maps do not delineate parcel boundaries precisely. The Department did not use the maps in relation to a land conveyance, but to identify parcels containing [*28] wetland areas, to assist in one of several methods it uses for giving notice of its actions. The tax maps provide a bridge between the Department's own maps delineating wetlands and the tax assessment rolls which identify parcel owners, since the tax rolls, by themselves, do not indicate which landowners should receive Department mailings. As Mr. Vance explained, use of local tax maps is not peculiar to this case, but a regular practice in the Department's wetland mapping. This use is not inconsistent with, or in violation of, any statute or regulation governing the mapping process. The Respondent points out that a 1978 tax map allegedly used by DEC to locate affected parcels (Exhibit No. 11) incorrectly shows the property to be a landlocked parcel, outside wetland H-12, while the deed from Mr. Zaccaro to Mr. Lauri (Exhibit No. 10-A) correctly describes the property as bordering on Route 23, placing it within the wetland area. However, as Staff points out, no law . required it to do a deed search, either to locate affected parcels or to establish parcel ownership. In fact, on the Issue of parcel ownership, the statute allows the Department to rely on tax assessment rolls rather than [*29] a deed search which would likely provide more up-to-date information, but also be more burdensome. In its closing brief, the Respondent relies on Kuhn v. Town of Johnstowns,_248 A.D.2d 828 669 N.Y.S.2d 757 . (3rd Dept. 1998 , and Cipperl y...Town of East Greenbush. 213 A.D._2d 933 623 N.Y.S.2d_967 3rd Deft. 1995L Both cases involve challenges to local zoning changes, and stand for the proposition that, in making such changes, municipalities are required to follow legal notice requirements, or risk having their actions deemed void. In Kuhn, Johnstown failed to comply with its own ordinance's requirement that property owners be informed in writing of a hearing addressing the proposed rezoning of their land. Similarly, in Cipperley, East Greenbush failed to comply with a legal requirement that notice of a zoning hearing be given to nearby • municipalities. These cases cited by the Respondent are not on point--and their precedents do not apply--because they arise in the context of local zoning, and the state's regulation of freshwater wetlands is not a zoning matter. Also, in Kuhn and Cipperley, it appears that the towns failed even to attempt fulfilling the cited notice requirements, [*30] whereas here, an attempt was made, though the intended result was not achieved. In other words, . the Department complied with the directions for giving notice to the extent they are outlined in the freshwater wetlands law, but Mr. Lauri and Mr. Zaccaro, as affected landowners, were not mailed notices due to tax mapping that inaccurately delineated their parcel. In its closing brief, the Respondent correctly points out that the law demands notice to landowners of record not as shown on the tax maps, but as shown on the latest completed tax assessment rolls. However, the Department did not use the tax maps to determine ownership; in fact, the maps do not contain ownership information. https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ce0f4d047lb5d9659a8ld95bd&doenum=l&_fintstr.._ 11/I7/2004 Search- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 10 of 13 The Respondent also points to language in 6 NYCRR 664.7(a)(2)(1) that no activity which has already been initiated at the time of announcement of a proposed amendment to a freshwater wetland map, within an area proposed to be added to the map, will be subject to regulation under ECL Article 24. The Department's 1992 freshwater wetlands enforcement guidance memorandum (at page 19) provides that, in counties where final inventory maps have been filed, upon discovery of a regulated activity occurring without [*31] a permit in . an unmapped jurisdictional wetland, Department Staff should immediately notify the landowner by certified mail and then commence a map amendment process under 6 NYCRR 664.7. The Respondent argues from these provisions that because no such notice has been sent to him, all improvements made to his property up to the present time are not subject to regulation. I disagree. Contrary to the Respondent's assertion, the wetland on his property has been subject to regulation as a portion of mapped wetland H-12 since 1985. The Department is not attempting to change the map, and there is no need for it to do so. Even if the Department's mapping were deemed void, one must also note that wetlands are subject to regulation whether or not the Department has mapped them, as noted in Philip Weinberg's Practice Commentaries for ECL Section 24-0703, which refer to Tri Cities Industrial Park v. Commissioner of Dept. o • f Environmental Conservation, 76 A.D_.2d 232, 430 N.Y.S.2d 411 (3d De,pt.119$0� appeal denied 51 N Y,2d 706,433 N_.Y.S..2d_1026, so holding since ECL Section 24-0703(5) prohibits alteration of a wetland "prior to the promulgation of the final freshwater wetland map in a particular [*32] area . . ." It does not make sense that a wetland meeting the criteria for protection would lose the benefit afforded by the statute due to some failure of the Department to meet a notice requirement of the mapping process. Instead, if the failure nullified some or all of the map, it would appear that the wetland would remain regulated under ECL Section 24-0703 (5) until re-mapping was completed. --Penalty Considerations Department Staff seeks a Commissioner's order assessing a civil penalty of Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($ 18,000): Three Thousand Dollars ($ 3,000) for each of the six alleged violations. ECL Section 71-2703 provides that any person who violates, disobeys or disregards any provision of Article 24 or any rule or regulation issued pursuant thereto, shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to Three Thousand Dollars ($ 3,000) for "every such violation." According to the freshwater wetlands enforcement guidance memorandum (at page 14), each distinct illegally conducted regulated activity that would independently require a permit constitutes a separate violation for penalty calculation purposes. [This position was established in a prior administrative proceeding, In the [*33] Matter of Linda Wilton and Costello Marine, Inc., Decision of the Commissioner, 0 February 1, 1991.] In its closing brief, Department Staff maintains that the maximum penalty for each of its six alleged violations is appropriate because: . (1) Actual harm was done by filling, grading and construction activities in the wetland and its adjacent area; (2) The violations are serious, given that four of the six activities charged are deemed to be incompatible with a wetland and its functions and benefits, and the other two are deemed to be usually incompatible; (3) The wetland contains spotted turtles, a species of special concern, whose habitat could be affected by the • wetland's disturbance; and (4) The violations are extremely important to the Department's regulatory scheme, since conducting regulated activities in a wetland without first obtaining a permit deprives the Department of the opportunity to review and control the activities. . I find that while a significant penalty should be assessed in this case, the one recommended by DEC Staff is not warranted for several reasons. First, I conclude that the charge concerning the road's construction through the wetland is not supported [*34] by a preponderance of the evidence; therefore, no penalty should be assessed for it. Second, I think the penalty should recognize a distinction between those remaining charges that involve activities in the wetland, which are the most serious, and those that involve activities in the adjacent area, which are less serious. This distinction is made by the regulations themselves, which deem the activities that occurred in the wetland to be always incompatible with the wetland, and the activities that • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO471b5d9659a8l d95bd&docnum=l&_fintstr... 11/17/2004 Search- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 11 of 13 occurred in the adjacent area to be usually incompatible with the wetland, recognizing that in some instances such activities may be insignificant enough to be compatible. Here, Staff did not demonstrate any particular harm from the grading of 0.12 acres of the wetland's adjacent area and the placement of the trailer in the adjacent area, along the railroad track. In the absence of additional evidence, I find these two violations to be relatively insignificant, in terms of their impact on wetland values. With regard to culpability, two issues that arise prominently in this case are what the Respondent knew or should have known both about the regulation of the wetland and the activities [*35] that occurred on his property. Because of illness, Mr. Zaccaro did not appear at the hearing, and the record does not contain his account of what happened. However, the parties stipulate that, despite his ownership of the property, he was not mailed notices of either the mapping hearing or the final promulgation of the wetland map. Because they do not live in the area, it is unlikely that Mr. Zaccaro or Mr. Lauri would have seen notices in the local paper announcing the 1982 mapping hearing or the filing of the final wetland order. Also, the Department's wetland designation has never been reflected in the property type classifications that appear on Mr. Zaccaro's tax bills; up until 1994, the bills showed a classification for "abandoned agricultural land," and more recently, classifications for residential vacant land, even though there exists a separate classification for "wetlands subject to specific restrictions as to use." Of course, only part of the Zaccaro property is regulated wetland, which may explain why the wetland classification is not used. At any rate, in the absence of contrary evidence, one must presume that neither Mr. Zaccaro nor Mr. Lauri had actual notice of the [*36] Department's wetland mapping until 1997 or 1998, as argued in the Respondent's closing brief. Even so, one must also consider whether they had constructive knowledge that the property might contain S regulated wetlands. Certainly the testimony and the photographs that are part of the record indicate a broad, low-lying swampy area between Route 23 and the old railroad bed, the same area depicted as wetland on the Department's map. The appearance of this portion of the land parcel, by itself, should have prompted Mr. Zaccaro to find out whether it was mapped before he (or Mr. Lauri, on his behalf) began to work in it. Such an inquiry would not have been difficult to make; it could have been made to the Department or to the locality, both of which have copies of the wetland maps for public inspection. Mr. Zaccaro may not have actually known about the mapping of wetland H-12, but he should not also be able to claim ignorance of the law governing wetland regulation. Overall, Mr. Zaccaro should be considered less culpable than someone who alters a wetland with actual knowledge that it is regulated by the Department. However, consistent with the Department's civil penalty policy, lack [*37] of actual notice should not exonerate him, since the violations charged are strict liability offenses, and hence the violator's mental state is irrelevant to the determination of liability. Instead, Mr. Zaccaro's diminished culpability should indicate that no addition to the penalty that would be otherwise warranted is appropriate. [See DEC civil penalty policy, 6/20/90, page 9 of 15.] As to what Mr. Zaccaro knew about the activities on his property, one must draw conclusions from the testimony of Mr. Lauri, since Mr. Zaccaro did not testify himself. Mr. Lauri is a relative of Mr. Zaccaro, from • whom Mr. Zaccaro acquired the property in 1982. Mr. Lauri has done the site improvements and maintenance for the entire period Mr. Zaccaro has owned the property, and pays the taxes for him as well. It is unclear how often Mr. Zaccaro goes to the property; however, based on the family relationship and the duties Mr. Lauri performs on Mr. Zaccaro's behalf, one can presume that the activities Mr. Lauri performed which are the subject of this proceeding were done with Mr. Zaccaro's knowledge. If Mr. Zaccaro was not aware of these activities, I expect his counsel would have said so, and he did [*38] not. In assessing civil penalties, the Department's policy is to calculate and recover the economic benefit of noncompliance, as noted in the Department's freshwater wetlands enforcement guidance memorandum [2/14/92, page 14 of 20]. Here, Staff made no attempt to establish such benefit, and therefore I find it to be negligible. There is no evidence that the Respondent's violations have increased his property value substantially, or that the violations have produced some profit that the Respondent would not have otherwise . realized. Addressing the penalty factors actually cited by the Department, I find that actual harm to the wetland is apparent from some, but not all, of the violations. The deepening and widening of the drainage ditch would be expected to change the water distribution in the wetland, and the filling of the wetland with dirt from the drainage ditch, and the filling to construct a field along the access road, are obviously damaging. On the other i hand, the grading of a small area of the adjacent area and the placement of a trailer along the railroad bed, https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO47lb5d9659a8l d95bd&doenum=l&_fmtstr... 11/17/2004 *Search - 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 12 of 13 also in the adjacent area, were not linked by the Department to actual harm to the wetland, and, as noted above, [*39] these activities are not considered by regulation to be necessarily incompatible with wetland functions and benefits. With regard to the wetland as spotted turtle habitat, one must note that while the turtle is a species of special • concern, it has not been deemed to be endangered or threatened, in which case activities affecting it would likely be seen as more serious by the Department. Also, the actual concern the Department has with regard to the turtle was not articulated in this hearing, so it is unclear how that concern is related to the activities undertaken by or on behalf of the Respondent. . Finally, I do agree with DEC Staff that the alleged violations (i.e., undertaking regulated activities without a permit) are important to the Department's regulatory scheme. The Department's penalty policy confirms that undertaking any action which requires a DEC permit, without first obtaining the permit, "is always a serious matter, not a mere "technical" or "paper work" violation, even if the activity is otherwise in compliance. Failure to first obtain required permits deprives DEC of the opportunity to satisfy its obligation of review and control of regulated activities. Failure [*40] to assess significant penalties for such violations would be unfair . to those who voluntarily comply with the law by satisfying the requirements of the permit process." [DEC Civil Penalty Policy, 6/20/90, page 8 of 15.] --Specific Penalty Recommendations I recommend assessment of a total penalty of Eight Thousand Dollars ($ 8,000). I recommend a Two Thousand Dollar ($ 2,000) penalty for each of the three following activities: the deepening and widening of the drainage ditch, the filling of the wetland with dirt from the drainage ditch, and the filling that created the field. Lesser penalties of One Thousand Dollars ($ 1,000) each should be imposed for the activities that occurred in the adjacent area: the grading between the wetland and the railroad bed, and the placement of the trailer along the bed. Significant penalties are warranted since all the activities described in the preceding paragraph required Department permits. However, maximum penalties are not warranted for any of the violations because of the unusual circumstances of this case, in which Mr. Zaccaro apparently received no actual notice of the wetland mapping by the Department. --Remediation • In addition [*41] to an assessed civil penalty, the Department requests certain remedial action. I agree that the soil removed from the drainage ditch should be returned to it, so as to help restore the wetland to its prior condition. Also, the fill used to construct the field (or clearing) along the access road should be removed, and the trailer should be moved to an upland location outside the wetland's adjacent area. Finally, the Respondent • should remove from the adjacent area the structure described in the record as a small barn or outhouse, and the two container boxes, unless he receives Department approval to leave them where they are, or convinces the Department they are not subject to regulation. I find that the access road itself predates the mapping of the wetland, and activities occurring along it through 1998 constitute permissible maintenance and repair. However, as noted above, there is some indication from . Mr. Koloski's testimony that the road has recently been widened. While this possible widening was not charged by the Department, it deserves further investigation. --Suspended Penalty To help ensure that the remediation recommended in this report is performed, I propose suspending [*42] payment of Six Thousand Dollars ($ 6,000) of my recommended civil penalty provided that the remediation is • completed by the Respondent within 60 days of receipt of the Commissioner's final order in this matter. CONCLUSIONS The Respondent, Mr. Zaccaro, violated ECL Section 24-0701(1) and 6 NYCRR 663.4 by undertaking the following activities in wetland H-12 without Department permission: • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ce0f4dO47lb5d9659a8ld95bd&docnum=l&_fTntstr... 11/17/2004 Search- 7 Results - Ordinary maintenance and repair Page 13 of 13 (1) Deepening and widening a drainage ditch; (2) Filling the wetland with dirt from the drainage ditch; and • (3) Filling the wetland to construct a field or clearing. The Respondent also violated ECL Section 24-0701(1) and 6 NYCRR 663.4 by grading and placing a trailer in the regulated adjacent area of wetland H-12, again without Department permission. The Department's charge that the Respondent constructed a road through the mapped wetland is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. RECOMMENDATIONS For the violations that were demonstrated in this proceeding, the Respondent should be assessed a total civil penalty in the amount of Eight Thousand Dollars ($ 8,000), apportioned among the charges as noted in the discussion section of this report. Two Thousand Dollars ($ 2,000) [*43] of this penalty should be paid to the Department within 30 days of receipt of the Commissioner's final order by the Respondent or his attorney. On the condition that the remediation I have recommended occurs within 60 days of receipt of the Commissioner's final order, payment of the remaining Six Thousand Dollars ($ 6,000) should be permanently suspended. The charge that the Respondent constructed the road through the wetland should be dismissed. • Source: New York>Agency&Administrative Materials>NY Department of Environmental Conservation Decisions U Terms: ordinary maintenance and repair (Edit Search) View: Full Date/Time: Wednesday, November 17,2004-6:08 PM EST • About_LexisNexis I Terms and Conditions Copxri.ght© 2004 LexisNexis,a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.All rights reserved. • • • • https://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=3224680ceOf4dO471 b5d9659a81 d95bd&docnum=l&_fintstr... 11/17/2004 27 when you're installing it, you can say it's going to here or here, it's still going to be 120'. You're measuring from the water side. Give us a drawing that shows it to scale. Draw it up and measure it because you're not going to get the permit until you get the plans in. IAN CROWLEY: So you want it 120' from the end of the fixed pier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward end of catwalk. Then you have that where you want to swing it in. We'll leave that up to you. OSCAR BLEVINS: There is no possibility of having hand-rails because I young children, grandkids? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They can walk down to the end of the ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have little kids too and hand-rails don't stop them. We really want to keep it low. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's an open marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you keep it no hand-rails and come back in a year and see how it worked out. You might be satisfied with it. The problem with have with these high docks, it's such a seasonal use. They aren't using these things every day or twice a day or something. They are using them how many times over the course of the year. These docks are getting higher and higher and higher and it's a major impact on a wetland that's really, it's not like a sidewalk that you use everyday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's only 2 '/2' high, they'd jump off of there. OSCAR BLEVINS: Ok, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 120' catwalk, 3' wide, 2 1/2' high with a 3'X 16' ramp and a 6'X 20' float in an 1" configuration secured with two 2-pile dolphins subject to receipt of new plans showing the exact location and that the marsh should be restored, excess fill material from the pile installation should be removed after the piles are jetted in. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DR. JOHN ALOIA requests a Wetland Permit for the re-built existing stairway inkindlinplace, that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck which was expanded to 16'X 24'. Rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. Located: 8145 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant, Mr. Aloia and I'm here if you have any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else, there is a letter here that I'll read, but is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor of or against the application? JOHN ALOIA: This is somewhat complicated because...(changed tape) damage and actually this was done with failure of a permit by Costello Marine simply because there was a clerical error in their office and we apologize for that. The deck is fits in with the aerial that's similar to decks throughout Nassau Point and 28 we are seeking approval. There is an objection from our neighbors that have to do with something that we think isn't related to what we have before you and that is repairs that was made on sheathing of our jetty, which we understand is minor repairs and didn't require a permit. What we request is that we be issued a permit for a deck, which is what we've applied for and what we're here for to speak for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment? PAT MOORE: I have Mr. & Mrs. Manago here who are the adjacent property owners and I also asked Mr. Samuels to stay because he did the work on the Manago property and the letter that was sent by Dr. Aloia, most recently and I just got a copy of it, alleged that some of the work that was being done was based on some damage that Mr. Samuels did, or Rambo Construction, did to the property and I think that it was only fair that Tom address that because he was very careful, very specific, in the area that he was working. With respect to the permit before you, the reason that he's here is because of the notice of violation. But, in that interim, we were given, my clients were given notice of the work that was done and they also noted that the permit did not include any of the work to the jetty. We would respectfully disagree that it was minor work done to the jetty and it appears from the record in this file that back in 1995 there was an application based on a survey that we think is inaccurate and that survey with that application came with a request to extend and rebuild the jetty 14' out in a shore area, I guess nearshore area... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, did we issue the permit to repair that jetty? PAT MOORE: Apparently in 1995 you issued a permit for a 14' off the end of jetty however that work was never done, not to our knowledge it wasn't done. This past year, significant work was done to the jetty that is not that 14' area but in fact the area along the beach and was actually an expansion of the jetty and in fact has caused some significant affects on the Manago's beach because the jetty that had been built and was functioning was not functioning completely so that there was still some ability for the Manago beach to be re-nourished. Since it was repaired, there have been affects on the Manago beach. I asked Tom because he's certainly more qualified than I am to explain the work that was done and the affects right now that the jetty that has been, the work that has been to the jetty, affects my client's property. TOM SAMUELS: Just very brieftly, the jetty is the Manago's property down-lift, the literal drift, which is north to south and the jetty is or has been scouring the property. I have no way of knowing to the extent of it's increased by way of repair to the jetty, however, and I'm certainly not prepared to answer the question as to who actually owns the jetty, which is another problem, but I would like to make a point to the letter that was written describing the damage that was done to the jetty when we re-built the Manago bulkhead. That couldn't be more inaccurate and false. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I just want to get this straight because I'm not sure who's on first here. You work for Manago? TOM SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you work for Aloia? 29 TOM SAMUELS: Some years ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you work for Manago? PAT MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you work for Aloia? PAT MOORE: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is everybody following this because I'm not following this at all. PAT MOORE- Aloia has an application before you after given a notice of violation. There has been additional work that's not covered under the permit application that's before you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But whose jetty is it? PAT MOORE: We think it's the Manago jetty based on our very current and specific survey. We have stakes that were actually placed on the property and we have photographs that Mr. Manago took and didn't go over them with you that clearly show that the jetty, at minimum, begins on the Manago property, and extends out into the water. The Aloia's have an old survey that I don't believe addressed the waterfront very carefully because it was dealing mostly with upland issues. Surveyors, unless you're very specific with them, really won't deal with waterfront issues. They are primarily concerned with the meets and bounds based on the deed and prior descriptions. TRUSTEE SMITH: This permit that they're looking for tonight, all they're requesting is a Wetland Permit for the existing stairway, inkindlinplace, that lead to an exiting 8'X 12' deck with an expanded 16'X 24', and retaining wall. PAT MOORE: I understand that, but their application is incomplete. They made additional work to a jetty that they did not own and don't have an application before you. They're in violation in addition on the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did they do the work? PAT MOORE- At the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, how do you know they did the work? Did you see it? PAT MOORE: My client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, did you see it? PAT MOORE: Mr. Krupski, did you see it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's why I'm asking you, who did the work? PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello has admitted that he did the work. There is no question that the work was done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to figure out whose doing this work and when, and is there a permit. PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello is the contractor. They survey is an accurate survey that shows that the jetty belongs to the Manago's. You have an application before you that incomplete. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the survey that shows it's Mr. Manago's? MR. MANAGO- This is the survey and John Metzger signed it. (Mr. Manago is not speaking into microphone.) If you look at their survey, you'll see that the same jetty is on their survey as well but their survey is inaccurate because these lines are exactly parallel, but his property is not parallel. It goes from 100' of the road and it ends, and it says it right there, the lines do not match. That's why I'm 30 convinced that my survey is absolutely right. John Metzger assures me that it is. I own the jetty. It is on my property, not on their property. TRUSTEE SMITH: And he repaired it? MR. MANAGO: Who did? TRUSTEE SMITH: Costello. MR. MANAGO: Mr. Costello repaired it. He worked for the Aloia's, when we were away. We did not know he was doing it in advance. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well he repaired it. So what's the problem? MR. MANAGO: Because it's now destroyed my beach environmentally. I have no beach. This is what's happened to my beach. These are before pictures and these are after pictures, and I get all of the muck and seaweed. We have also, there is a rock jetty. All of this, every time it rains, and at high tide, not at low tide, but at high tide, this is what my beach looks like, in the last couple weeks. So, we are convinced, you see, they raised the jetty. They raised it by another 6". They put a board, and I think you can see the board. So when Mr. Costello came to my house, he said he would remove part of it. I said, what are you going to remove all of it. All of the work he did, they replaced the entire south side of the jetty, which now captures everything onto my beach and if you look at this, you can't swim in this. It's horrible. So I said to wait for the meeting and let's resolve this because when we came to my house, I pointed out the stake marks and the monuments, and you realize now the jetty is on my property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well Mr. Costello should remove whatever you want removed then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's hear what Mr. Costello's story is because this is getting more interesting. JOHN COSTELLO: This Board is aware that there is application for the deck. I don't know why we're even interviewing anything to do with the jetty. I have a survey that was submitted by the owner of the property that was dated in 1984. That is almost 40 newer that the one Pat was saying about the pond in VanTuyle's earlier. This survey was part of the application, it was given to you as part of the application, and indicated that the jetty was on his property, Mr. Aloia's property. That has nothing, it's all totally irrelevant to the application. He had a violation on the deck. The violation included making an application before this Board for the deck, so we did. Let me tell you, I don't know if Mr. Aloia's house is the neighbor's house is where it's supposed to be, if the setback is... I know none of that. I don't even care. All I want to do is address everything that is relevant to the application that you have before you. That's it. The bulkhead is shown on the 1984 survey that is certified with Title Ins. I have no idea whether that Title Ins. Co. is still in business but the fact of the matter is the survey. Whether one survey is right and one is wrong, I have no idea and it's not part of this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can't both be right. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, it's irrelevant to this application for the deck. The deck, I believe, is 100% on Mr. Aloia's property and I do admit the guilt that we did make it bigger than we should of and we're before you, with the 31 application, for the deck that going behind the bulkhead, environmentally it has no impacts, but that's the application. TRUSTEE SMITH- The jetty is a separate issue. That's a direct violation. JOHN COSTELLO: When they can find out who owns which two feet of it... TRUSTEE SMITH- I don't care who owns it. That's a violation. JOHN COSTELLO- I don't know if...we'll have to go out and find out if it's a violation. If it is, ... TRUSTEE SMITH: It's higher than it was John. Even if it's a repair, you're making it higher, it's a violation. If you did it inkind/inplace, I could say that's a repair. But, when you go higher, that's a direct violation. JOHN COSTELLO: You're going to give me a violation, now? For what? The issue, your Bay Constable went out to the site and issued a violation for the deck. We are doing exactly what we were told. That's simple. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what I told the other people in Nassau Point who had the problem with the surveys. Here we have two surveys showing two different things. There's a survey here and you can see where Mr. Costello looked... MR. MANAGO: That's not an original survey. Those lines were drawn in there. Both cannot be right. The words and the lines cannot be right, so the survey is inaccurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is if Dr. Aloia came in here last month, two months ago, three months ago, whatever, and said I want to build a deck, I want to fix the jetty, we would have looked at this, we would've said, to be honest with you, because we get these surveys all the time. We can't verify them, we shouldn't have to. They are stamped by a licensed surveyor. We shouldn't have to verify them. MR. MANAGO- That's not what the property looks like today. That is obsolete. The property doesn't look anything like that. There have been major alterations on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what you're saying, I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. MANAGO: You make an application to any of the Boards and just put any survey, even a very old one, if that's not what the property looks like. All we're asking is that they get a new survey and this will then, I think, will show the real facts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; But that's going to have to be worked out between you and your neighbor because we're looking at this for environmental... PAT MOORE: But right now you've got a violation that wasn't complete. The notice of violation had to be...if the Bay Constable realized that the work was done to the jetty, he would've also included that into the notice of violation and the permit would've been... JOHN COSTELLO: You don't know that Pat. You can't mind read the Bay Constable. MARK ALOIA: Those are my parents. I happen to be an attorney and when saw that they got a letter from an attorney I came but I didn't that it was going to be necessary for me to speak. There are a lot of factual inaccuracies with what they are saying and we could be here all night and we can do that because we 32 have photographs and affidavits and so forth and we can through that as to who owns what and where the border really lies and so forth. In any event, I thought, and I'm hopeful, is the determination going to be just on the deck, or are we discussing the jetty as well, because then we have a lot of proof that we have to offer as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the jetty came up as a surprise to the Board. MARK ALOIA: There was a letter written to the Board by Ms. Moore discussing the jetty and raising issues about the jetty. It had nothing to do with our application. Basically, from what I see, the deck, there is no objection from the Manago's about the deck. The deck is very much like every deck all along Nassau Point. It's the same thing. Every house you can see on either side, as far as you can see, has the same thing. As far as the jetty goes, we have unfortunately a bad neighbor situation. If we have to decide who owns what we could do that. I don't think this is the place to do that. TRUSTEE SMITH: What do you say if we take care of the deck tonight? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Let's just act on the application before us and let them hash the rest of it. MARK ALOIA: We own the jetty and I have to tell you, I believe, and I don't know if it was you, but someone ... we don't care what the jetty looks like or is repaired. We care that there is a jetty there because it preserves the beach. We don't tell specifically, we want to repair it here, or we want three things over here, there are holes there, we rely on Costello to tell us what we need. If it's wrong, then it's got to be taken down. We'll take it down. Oh by the way, the timber was put in like three or four years ago under that other permit. It was not put in recently. I have pictures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but the problem is, if the Bay Constable goes out, who gets the violation. MARK ALOIA: That's right. They want the violation. Quite frankly, the permits have been issued to our predecessor, all the permits for the jetty. He doesn't own the land underwater. So, the permits were issued for the construction of the jetty. The last permit that was issued, was issued to my parents. We have spent a lot of money repairing it and now we have our neighbors telling us oh, thanks a lot for repairing it but you know, it's our jetty, and take it down. In any event, what I would really like to know is whether any thing is going to moved on something beyond the application that's before you. If we go beyond that we have things to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, the jetty is going to have to be restored to what is was, the height. Is it going to take 6 hours of work, or is going to take 6 years of haggling. That's going to be up to the two neighbors, I'm afraid. MARK ALOIA: Well are they going to pay to remove it? PAT MOORE: I think it was unauthorized when it was done so I think you know the answer to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the choice is going to be between the Aloias and the Managos. MARK ALOIA: Well we can send Costello down to take it down. 33 PAT MOORE: That would certainly satisfy my clients to have them take it down because the whole purpose here is to allow the jetty to deteriorate because that is actually preserving his beach more so. MARK ALOIA: I mean I don't like it, it's bulky. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if we send the Bay Constable out and it's not there, and it's not there, then there's no violation. Right? PAT MOORE: But there's a great deal more than just that strip that was added. There was sheathing that was added as well. MARK ALOIA: You mean you want us to pull the sheathing out? PAT MOORE: That's what was working before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the sheathing that was pulled out Pat? PAT MOORE: My clients testified to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but did you see it? PAT MOORE: Is that a joke? TRUSTEE SMITH: Let's move on with the deck. The jetty is through for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any other comments? PAT MOORE: Do you want the photographs for the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like them. MARK ALOIA: Well is you're giving things for the file, then I'll start. PAT MOORE: Now he has to remove it or it will be a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. That 6 X 6 on top either has to be removed or it's a violation. PAT MOORE: What about the sheathing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you think you have a legitimate claim besides the 6 X 6, that the jetty was altered either in height or in length... MR. MANAGO: All of the sheathing has been replaced on my side and all I wanted to do was to work it out with the Aloias, in a reasonable way. TRUSTEE SMITH: Why don't you two work it out between you? MR. MANAGO: Well we are trying to resolve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see this resolved by you. JOHN ALOIA: We ask that you give us the permit for the deck and we'll work to resolve whatever has been changed to the jetty. I'm certainly not...the jetty was built by the person who sold us the house. The neighbors on both sides who lived there knew that it belonged to the house and all I ask to have done was repair some rotted sheathing. I'm not going to tear out sheathing and drill holes in the jetty, but if there is any obstruction, we'll see to it that it's removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to resolve, obviously, the ownership issue tonight so let's not even mention it. PAT MOORE: So, it either gets resolved or the Bay Constable will go out. TRUSTEE SMITH: Right, the Bay Constable is the enforcement, so you have to contact them. MARK ALOIA: So the permit for the deck is... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're considering. The permit for the deck, and rebuilding the existing stairways, and the rebuilt and expanded retaining walls. Do you have any comment on those? 34 MR. MANAGO: I have no objections on whatever they want to do on their property other than that. I just wanted them to get a new survey. I didn't think that either this Board or the Building Dept. would want a survey that's inaccurate. The Building Dept. needs an accurate survey. That's all I wanted. I think that would be the first step in our resolution as to who owns what. Mine goes out to the high water mark and there's does not. They're assuming that they own for some other reason but it's on my land. No matter what happens, it's on my land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not disputing that. Certainly your statement is backed up by a really recent survey. MR. MANAGO: That's all we ask is that they get a more recent survey. MARK ALOIA: Really, there is so much more history and how things have been over the last... before they even looked here, but we really don't want to get into that. I would again ask that we talk about the other issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we Approve the deck, the existing 8'X 12' deck expanded to 16'X 24% rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of RICARDO RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 4'X 46' dock, inkindlinplace, and extending it another 10' for a total of 56' then continuing with a new 32"X 16' ramp leading to a new 6'X 20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Install two single mooring piles. Install 142' new bulkhead in front of existing and reconstructing 30' existing jetty in-place with "C-Lac" vinyl sheathing for each. Located: 1875 Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There were structures built on his property. JOHN COSTELLO, I didn't build either one of these structures, but I can tell you when the bulkhead was built. I was built probably in the late 50's by Ralph T. Preston Inc. with a company that I had affiliation with somewhat later on. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What about the retaining walls. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea, oh I can tell you, it was built in 1984, because I saw a contract by Edgar and Austin Burke, but they had a contract from that company at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to read a letter here from Robert Stackler. (Trustee Krupski reading letter on file.) Ok, where are the photographs. These are the ones that don't show the retaining wall, or the shower. So, we have an issue here, the dock, the jetty, which we saw there was a jetty, a retaining wall and all the pipes coming from the bulkhead. Now there was an old survey from 1972 that shows a bulkhead and a return. You see, we can't permit a return on someone else's property, as I'm sure you know after tonight's meeting. Board of Trustees 8 January 22, 1999 higher height. And that's why that shoreline took such a beating in the Halloween storm and the Dec. 1995 storm. waves travel through the water and in deep water there's waves under water, and when it hits that shoal it just comes up and builds up. So that ' s the problem. i don't think the bulkheads are too high for 99% of the weather that we get and these structures are constructed to last about 35 years hopefully. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Any Board comment on this? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: A buffer zone? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : He ' s got a pretty big one now. ROB: It' ll go back to at least what it is now. I think we' re showing it as 15 ' . There is natural non-lawn vegetation that goes back further than the 15 ' and that will be maintained. TRUSTEE KING: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I ' ll make a motion to approve the application with condition, that a 15 ' buffer be maintained landward of bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 6 . Costello Marine on behalf of BUD HOLMAN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct three low-profile jetties ' one 65 ' and two 50' long. Located: 350 Park Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM 4123-7-8 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of this application? JOHN COSTELLO: In meeting with this Board on site a week or so ago Mr. Holman. . . . .and I recommended that he approve maintenance all three jetties the same length and lowering the elevation of the west jetty approx. 34" . He agreed, very reluctantly, because he said it seemed at times where it is as high as that Jetty. But when I told him it served no purpose on saving his bulkhead, and the low profile groins would assist everyone and provide better access along the beach, he agreed to go and resubmit the drawing showing that the amendment. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : In the drawing it shows what we discussed on field inspection. KEN: The eastern one drops out. JOHN: It drops out. But if your standing at the west one it winds through the preexisting jetties that are dawn the beach. You' ll find out that the west jetty, even though there's that jog in the bulkhead, would be roughly in line with what is preexisting along the beach. The only jetties that are . longer is the single one to the west and the west jetty on Mr. Holman's property. TRUSTEE KING: So the new west jetty is gonna measure 541 . JOHN: Yes . And as Mr. Samuels said earlier, there is a tendency right now to have to be going through a phase of shoaling in that area and the aerial photographs that I showed this Board previously, shows that most of the literal drift of sand is off shore and inshore, not east or west. Depending upon the right wind conditions it ' s on shore in that area. There is a major degree of sand on shore right now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : More so than 20 years ago? Board of Trustees 9 ,"January 22, 1999 JOHN: Well it depends upon weather conditions. We've had barges in there 20 years ago supplying material. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Move to close the hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I ' ll make a motion to approve the application based on the resubmitted drawing where all three groins be 54 ' and low profile in nature. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Second. ALL AYES 7 . Costello Marine on behalf of JAMES RILEY requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4 ' X 35 ' catwalk (4 ' above marsh) a 4 ' X 60 ' fixed dock, a 3 ' X 12 ' ramp and a 6 ' X 20 ' float with 2- 2 pile dolphins 20 ' offset from each side of float. Located: 3600 Vanston Road, Cutchogue. SCTM #111--5-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would .like to speak on behalf of this application? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : When we visited the site, the one thing that struck us was the neighbors dock which has been there a long time . Really we would much have Mr. Riley's dock placed adjacent to the neighbors dock. And make that sort of a boating. area. We'd rather not bisect each parcel with a dock and a boat. In this case keep your dock with the Collins dock together. So your not going over the marsh, the boats will be staying in the one general area. JOHN: Certainly we had that intention at one time. It was discussed with the Army Corps of Engineers and actually recommended that it be away from the top of the line. The DEC obviously (could not understand him) The neighbor, Mr. Collins had very little concern whether it was gonna restrict his dock. I think the location is fair. Your probably right. I can't say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Our general policy is to have the dock no closer to the property line than 151 . We feel that leaves for safe navigation. So we would really rather see the dock placed 15 ' off the property line which would place it on the adjacent to Mr. Collins dock. JOHN: I just had one question for the Board. Would it be possible if the neighbor has concerns to angle it slightly, to start it at 15 ' off the property line and angle it towards the center of the property just so we don't interfere with navigation with the neighbor. JAMES RILEY: If you look at the property, the one concern we have with that is about 90% of the property, there' s only on little patch of a beach where the kids could go down to the water, and that ' s exactly where your suggestion is. . . . . . I only need 10 ' and if I had that would be fine. Now I 'm just concerned about where they're gonna come down there and there's the dock. . . . . . just from a safety perspective: I would prefer to be away. I just don't have any room to maneuver. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Except that right now they're swimming right next to the Collins dock. I 'm familiar with that. I swam there as a kid. MR. RILEY: I just wanted to imagine if I came out on that beach like that, straight out where are they gonna swim? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Do you want to meet us out on the site? Board of Trustees 19 '` January 22, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 2 . Costello Marine on behalf of NANCY L. WALZOG requests a Grandfather Permit for existing easterly jetty that is 3614" with approx. 9 ' of rock jetty at the end and elevation approx. 12" above beach grade on west side and approx. 16" on east side, and existing westerly jetty with approx. 8 ' of rock jetty at the end, the west side is approx. 18" above beach grade and approx. 24" on the east side, with two shorter jetties in the center of property one on each side of the existing 5 ' X 14 . 5 ' dock, an existing stairway that extends from the top of the bulkhead to the lower dock. The stairway is 5' wide and has a rise of 31 .5" , and a pre-existing port of decked dock from the bulkhead 5 ' X 14 . 5 ' and is approx. 1 ' to. 1 . 5 ' above beach grade, existing 4 undecked pile bents encompassing 26 ' on length, 3 of which have cap timbers installed, an existing 6 ' wide X 36 . 8 ' deck over the beach, and an existing bulkhead 115 ' long with a 29 . 9 ' eastern return, and an existing house. Located: 12832 Main Road, East Marion. SCTM #31-14-15 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application pending proof of 'Grandfathering", TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 3 . BARBARA BODKIN requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing bulkhead, wood deck, stairs, cement seawall and floating dock. Located: 610 Bayview Drive, East Marion. SCTM #37--5-2 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES 4 . John deReeder on behalf of RONALD CASSARA requests a Grandfather Permit for an existing set of stairs down bluff and to repair any damage to them. Located: 30185 Cabot Woods Road, Peconic. SCTM #73-4-1 TRUSTEE FOSTER moved to approve the application, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES V. MOORINGS: 1 . DANIEL V. O'BRIEN requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a 25 ' sailboat. Applicant is taking over a mooring previously owned by Garben. ACCESS: Private - ROW 2 . JOHN PEARSON requests a mooring in Jockey Creek for a outboard. Applicant is taking over a mooring previously owned by Garben. ACCESS : Private 3 . HENRY J. LOEFFLER requests a mooring in Deep Hole Creek for a 16 ' outboard. ACCESS : Private - ROW TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to adjourn the meeting, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Board of Trustees 20 January 22, 1999 Meeting Adjourned at: 9 :40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: 0 / 4z4-__ Diane J. Herbert, Clerk IU MINUTES FEBRUARY 24, 1999 PRESENT WERE: James King — Vice President Henry Smith —Trustee Ken Poliwoda— Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk Scott Hilary— CAC Chairman ABSENT: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. —President Artie Foster--Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 at 12:00 Noon NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 21, 1999 Regular Meeting. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 1999. A check for $4,862.43 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. 11. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. 1I1. AfvlENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Costello Marine Contracting on behalf of CLEAVES POINT CONDO. requests an Amendment to Permit 44224 to install four 4'X 30' fingers, four 4'X 25' fingers and I� TRUSTEE SMITH: Yeah, because it's something that's, you know, that's something that's there, but it's not your fault. TRUSTEE KING: It's nothing that can't be fixed either. WILLIAM PRICE: As far as the stipulation is concerned, I'm stipulating on the record that there will be no lawn on the bayside of the property. That I can stipulate because that is something that i can control. As far as the water run-off is concerned, all I can stipulate to you, because this is the only thing that I can do, is to go to the highway dept. and stipulate that I will work with them in coming up with a solution provided that I can still build my house. TRUSTEE SMITH: I agree. TRUSTEE KING: I agree too. TRUSTEE SMITH: Alright, we'll stipulate that Mr. Price contact the highway dept. and work with the highway dept. to alleviate the water run-off that is now going into his property with out prior permission. Is that tine with you, Bill. WILLIAM PRICE: That's fine. LAUREN STANDISH-. You want a letter from him to the highway dept. before he gets his permit. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well we can't hold his permit up. He has to contact the highway dept. and work-out something later. That's part of his permit. TRUSTEE KING: We'll send them a letter too, from the Trustees. We can request that they take care of this, because I know just what's going to happen, We've been through this and it's an absolute nightmare. Absolute. The neighbors start fighting and the only recourse they have is to sue each other. And I think that is the wrong approach. That's what happens. TRUSTEE SMITH: Can you read that back to us, Lauren? LAUREN STANDISH-. Approve with the stipulation that Mr. Price contact the highway dept. regarding the road run-off drain with some kind of solution to it and/or advise him of it, and have it taken care of and that he will be working with them. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES We can also send a letter to the highway dept. that this is going to be a problem and we want it corrected. SCOTT HILARY: Mr. Price, what I was recommending before was simply that it's a nice native planting that is there currently. That's going to be in your building envelope. It would be to your benefit just to transplant that in the general vicinity if you wish to do so. It's just a suggestion. WILLIAM PRICE: If I can I will. SCOTT HILARY: No, you have the prerogative to do as you will. TRUSTEE KING moved to go back to the regular meeting, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES V. RESOLUTIONS: 1. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of SUSAN SOLIDER requests a Grandfather Permit to remove and replace (IP) existing +/- 34' timber groin with low profile groin to be 15 constructed with C-Loc Vinyl Sheathing. Located: 3270 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#128-6-8 TRUSTEE KING moved to approve with the conditions that the groin be low-profile, the landward end of the groin be no less than b'b" below top of bulkhead, and the overall length of the groin is to be 30' and the remnants seaward be removed. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VI. MOORINGS- 1 FRANKLIN SCHOLL requests a mooring in Deep Hole Creek for a 21' inboard with a 100 lb. Mushroom. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve with the recommendation that the boat have a stern anchor and a 150 lb. Mushroom. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to adjourn the meeting, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at 8:45 PM Respectfully submitted by: Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Albert J.Krupski,President Town Hall James King,Vice-President �O ��G 53095 Main Road Henry Smith P.O..Box 1179 Artie Foster Southold,New York 11971 Ken Poliwoda p Telephone(516) 765-1892 ��►Ol �4� Fax(516) 766-182.9 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES JULY 21, 1999 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr. , President James King, Vice-President. Arthur Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Ken. Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk WORKSESSION: 6 :00 p.m. CALLED MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 at 7: 00 p.m. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT .FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, August 18, 1999 at 12 noon TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVED MINUTES: TRUSTEE SMITH moved to approve the minutes of May 26, & June 23, 1999 minutes, TRUSTEE POSTER seconded. ALL AYES I . MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for May 1999 : A check for $4,628 .23. was forwarded to the Supervisor' s Office for the General Fund. II . AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES; 1. Crowley Construction on behalf of FRANK DI 'ORIO requests an Amendment to Permit #431 to extend existing fixed dock 16 ' . Located: 1650 Mason Drive, .Cutchogue. SCTM #104-7-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI .moved to approve the application for the 16 " extension, the same size ramp, but. 1 float must be removed and the other float must be replaced by a 6 ' X 20.' float only, TRUSTEE SMITH second. ALL AYES Board of Trustees`,' 8 `JUly 21, 1999 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Since he's in the paper work process you might as well formalize that. Because I don't think he has a permit for all, that. ROB: We' ll have to table that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : And then you can 'just Amend the permit to include what he has or what he wants . ROB: Well not if your gonna eliminate it. It doesn't make sense to Grandfather it and then have a condition to get rid of it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : You might as well formalize the bulkhead and all that. He's maintaining it. We didn't have a problem with him maintaining it. I ' ll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Second. ALL AYES 4 . En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of CHARLES LO CASTRO requests a Wetland Permit to replace within 18" approx. 124 ' of existing timber bulkhead and. backfill with approx. 25 c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, remove and replace inkind/inplace existing 61f' of low profile groin, remove and. replace inkind/inplace existing wood deck over bulkhead and wood steps to beach, remove existing wood deck at top of bank and construct a 12 ' X 20 ' wood deck and reconstruct wood steps down bank. Located: 2400 Park Ave. , Mattituck. SCTM #123-8-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the application? ROB: This project has three components and in light of your prior application we will leave the wood deck on the bank as the third component. First of all as far as the replacement of the groin is concerned, some of the recent applications we've had in the last several months we've had a surveyor get more data and. information on the site to help the Board with their decision. Specifically we've been discussing low profile groins, basically what their height is to be from the top of the bulkhead trying to maintain some consistency. The groin here. . . .we have some elevations from the surveyor. If you look at the southeast Corner of the survey, right now the top of the bulkhead is three feet above the beach and 2 . 1 ' above the groins . The groin is a little bit less than .1 foot above grade. So we're proposing to maintain it and reconstruct it in that same manner. The cross section I put max:. foot above beach grass and cirawn it for reference. I should have kept it at the same distance below the top of the bulkhead which is` 2 . 1 feet. At they time tho survey was done (could not hear, too many papers bei-ng shuffled) was several feet beyond. the edge of existing groin. So as far as the length and the height are concerned we're just proposing the exact same structure that they're maintaining, the same low profile, the same configuration. But with no high piling on the end. As far. as the bulkhead is concerned the proposal is for 1811, it would still keep the bulkhead on the landward side of the adjacent property to the east. It would be behind that. This would be the onetime that they would be able to step out and would not infringe on the beach than what's already down there. I can wait for comments from the Board on the deck, but the applicant would like to do is have some sort of sitting area Board of Trusteea-i 9 � ly 21, 1999 in the area of the crest of the embankment. obviously to look out over the Bay and specifically to watch here children playing on the beach. I advised the client that I didn't know what the Boards position would be as far as a) a deck of this size, and b) a deck overhanging the embankment. Those. issues were just . stored in the application. Any comments would be welcome as far as what dimension would be acceptable if a deck set forth for less of an overhang over the embankment or no overhang. Whatever your suggestion the applicant is willing to listen to as your proposal . TRUSTEE KING: This drawing is so small . Is this bulkhead gonna remain the same height? ROB: Yes, everything is to be. . . . .that's why we got the elevations. TRUSTEE KING: The bulkhead to the east is quite a bit higher. ROB: I think on this one, I did want to ask if the Board would be amendable to any increase in the height of the bulkhead. I don' t know if you would to the same height as the neighbors but could we get any increase in the elevation on the bulkhead. TRUSTEE FOSTER: What's on the other side? TRUSTEE KING: About the same as this one. This is a fairly new bulkhead. The biggest problem I had is if they raise the bulkhead to that height, then all of sudden they get the groin up higher and. . . . . . ROB: If we add height to the bulkhead we can just increase the distance from the top of the new bulkhead to the top of the groin. TRUSTEE KING: There' s no erosion problem at all, it's well vegetated, and there' s nothing that's moving around here at all . The groin I would like to keep that at beach elevation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : The same as what it is now? TRUSTEE KING: Yes'. Did the DEC look at this last week? ROB: I don't know that. We haven't gotten a response back from them except from. . . .no they couldn't have because we just a response from DEC asking - for. . . . . .the landward deck. may or may not be in their jurisdiction. We can't locate the bulkhead on an aerial photograph but we have a Grandfather Permit from your Board based on the permits existence in 1960 So we can' t figure out what we're missing. Given the length and elevation of the existing structure in relation to low water and beach grade. I don' t see why would reject this proposal. Usually we get ,into problems where the structure extends considerably seaward of low water or if it's several feet above beach grade. TRUSTEE KING: I don't Like the idea of the deck hanging out over the. . . . TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, you've got to keep the deck above on the lawn area. ROB: Yea, the deck is kind of the last thing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; I think what we would like to see is they remove the turf out from underneath it so you get 'sand underneath it and don't develop any sort of runoff problem. Any runoff would go right down and recharge directly. It's for their own good. We would ask for 1/4" spacing on the deck. Just so we get that recharge and not the build up. Board of Txusteee- ' 10 "'`July 21, 1999 TRUSTEE KING: Could we table it and take a look at it, the whole Board? We could do a joint inspection with the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Whenever they come out we' ll meet with them. TRUSTEE KING: I know Chuck Hamilton was out here last week, and he might have looked at it, I don't know for sure. ROB: Alright. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : They're gonna have comments on the groin. When they come out we' ll be happy to meet with them. ROB: Would you be able to coordinate that with them? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. At the next hearing just have a new set of plans showing at the end of the stairs and not hanging over the bluff. ROB: If there's any way you. could coordinate and review this one the next time the DEC is gonna be out if you could give my office a ring and then I could give you a .set of plans in accordance with what you come back with so we don't have to push . it. I don't think they were gonna do this this summer but I think they wanted to start in September. So if we could wrap it up in August I would appreciate it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Sure. I ' ll make a motion to table the application. TRUSTEE KING: ALL AYES 5. En-Consultants Inc. , on behalf of RONALD & CATHERINE QUINN requests a Wetland Permit to construct a fixed 4 ' X 68' catwalk, a 4 ' X 12 ' ramp and a 6 ' X 20 ' float secured by 2- 8" . in diameter pilings. Located: 1150 Lupton Point Road, Mattituck. SCTM #115-11-13 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : Is there anyone here who would like to speak either for or against the .application? ROB: This is becoming a familiar routine. The dock that is proposed I understand that you met at the site, and as usual I understand the Board wants the dock kept consistent with the dock to the east. As proposed now, although in light of the Ole Jule Lane situation, might want to revisit for an exact point of location. The dock as proposed now is approx. 6 ' longer than the .neighbor. Similar to the Seifert application that you looked at last month, your pretty much looking at 2 to 2 . 2" of water pretty much as far as you can go out. We're trying to get a couple. of more inches at least try for the satisfaction to the DEC. Pushing it in 6 feet to be in line with the neighbors you would still have the same depth on the outboard end of the float. So I' don't think that would be a problem. The only thing 'they would probably want to do something the Southampton Trustees started doing is having a pre-construction conference with someone from Board who wanted to meet with whoever the ultimate contractor is so you can set a pier line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI : I think that's fine with us- however,. the CAC recommends the total length of the structure should not exceed 40 ' from average high water. We measured the neighbors structure and I 'believe it was only 40 ' .out from high water. You 've got 56 ' on your drawing. ROB: what we did when we did the soundings, the shoreline actually extends out as you go to the east there. If you drew a ' Board of Trustees` 20 'V ly 21, 1999 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve. the applicationiwi.th condition that the tackle be put in the first week of April and removed the first .week of October, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3 . THOMAS CARNEY requests a mooring in Goose Creek for a 20 , outboard with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to approve the application with condition that the tackle be put in the first week of April and removed the first week of October, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 4 . MARK OSMER requests a mooring in Goose Creek for a 13' outboard with a 50--100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public TRUSTEE !POLIWODA moved to approve the application with condition that the tackle be put in the first week of April and removed the first week of October, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES 5 . JAN JUNGBLUT requests an onshore/offshore mooring in Jockey Creek for a 25 ' outboard with a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved_ to approve the application subject to applicant purchasing a boat and have Trustee Smith or Poliwoda review application, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES Meeting Adjourned At: 9 :50 p.m. Respectfully Submitted By: ,CEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUT111 LD TOWN CLMK nANE J. HERBERT, Clerk _g g DATE ?/0 HOUR Towm:Clerk, T own.of -cutLpld Albert J.Krupski,President ,� �OgVFF�� � �.,i Town Hall ' James King,Vice-President �y0 53095 Main Road Henry Smith P.O.Box 1179 Artie Fo$ter Z Southold,New York 11971 Ken Poliwoda p � �` Telephone(516)765.1892 Fax(516) 766-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday,August 25, 1999 PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, President James King,Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Tn-istee Lauren Standish, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at 12:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September.22, 1999 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 21, 1999 Regular Meeting TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded: ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for July 1999. A check for $2,715:37 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICESPUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III_ AMENDMENTSIWAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Suffolk Environmental Consulting, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES GROPPE requests a one-year extension to Permit##4754 to construct a single-family dwelling,.septic system, and driveway. Located: 985 Bay Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM453-3-12 TRUSTEE SMITH: There are two new ones there and there are two that supposedly have been replaced. JOHN COSTELLO: Within the last 10 years. TRUSTEE SMITH: So they could be ...there's also a permit for a 6'X 24'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't have a problem with that. They have an old permit for it in this case. JOHN COSTELLO: They're all set, they have a permit for it. TRUSTEE SMITH: Yes, 6'X 24'. Okay, I have no problem with it. JOHN COSTELLO: Good, because they don't want to go through the expense of moving the pilings in if it's unnecessary. One of the pilings has to be pulled out of the water. We could add the ramp and it measured out 16'.. (can't understand) TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. No problem. Any other comment? JOHN COSTELLO: The dock shows on the survey that was submitted in 1971. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the.Permit was issued in 1972. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to Approve the application? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 8. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of CHARLES LOCASTRO requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18") approx. 124' of existing timber bulkhead and backfill with approx. 25' c.y. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace (inkindlinplace) existing+/- 61' low-profile timber groin. Remove and replace (inkindlinplace).existing wood deck over bulkhead and wood steps to beach. Remove existing wood deck at top of bank; construct a 12' X 20' wood deck;and reconstruct wood steps down bank. Located 2400 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-8-12 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of this application? ROB TiERRMANN: Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant. This was actually]held over from last month. I believed we covered all of the ground at last months heating. Everything the Board members seem to feel that was more or less approvable as proposed with the exception of the wood deck which overhangs the crest of that embankment which we had expected could be removed. I believe it was Tabled becausd of a possible consultation and co-inspection with the DEC. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Which never happened. ROB HJERRMANN: Well I would certainly hope that we could move to close this now aftertwo months. TRUSTEE KING: We talked about leaving the groin alone and replace the bulkhead within 18" with the same length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well does the groin have a Permit? I was thinking that we should give the groins Permits that way they would be locked in at those dimensions. TRUSTEE SAM: Well there's nothing-wrong with those groins. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes but justlike on°a lot of places you say,put everything on there. Put everything on the Permit. Everything shown is Permitted. And then that's 16 what you have and then in five years they can replace it with this or that. I think.it would be better to put it all on the Permit. TRUSTEE KING: Put in what's there now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL Right. That's what I mean. Put in what's there now. Show it on a survey and that's what's there, period. ROB HERRMAN: As we had discussed last month, in trying to maintain the groin at it's same elevation.now, we did have a surveyor provide relative measurements, if you look in the bottom right hand corner of the survey, the top of the bulkhead is built 3' above beach grade and 2.F above the groin. So,regardless of how the beach grade would trove, you know that the top,the elevation of the bulkhead is.,9' above the top of the groin. If that makes sense. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, it doesn't. ROB : No,I'm sorry. The top of the bulkhead is 2.I' above the top of the groin. The bulkhead, as we discussed, would be built at the same height. So if the bulkhead is 2.F above the groin, then when the groin would be reconstructed, (noise) and 2.F below'the top of the bulkhead, the same as what it is now. In other words,we've had these conversations where we put marks and things on the bulkhead and in this case we actually had the surveyor provide relative heights so there could not possibly be any ambiguity as to the elevation of the groin. That's the only way to start doing things_ TRUSTEE KING: I've got a measurement of 27 from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'd rather have it on the survey here and then when they go to replace;it, ...*e wmcren't sure...that was our concern, none of it really needed replacing. ROB H RRWAJ14K None of what needed replacing. TRUSTEE UP'SKI: The structure. The groin or the bulkhead. ROB HER RNLANN: That it didn't need replacing? TwsTEE'SMM4 Well the bulkhead, Al, there were some spots in there,but the groin did not definitely.did not need replacing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I'd rather see it here and it shown exactly. It's 25" here and over here it's actually 42" Below the top of the bulkhead. It's marked clearly here where the groin starts,oh I'm sorry, the top of the groin, _..it doesn't matter above the beach, it matters;the top of the bulkhead here, there's 3 1/2' above the groin. ROB HERRWANN- No, where it says"top of bulkhead''there's two items under that. The top of bulkhead is 3' above the beach, which is relevant in the long term but it's' pertinent now because Jim had mentioned he wanted the Bulkhead at the same elevation. TRUSTED KRUP:SKI: Right. ROB HERRMANN-. The top of bulkhead is also 2.I'.above the top of the groin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL• _In that comer. ROB HERRMANN: Correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL But on the west side, it's 3 1/z' above groin_ ROB HERRMANN: Yeah but that's above.the neighbor's groin. It's not a groin that's being replaced. In other words, when the field crew went out, they didn't know how...we asked them just to get relative measurements from both spots. But the only groin here that's being replaced is the one that's actually on LoCastro's property. TRUSTEE KRUP SKr: But I'd rather see this than that. 17 ✓ ROB HERRMANN: It's the type of thing, it's always less expensive for somebody if they have as much as a structure as they can when the contractor is there in one shot. So that's the purpose of doing it. The other option is you wait until it deteriorates and then you lose the beach. And then you come back and you have to fight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure, what's the length of the groin? ROB HERRN NN: It's 61' now and would be 59' in length at the end of construction because you're going to lose about a 1 '/z at the landward end. In other words,the end of the groin would be in the same location seaward but physically 2' shorter. It's a lot of number battling, Al, it's not meant as an insult. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I get it. Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: Just one minute. This bulkhead is going to be built inkind/inplace or in front of? ROB : It's going to be within 18" or it will still be landward of the adjacent bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one adjacent bulkhead. TRUSTEE SMITH: And it's going to be the same height as the existing bulkhead. ROB HEI R'WANN: That's what was discussed at the last hearing, yes. We didn't put it in the application one way or another but I believe Jim had raised that as a concern last month. Basically I would just leave the wood deck out of the Permit period. I don't think he's going to pursue that at all. I can give you a revised plan eliminating the deck. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well actually the survey is what we would stamp approved. Which probably doesn't have a deck_ TRUSTEE KRUPSKL Right. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application as per stamped survey. ROB : I'd better give you a revised plan to incorporate with that Al; because 1.don't think the survey describes any of the work that you're Permitting. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI- Okay. I'm going to Approve this anyway so we can get the drawing:after. TRUSTEE SMITH: The groin is going to be replaced inkind/inplace. ROB HERRMANN: Correct. Same profile. TRUSTEE IMUPSKI: What do you think Artie, Denny? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well it's one of the better ones that I've seen. I'd give a Permit for that one. TRUSTEE KING: These groins are really going to become a problem. Mark.MY word. We already had a problem.with the Homan one that I looked at. It's the same thing. They never should have been rebuilt. As a matter of fact,I think there's a violation. TRUSTEE SMITH: Do you have a DEC Permit? ROB HERRMANN: No we don't have DEC Permit yet. We,have found that when the groins, the problems with the groins is that if the contractor doesn't built it according to the specs that this Board and the DEC approves, that's the problem. So the groins'That we have, if the contractors builds it according to your specs, it creates a situation. What's anticipated here is to now obviate the need to come back in ten years when this thing is deteriorated and the homeowner is losing the beach and then it becomes a:big embroilment as to whether it was there and whether it was functioning. .This way you do it while the contractor is there and you keep the situation as it is now so you don't change the beach. That's why we're offering the data that we're offering. If the contractor comes in and builds this thing a few feet higher, sure it's going to be a tremendous problem. But that's the point of this process, I would think. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Just one question. Relative to the other groins. Is it longer? ROB HERRMANN: Most of their right in that area are about the same length. Most of them are pretty well buried too. There is not too much showing. Jim, I understand your prospective and I hear where you're coming from. If someone gets a Building Permit to build a one-story house and they built a second-story, you can't issuing house Permits in the community. We're trying to help this Board as much as possible in giving as much detail in numbers and as we possible can and having it on the survey so there is no ambiguity after the Permit is issued. That's the best I can do. If it's not built in conformance.you have to issue a violation and.have it corrected. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll mare a notion to Approve the application as per survey and condition of a new set of plans showing the work notes. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. AYES —Foster, Smith, &Poliwoda,NEY—King. 9. En-Consultants, Inca on behalf of MATTTTUCK ASSOCIATES requests a Wetland Permit to replace (within 18" )approx. .104' existing timber bulkhead with 104' C-Loc vinyl bulkhead and backfill with approx. 50 c.y. of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland:source. Located: 7390 Peconic Say Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#126-11-11 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone here like to speak in favor.of the application? ROB HERRMANN Rob Herrmann of En-Consultants on behalf of the applicant, Mattituck Associates. If the Board has any questions, it should be a fairly straight- forward application to replace the bay-front bulkhead within 18" and replace (changed tape)that's.:about it. I don't know if you read any of the property description. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What about this little jog here on the east side of the property- ROB HERRMANN- Actually, it's the neighbors. TRUSTEE K.RUPSKL I know. ROB HERRMANN The jog is there now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No but it's going to make a little corner because you're going to make an indentation. TRUSTEE K NG: I didn't.have a problem.with any of the bulkhead but I have a question. You just did one where you replaced the groin but how come nothing is being done withthis'groin and most of it isn't even functional? ROB'HERRMANN: Because the homeowner hasn't asked to do it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's not functional? TRUSTEE KING: It tipped up about 3' in the air and laying over on an angle. ROB HERRMANN: And it's got a gap. TRUSTEE KING: I would recommend removing the groin while there in there putting in the new bulkhead, take that groin out, if it's not functional. y y . � 35 �•' 1. WILLIAM BUHLER requests an onshore/offshore stake in Goose Creek for.an 8' dinghy, Goose Bay Estates, ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until further notice from the Town Attorney. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 2. GARY RIEHL(COADY)requests an onshore/offshore stake in Goose Creek for a 10' paddle boat, Goose Bay Estates. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Table the application until further notice from the Town Attorney. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES .3. CHARLES KIRSCH requests an onshore/offshore stake in Corey Creek for a 14' outboard. Access: Private TRUSTEE POLTWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SM11H seconded. ALL AYES 4. DONALD STEWART requests a mooring permit for a 16' boat with a 100 lb. Mushroom in Broadwaters Cove. ACCESS: Private TRUSTEE POLTWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH moved to adjourn the meeting. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 10.45 PM Respectfully submitted, oyatA/Lp-0 -rn Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK DATE /a, �. HOUR,3::Ys Town Clerk, Town of Southold MINUTES Thursday, February 24, 2000 TOO PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL MEETING TO ORDER NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Tuesday, March 14, 2000 at 11:00 am. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, March 22, 2000 at 7:00 PM, WORKSESSION: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 26, 2000 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2000. A check for $5,117.94 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. 1I, PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTSIWAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. Richard Zahra on behalf of the MARLENE LANE CIVIC ASSOC. requests a Waiver to place a portable sunfish boat rack on their privately owned beach. Located: Peconic Bay Blvd., Mattituck. SCTM#126-6-10 TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve the application with the condition that the boat rack is placed on the northside of the concrete bulkhead and that it is seasonal from May 31 — Oct. 31. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of KENNETH & DEBORAH SEIFERTH request an Amendment to Permit #5010 for a 4'X 66' fixed catwalk, elevated a min. of 2.5' above marsh grade, with 4'X 4' stairs at the landward end and 4'X 5' steps at the seaward end; and a 8" diameter piling and pulley system. The fixed catwalk will extend approx. 3 V 18 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that pictures be taken north and south, before and after construction and that a letter of request made to Mrs. Mueller to remove remains of wooden ramp on the corner of the property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 10. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of DAVID & ANN CORIERI request a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (in-place) (2) +/-50' existing timber groins with vinyl groins. Located: 412 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM#123-7-9.2 ROB HERRMANN- I know the Board has been down to the site and was impressed as I was by the amount of up-drift build-up from the replacement of the Homan groin up- drift. I believe that Mr. Corieri had, shortly after the time of the construction of that groin, contacted this Board and also the DEC regarding, basically inquired as to whether that groin had in fact been constructed in compliance with the Permits. It is my understanding, please correct if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that it was this Board's determination that the structure was constructed in accordance with its' permit and based on conversations with staff at Marine Habitat Protection at DEC that it conformed with their permit as well. DEC staff had indicated to me that they would obviously approve the Corieri's application to reconstruct those groins in front of the Corieri property in an attempt to regain back some of that beach. Mr. Corieri had indicated to me that the Board had some comments and it certainly it seems like a matter worth discussing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? We just got a letter from apparently the neighbor_ (Al read letter from neighbor.) CAC recommends Approval. ROB HERRMANN: Just a quick response not only to that letter but also just to clarify a statement that I made earlier, for the record, because it wasn't entirely correct. What had also been indicated to me by the DEC staff was that, the project was undertaken in terms of the part that was actually undertaken, was undertaken in conformance with their permit. In other words, the groin that was reconstructed, and whatever, and I'm not sure which groin it is on that Homan property, but one of them was to have been cut back and has not been cut back. That may be part of the cause of why there has been such an excessive build up on that up-drift. Now I don't want to mis-speak because I don't have a Homan plan or permit in front of me. I have not gotten a hold of it. But, my understanding was that one of those groins was supposed to be cut back and was not. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We you on the site recently? ROB HERRMANN: The last time I was there was probably about a week ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We were there also a week ago. We always hear you talk about if you replace the groin, the way it is, it won't have any effect on the literal drift of sand movement or sand deposition. ROB HERRMANN- I would never say a groin has no effect on the literal drift. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no, if you replace it inkind/inplace. It should have no effect. ROB HERRMANN: Of a functional groin. That's right. If a groin is not functioning whatsoever (can't hear). I would never say to the contrary. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but, so how can you explained what happened at the Corieri's. You can see obvious loss of beach. 19 ROB HERRMANN: Basic geology. I mean if you have a groin that is not functioning and you replace it, and again, I can't speak to the facts of whether the groin that was constructed is longer than what was there, whether it's higher than what was there, or whatever, if it is exactly what was there, then what that says to me is that the groin that was replaced, was non-functional. Because the only way you could have that kind of disparity in beach build up is if you, basically you have the same effect as if you constructed a brand new groin. TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. It's a strange situation. ROB HERRMANN: Which to me is basically what the premise of the permitting of groins of both this Board but even more clearly and outspokenly by the DEC is that only the functional portions of groins are allowed to be replaced. Normally you have a situation where the outer end of the groin is deteriorating, there's sheathing falling off, it's collapsing, let's say that's 55' and then it's functional through 40'. The permits that we've consisting gotten at En-Consultants, has consistently gotten from both this Board and the DEC, only is to replace that portion which is functional. I think that's been a clear policy of this Board and a clear policy of the DEC at the reason for that is exactly what you just asked me. That's why I responded fairly emotional to your suggestion that I would make a statement that replacing a non-functional groin with a functional groin would have no effect. Of course it will. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, no I'm saying a functional groin with a functional groin. ROB HERRMANN: Then it should not have an impact, that's correct. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We looked at the Homan groin before we approved the reconstruction, ROB HERRMANN: I would not believe for a second that every foot of that groin all the way out to the end was completely functional and that this groin is exactly the same. It's the exact same elevation from bulkhead to end, the length is the same, it's impossible. It's not even something that's a subject of opinion. I mean, you just walk down there and you look at the difference in the beach. TRUSTEE KING: 1 know. Why is this beach failing so much when these groins are basically pretty functional? Why did they lose the sand out of them? ROB HERRMANN: The only reason, again, that I can think of is that what is usually the most significant part of the groin in this type of area, the literal cell, which is the outermost end. You could have a groin in here that's half that length and you could of built it three feet higher and still not have the kind of effect this has. TRUSTEE KING: We had a lot of discussion on this with the Homan groin, I can remember, because I sat right here and said that I wanted to see it shorter and everybody said, oh no it's there, it's already there, what harm is it going to do to replace it the way it is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It was functional. ROB HERRMANN: If it were functional all the way out to the end, you would not have seen that change. TRUSTEE KING: Well it's happened. ROB HERRMANN: But it's happened because of what you're saying you contested with the Homan application. You said you wanted it shorter. If it had been constructed shorter, you would not have seen this extent of impact. Sure, you would've had some • • 20 beach recovery because that the point of the groin. But the impact of a groin has everything to do with it's length. TRUSTEE KING: Those other groins were supposed to be replaced and they weren't. They didn't touch them. They only did the easterly groin. ROB HERRMANN: The ones that were supposed to be replaced? TRUSTEE KING: They were supposed to be replaced, but they weren't touched. ROB HERRMANN: Okay. TRUSTEE KING: But, I still don't understand why these people lost so much sand. (changed tape) ROB HERRMANN: One thing that is pretty clear, and I can give you the footage, but if you draw a line straight across, first of all the Homan groin is almost 10' longer. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But the other Homan groin is even longer. But the other Homan groin is 15' longer than that one. ROB HERRMANN: That's exactly what I'm saying. If you have this, the end of this groin, did it show on the survey what the existing elevation of the end of that groin was. This is 2 1/2' above the beach according to this survey. 2 1/2' above the beach at the end, whereas the Corieri groin is 1.1'. It's more than a 1' difference in elevation. This groin is a 1' higher and 10' longer than this. So, when we say we're going to replace this inkind/inplace that means the end of this groin needs to end up in that same elevation. I would venture, with all do respect to whoever represented the application, I would say that it's very unlikely that the very seaward end of this groin was almost 2 1/2' above grade before it was replaced. This end may be the same. When we design these low- profile groins, the idea is to get lower and lower and lower until you're below high water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So you're saying it's the elevation that's caused the difference and not the length. ROB HERRMANN: I think it's both. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't think that groin is any longer than the original one. TRUSTEE KING: No, it's not. ROB HERRMANN: But what I'm saying is that it may be more functional in that area. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL• Not that much more functional, Rob. Even if you lost 5' off that, I mean that's a tremendous amount of sand. TRUSTEE KING: My question is if you go further west, why doesn't this one starve this cell? TRUSTEE KRUPSKL Yeah, why isn't that? TRUSTEE KING: It's further out and it's much higher. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The one to the west is longer. 15' longer. TRUSTEE KING: On the Homan property, the furthest one to the west is way out, much higher, why didn't it starve this area like it happened to Corieri's. That's what I don't understand. It's crazy, it doesn't make sense. ROB HERRMANN: That I don't know. TRUSTEE KING: That groin is almost to the top of the bulkhead and goes out way beyond the others and yet these are full. ROB HERRMANN: There's obviously some literal transport here coming down that this outer more highly elevated end of this groin is catching that sand. I mean it's got to be. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The other one should rob that cell and it doesn't. 21 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: If you drilled a nice big hole in the groin, in the end somewhere, wouldn't that allow the sand to pour through? ROB HERRMANN: Oh sure. If you cut it back, if you cut holes in it, I mean, if you take away the functionality at the end of it, sure. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: The sand could then fall through and drift out. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You were saying the DEC wants them to shorten which groin? ROB HERRMANN: What I'm saying is, when I spoke to DEC staff, I was advised that there was some groin or groins on the Homan that were supposed to have been replaced and made shorter and were not. They were left. Mr. Corieri had made the inquiry, I believe, before he even retained me for this project, both with the Board and the DEC. He had asked me a long time ago, if you'll recall, I had represented the prior owner LaConti for the bulkhead replacement, and then I believe the Corieris had come back with the retaining wall and there was a return proposed, and he had asked me at that time about the groins. I had explained to him that they would have to be low-profile, that only the functional portion would be able to be replaced, and he asked me if the groin review would likely take longer and I said yes, and he said well, I'll put this off. So, that's turns out to have been an unfortunate piece of advise by me because in the time that he put it off, the Homan groin was reconstructed and you see the result that you have. So, there's has got to be something about the outer end of that groin, whether it's the elevation or whatever, but again on this survey, the top of the groin is 2.3' above grade whereas the Corieri groin, it's 1.1'. So, it's more than a 1' higher and that's definitely going to make a difference. It has to. That's the entire purpose when the DEC comes out and says it has to be low-profile because if you kept the groin 60' or whatever feet out, 3' above high water, you'd have even more build-up. It's the just the basic functional response of a literal drift, the sand being transported literally along the drift of the beach. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What €'d like to see on this application is instead of where the jetty meets the bulkhead, it's a new bulkhead, instead of saying so many feet above the beach, I'd rather see a measurement from the top of the bulkhead. ROB HERRMANN: What they give you is an elevation of 4.8. What I had asked for was the difference between the top of the bulkhead and the jetty which Joe Ingegno has been good about doing and they sort of mish-mashed it on this one. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Okay. That's what we would like to see. ROB HERRMANN, I can definitely provide that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we just wanted to see if you had any clue as to what happened there. ROB HERRMANN: That would be my best inkling. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, but it doesn't explain why that cell is full. ROB HERRMANN: No, I can't answer as to why that cell vs. the next one up, I mean there's obviously a difference in the sand flow there and it may be the elevation. That's very, very possible. If you get turbulence, any king of storm movement there, there is a good deal of sand that's going to pass over that groin. If you raise the bar, literally, then the sand can't pass over. Again, that's the exact reason why the DEC pays so much attention to discussing the idea of a groin being constructed low-profile. You're going to get the biggest impact, not necessarily up by the bulkhead, because especially if that area is dry most of the time. So, half the time you don't have any literal transport of sand there. Whereas, as you go out into the inter-tidal area and beyond, that's where you're • • 22 getting sand transported literally. So, the elevation of the groin out there is much more critical than at the upland end. You use it as a measure on the upland end because it's the only way to enforce your permit. You assume that the elevation continues to drop down but it's the elevation at the seaward end that's more significant because that's where the geological action is actually occurring. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I agree. Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit. We need a measurement from the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: And to be done inkind/inplace. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Are we going to make these low-profile? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well it should be done exactly inkind/inplace, regardless of what they are now. All in favor. ALL AYES 11. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ANDREW MOORE & KAREN SILVEIRA requests a Wetland Permit to construct an "L" shaped fixed timber dock, consisting of a 4'X 90' fixed catwalk (elevated a min. of 3.5' above marsh grade) 3'X 16' ramp; and 6'X 20' float secured by (2) 2-pile 10" diameter dolphins. Construct a+/-100' vinyl retaining wall to be tied into existing bulkheads to north and south and backfill with approx. 100 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Located: 515 South Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#106-11-21 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak on behalf of the application? ROB HERRMANN: There are essentially two aspects to this application. The first is a request for a retaining wall along the toe of the bank. This would be certainly the most critical part of the application in that there is extreme erosion at that embankment going on. You've got continued loss of upland vegetation coming down that bank, continued loss of soil and you've got that framed shed inching closer to the top of the bank. So the proposal is actually to be a fairly low-sill retaining wall, no relation to the low-sill bulkhead but a low level retaining wall along the very base of that embankment. It's going to be almost 20' landward of where the existing inter-tidal vegetation is now and about 8' landward of where high water is coming up in that area. The retaining wall would be high into the existing structure in both directions. One, to the property owned by Williams and the other by Skinner. The second aspect of the project is, of course, the dock that's proposed. I realize that the Board was out there. It was impossible to do any kind of staking during the time that this application had been submitted and tonight because of the ice. But, the dock is basically has been designed in accordance with the same extension into Mattituck Creek as the Williams' dock, the adjacent dock. Whatever questions the Boards has, I'm here to answer them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: On the dock length, first, we didn't see that. We measured the neighbor's dock. It was 60'. ROB HERRMANN: 60' from... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that was the total length. ROB HERRMANN: Are we looking at the same dock? 40 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: So that would be it then. We would just want you to re-vegetate along there and not disturb beyond the dirt path. You can keep going on with the house. I need a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the plan with hay bales and to re- vegetating along the dirt road. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 26. WARREN CROON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 6'X 6' pressure treated timber retaining wall I1" in height approx. 78' long going from existing neighbor's bulkhead on west side to existing neighbor's bulkhead on east side. Wall is located at top of bank outside of tidal wetland and above mean high water line. Located: 2500 Ole Jule Lane, Mattituck. SCTM4122-4-12 POSTPONED AS PER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST V. RESOLUTIONS: 1. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GERALD RUPP requests a Coastal Erosion Permit to construct a(1) story addition to an existing single family dwelling within an existing brick patio area. Located: 19375 Soundview Ave., Southold, SCTM#51-1-20 POSTPONED AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST— Chuck Bowman will provide further information for March meeting regarding Coastal Erosion, VI. MOORINGS: ` I. ANTHONY PEDULA requests a mooring permit to replace mooring#936 in Mattituck Creek with a 19' outboard and a 100 lb. mushroom. ACCESS: Public. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2, FRIED HYATT requests a mooring permit to replace mooring 9807 in Jockey Creek with a 15' boat. ACCESS: Right-of-way in front of property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 11:15 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Town Trustees MINUTES Wednesday, August 23, 2000 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 at 9:00 AM TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSiON: 6:00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of July 19, 2000. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for July 2000. A check for $2,697.38 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDMENTS/WAIVERS/CHANGES: 1. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. on behalf of ORIENT WHARF CO. requests an Amendment to Permit #474 to allow for the existing 6'X 8' shed, which houses necessary water filtration equipment to remain on the wharf, as long as the filtration system is 15 would but even if they did, the two docks would not interfere and we're still more than 70' to the northeast toward Oiested from where the original dock was proposed, where Kenny had voiced strong concerns about being in the channel, So, I think that this might resolve all of the issues. We should be out of the channel. I would expect the water depths 20' over to be approx, the same to where we looked at over in that area. Out of that channel, I think the two docks would no longer potentially interfere and at least that would also get me off the hook of having to approach the Oiesteds again and asking if they want to revisit these applications when they try to sell the property. Does that look like it will work? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Yes, no problem. ROB HERRMANN: I don't believe it. Speaking of fact gathering process, thank you for your patience and cooperation on this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKL Is there any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded, ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I make a motion we Approve the application as re-submitted with revised plans. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded, ALL AYES 13. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of PETER& BARBARA SWAHN requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct (within 18")+/-103' of existing timber bulkhead; remove +/-65' of failing timber retaining wall; and backfill with approx. 75 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source. Remove and replace (inkind/inplace) (3) low-profile timber groins (58% 39'; 75'); construct 4'X 5' steps to beach; and reconstruct as necessary timber stairs landward of bulkhead. New 64' and 12' sections of bulkhead to be reconstructed+/-2.6" higher than existing to meet existing elevation of 27' section. Located: 2100 Park Ave., Mattituck. SCTM9123-8-8.1&8.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: In the interest of time, I may be able to move this application forward. I understand from Peter Swahn that the Board had been to the site and had made certain recommendations with regard to the reconstruction of the bulkhead, as well as the reconstruction of the groins. I'll share with you what I know and see if it meets your satisfaction and if not we can go further but I have had the opportunity to speak also with Chris Arfsten of the DEC about your recommendations which, if I had stated them correctly with you, he was in agreement with. Rather than reconstructing the bulkhead in it's staggered pattern as it is now, we would tie straight across from point to point in more of a sure diagonal position. Also, as far as the groins, there are two groins there that are very close together, which is sort of a classic pattern on Great Peconic Bay where every single lot was groined at one point and the two lots owned by the Swahns now, they were once, that narrow section, was once a separate lot. The groin extends across onto, or across Mrs. Knoll's beachfront and she has given us permission to reconstruct it but I believe it was the Board's position and I believe it will develop into DEC's positions that while the two other groins, the one of the west, and the 45' groin can be reconstructed, that perhaps that the one that crosses the property line should be removed as part of the project. Chris Arfsten tended to agree with the Board's position and the Swahns did not 16 have a problem with that modification. So, if it's the Board's pleasure, I can give you a revised plan that would meet those specs if you could give us an approval and let us sort of keep moving on this evening. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, it really struck us when we went out there that it would be a lot better for everyone if it was one straight line. ROB HERRMANN: I don't disagree with the comments. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: My only concern here then is keeping the groins in a low-profile. ROB HERRMANN: Yes, well that would be standard operating procedure with reconstructing groins in the Town consistent with what the DEC asked for. I think we had gotten, well it should be indicated on the plans. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not making heads or tails with it. The problem with the plan is that it doesn't show existing... ROB HERRMANN: The section through the proposed groins would mirror the same profile that's there now. It would be my conception that those are basically low-profile groins that are there now and we would replace in the exact same fashion. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We don't have a problem with that, we just want to make sure that they stay in the same...because sometimes they grow. When you give us the re-done plans, give us the measurement on the westerly side... ROB HERRMANN: Can I see a copy of the plan that you have? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This shows the proposed but this is 2 '/z' higher. There is no reference point here. Give us an elevation and the distance and I think we should be okay. And, keep both the same distance of the top because that bulkhead is going to match the neighbors to the west. ROB HERRMANN: Right, the height of the new bulkhead would match the same height from either direction. I can add that. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the revised plan. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 14. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of STRONG'S MARINE, INC. requests a Wetlandn Permit to remove and replace (in-place) +/-265 linear ft. of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl sheathing. Dredge by clamshall bucket crane up to 20' off bulkhead to a maximum depth of--4.6" ALW. Approx. 150 cy. of resultant spoil will be placed on the property of William Tufano. Approx. 200 cy. of clean sand will be trucked in from an upland source and used as backfill. Located: Camp Mineola Rd,, Mattituck. SCTM#122-9-6.2&122-4- 44.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? ROB HERRMANN: It should be a fairly straight-forward application. It's for replacing the existing bulkhead at the marina and also basically for navigational maintenance dredging off those bulkheads. Jeff Strong is also here is the Board has any questions. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Is there any other comment? Okay, we looked at the site as far as the bulkheading and the maintenance dredging goes, it is very straight forward. I see the CAC had a ...they voted to Disapprove it because of the spoil site being within the wetland boundary. We had a major problem with the spoil site and we're trying to find 35 1. Rory Klinge on behalf of FRED vanZUBEN requests a Coastal Erosion Permit for the renovation to the existing structure. Addition to roof(second-story addition) 15'X 15' octagonal reading room. New roof, siding and windows. No addition to footprint of structure. Construction of a new garage. Located: 1125 North Sea Dr., Southold. SCTM#54-4-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 2. S.E.L. Permits on behalf of ROCCO & EILEEN RESCINITI requests a Grandfather Permit to reconstruct 35 year old fixed dock and replace steps and ramp with 3'X 12' ramp. Located: 1220 Little Peconic Bay Rd., Cutchogue, SCTM#11 1-14-18 TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES 3. Board to set scallop season. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to set the recreational scallop season on October 2, 2000 and the commercial season to start on October lb, 2000 to run through March 31, 2001. TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES VI, MOORINGS: 1. STEPHEN MARONE, JR, requests to replace mooring#890 in Jockey Creek for a 21' boat. ACCESS: Private right-of-way. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT: 11:00 PM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees • f �T • �Aert J. grupski,President �1 SuFFO��C u' Town Hall Jaynes King,Vice-President �.Z.O �jy 53095 Route 26 Henry Smith a P.O. Box 1179 Artie Foster W Southold,New York 11971-0959 Ken Poliwoda 5 ! Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 HOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTE S Wednesday, February 21,2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: James King, Vice-President Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk ABSENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski,Jr.,President Artie Foster, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Thursday, Marchl S,2001 at S;00 AM. TRUSTEE POLIWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday,March 21,2001 at 7:00 PM. TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of January 24,2001. Minutes were held until March. T. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for January 2001. A check for $6,964.13 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. 11. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town CIerk's Bulletin Board for review. III. AMENDIVIENTSIWAIVERSICHANGES: TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this and I didn't find a problem with it and I don't have any reason to deny so I'll make a motion to Approve the Wetland Permit on behalf of Barbara DeFina. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES 15. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of LISA EDSON requests a Wetland Permit to construct on pilings a one-family, two-story dwelling, deck and swimming pool, install a pervious driveway and sanitary system;place approx. 850 cy. of sand fill. All proposed structures will exceed a 75' wetland setback and the sanitary system is proposed more than 130' from the wetland boundary. A 50' wide non-disturbancelnon-fertilization buffer is proposed adjacent to both wetland boundaries. Located: 9326 Main Bayview Rd., Southold. SCTM#87-5-25 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 16. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of EILEEN KASSCRAU requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace (inplace) existing 34' and 29' timber groins with 27' and 22' low- profile groins. Located: 8500 Vanston Rd., Cutchogne. SCTM#118-1-1.2 TRUSTEE SMITH: Would anyone here like to speak in favor or against the application? ROB HERRMANN: This hearing was open last month and I think at the time the board or Al hadn't specifically had a chance to take a look at it,but it's a pretty straight forward application. We're proposing to remove and replace the two existing groins actually with somewhat shorter groins maintaining their low-profile nature and the existing height off the top of the bulkhead to the top of the groin is shown on the plans. If there are any questions, I'm hereto answer them. CHRISTINE HUNT: I'm the neighbor to the north of the Kasschau's. First of all I would like to thank you because I had requested a postponement so I could participate so I thank you for that, My request in regard to this application is that the Trustees look at my property and the Kasschau's together as one piece in the sense that what is currently there right now, on my property to the north end is a fully functioning groin then there are two groins that are also on my property that are in similar states of disrepair to the Kasschau's. Then there is,beyond their property, another fully functioning groin. On my property there is a small stable beach and there is.some serious erosion around the back on the northern end coming from that neighbor's property. I think it's very reasonable that the Kasschau's would like to repair these groins.. Our interest is that what we have currently there is not made worse or is not disturbed and in my talking to a number of experts in the field,what I have been told is that if the Kasschau's replace their groins, and we take no action, then there is a possibility that there would be some detriment to us, to the stable beach that is there. So, I would like to be able to support the application with two provision. One is that you tell me from your own considerable experience is that you feel it won't be harmful and secondly that in making the approval of that,it won't preclude us from doing what we may do to repair,to make our own repairs, to maintain the status quo to prevent any further erosion. So, I'm very interested to hear your perspective. I know you went and looked at the whole property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well we make no guarantees to what's going to happen and what's not going to happen but if you do have a functioning groin and you want to repair it, you can get a permit to do that. The only thing we request today is that they be of a low- 20 profile. In other words,we don't want these high groins, we want the low ones where when they fill up a little bit, the sand spills over. Probably you'll be getting more sand, I don't know which way the lateral drift is there. CHRISTINE HUNT: From my experience, it would appear that we would be getting Iess. ROB HERRMANN: Ms. Hunt is down-drift from the Kasschau's. If you look at the actual configuration of the shoreline, and I've actually had the opportunity, as the board may recall, I have represented Ms. Hunt in the past and may be doing so again in the future, if you look at figure 3 that was submitted with the application, this long groin at the end,what is probably the most functional and longest groin out there, is actually on the.down-drift most portion of Ms. Hunt's property. This groin actually maintains most of the beach from this location and so actually probably all of these, this entire groin cell, and the fact that the bulkheads are here, have surely contributed historically to some of the erosion that you're seeing on the down-drift. As I had discussed with Ms. Hunt, the Kasschau's prepared, repairing these two particular groins should have negative effect on her parcel because she does have the longest and most active groin in this cell,because as you can see just looking at the scalloped shaped sand, it's built up on that end. In fact, that was the reason why...when I had spoken with Ms. Hunt at one point, I had recommended a�far as replacing the groins on her property,that she not replace the southern most one on her property because if you look at the plan.here,is that repairing this groin on Ms. Hunt's property would actually probably give greater benefit to the Kasschau's than to herself. My comment was that she could probably repair the middle groin and over time I don't think the northern most groin necessarily needs replacement at the moment but it probably will in the not too near future and there going to derive the most benefit for making sure that they maintain that particular structure on their property. So that was assessment looking at each property. CEMSTINE HUNT: Again, I'm wanting to support the application,but I'm also wanting to make sure that you're doing so that then as Rob has said, I agree with his assessment that the one that is most southerly, I wouldn't put in an application for a permit to repair that but for the middle, I am asking that En-Consultants do that. So, I'm just saying to look at the whole thing together. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's hard to look at yours with the same respect as the Kasschau's because yours aren't functional. You don't have functional groins here, looking at the picture. ROB HERRMANN: That's not true. The one that is the northerly most on her property is in fact the most functional groin. It's the picture I just showed you. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: This one? ROB HERRMANN: No, if you look at figure 3 that would be with the application, there is a groin that is all the way, it's the farthest one. CMUSTINE HUNT: Actually, this one is even longer, to my eyes they are in very similar situations. TRUSTEE KING: I have motes from the field inspection, they're to be 5' down from the top of the bulkhead. We all thought that would be appropriate. 27', 21'. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 27', 22'. TRUSTEE SMITH: Being no further comments, I'd like to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES • • • • 210 • • 9 • TRUSTEE KING: Did you have a measurement on that? Rob, I thought you did. ROB HERRMANN: I have 4' 6". TRUSTEE KING: Can you live with 5'? It still above the beach level now. ROB HERRMANN. There's only 8" from the beach to the groin so it you went to 5', it would be only 2"above the sand, and that level may have since dropped, since I measured this a few months ago. I would say between 4 '/z' and 5' is... TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion a motion to Approve with 27' and 21' low-profile groins. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll second that. ALL AYES 17. En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ERIKA SWIMMER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling; sanitary system with retaining wall; pervious driveway; and connect to public water service. Approx. 250 cy. of clean sand fill will be trucked in to raise grades. Located: 850 Orchard Lane,Southold. SCTM490-4-12 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to comment on this application? MR. WISSEMANN: I have a comment. I'm the adjoining neighbor. ROB HERRNL NN: Can I represent the application first please? MR. WISSE.MANN:'My question should not be taken against this application. I'm only concerned about the $mount of fill and where's it's going. The notification I got left an open end on,the amount of fill and 1 can't tell where it's going. The reason I'm asking that question is that a lot of that land has been extensively filled in the late 50' early 60's. The first house built clown beyond me, that neighbor, every time there's a northeaster, I've had to get a rowboat out and row her home. The tide is always up to that roadway. So much fill was put-n, and over the years it has disappeared,most of it carve into the creek,just east of my little:dock,I used to swim in the channel, and no longer do that, and after a big storm you could see sand on top of the mud. So, the eastern part of that, inland,has been largely filled in by this sand washing in. I'm a little concerned that that side of the creek is getting filled up slowly, especially the end where I arm. Can you tell where the fill is going? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Thank you and we'll find out from Rob. ROB HERRMANN: This parcel is located on Orchard Lane and this application was before this board about 10 years ago. I have a copy of a letter to the N'YSDEC that was copied to your board dated January 30,2001 that is in your file.Rather than read the letter into the record,which I will only do if it would appear necessary,to do so, I will cover some major points as far as the application is concerned. What I will do first though is answer this gentleman's question in that on the site plan,there is an indication that there are 375 cy.of fill proposed. The proposed contours and indicated by dash and solid lines respectively as indicated on Note#1 on the survey. The fill is being placed primarily in the area of the sanitary system because the bottom of the leaching pools must have a separation,there's a separation requirement between the bottom of the leaching pools and the elevation of groundwater. So, to maintain that to satisfy the DEC, we have to bring in a certain amount of fill to elevate that system. With regard to the prior applications, and also the prior permits there was a DEC permit issued back on June 21, 1990. The expiration of that permit was extend both to December 4, 1992 and December 31, 1994. The Southold Board of Trustees issued a permit for that same project on April • • a 30 a + • • • wr , 26. Docko,Inc, on behalf of WILLIAM REED requests a Wetland Permit to construct 65 linear fl. of 4' wide fixed wood pile and timber pier, an 8' wide X 20' float with an associated 4'X 16' hinged ramp and four float restraint pilings,waterward of the mean high water line, Located: The Peninsula, Fishers Island. SCTM#10-3-12 WILLIAM REED: I'm the applicant if you have any questions. This is just past the marina. TRUSTEE SMITH: I think I've been here. Is there an old house there? WILLIAM REED: There is no house. I have a permit to build a house. If you go by Pirates Cove, there is an outstanding application for Scudder Sinclair for a retaining wall and is you continue past his and go up to the stretch... TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Do you know the distance to the nearest land straight across? WILLIAM REED: It's across the channel quite a ways. I would guess it's over hundreds of feet. It shows on the picture that my adjoining property owner has a dock about the same size. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Right. Is there a narrow channel? WILLIAM REED: There is a channel, there's a buoy which is probably 75' off the end of this proposed dock. This dock is mainly for a dinghy for my kids. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: One thing I should point out is our policy is 6'X 20' floats. You have 8'X 20'. WILLIAM REED: Docko said that this was the preferred size. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: No, it's 6'X 20'. WILLIAM REED: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with a 6'X 20' float. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 27. First Coastal Corp. on behalf of.LONE STAR INDUSTRIES, INC.requests a Wetland Permit to construct a new marina and restaurant facility. Located: Naugles Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#99-4-1.1 POSTPONED UNTIL MARCH AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST IV. RESOLUTIONS: 1. The Southold Town Board of Trustees may designate up to one(1) acre of bottom land per named creek as a shellfish spawner sanctuary. This bottom land may be closed to shell-fishing for up to two (2) years. TRUSTEE POLTWODA moved to Approve, TRUSTEE SMITH seconded. ALL AYES Meeting adjourned at: 10:15 PM i RECEIVED _ Resple�c/t/i.�v,4e�^l-y submitted by, ;�OUTIDC" A . W•; `�,�_;�; n 9&E Lauren M. Standish, Clerk / d A A Oft C`irrk, "'o�}m of ` :c s Albert J. Krupski, President SUFfpl�► Town Hall James King,Vice-President 0�0 CD 53096 Route 25 Henry Smith �� ��� P.O.Box 1179 Artie Foster o Southold,New York 11971-0959 to Z Ken Paliwoda Telephone(631) 765-1892 ��� 0\� Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, April 25, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President James King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Clerk . ABSENT WAS: Henry Smith, Trustee CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday, May 16, 2001 at 5:00 AM. TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Thursday, May 24, 2001 at 7:00 PM. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of March 21, 2001. Hold until May meeting, I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for March 2001. A check for $6,006.75 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. Ill. AMENDMENTSMAIVERSICHANGES: on that section but the other section that's closer to the road, the block goes nearly up to the bottom of the floor joints. We're going to install a ledger board up about 4 1/Z above the concrete slab which is our floor now, which will be a rat slab later, and then extend our floor joints across and the wood frame of the house would be raised and there will be just be a short crib wall from the top plate to the bottom of the current floor joints. That will occur around the entire house and when they raise it they will disconnect that little wing, that I referenced to before that's closer to the bay, we'll completely disconnect that because for some reason, you step up three steps into that space. The floor is higher there. But, when we're done, the floor will be at the same elevation. The road is higher than our floor and it stopped the water. That's the main thing that we want to do now. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC recommends Approval with no conditions. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 5. JAMES E. &KAREN A. HOEG requests a Wetland Permit to construct 4'X 50' fixed CeA timber dock raised a min. of 3.5' above grade supported by (16)4"X 4" posts or 6 diameter timber piles, a TX 25' fixed CCA timber dock approx. 3' above AHW and supported by (6) 6" diameter timber piles with a depth of penetration of 6' to 8'. A proposed 4' wide natural wood chip access path will lead from grass lawn to project at landward end. Located: 350 Willis Creek Dr., Mattituck. SCTM#115-17-17.10 POSTPONED UNTIL MAY AS PER THEAAPPLICANT'S.REQUEST 6. LEON'L. MUNIER requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace the existing jetty inkindliriplace. Located: 4030 Peconic Bay Blvd., Laurel. SCTM#128-6-1 TRUSTEE FOSTER: I looked at this and I didn't see any problem with it at all. Its detached and deteriorated and seems to be working. I met the gentleman out there:and we took a look at it. The bulkhead itself is in good shape, it's going to be the same elevation. l don't see any problem with it at all. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is it low-profile? TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's. not underwater if that's what you mean. It's the same elevation as all of the others. M:R. MU,NIER: The one next door tome which was re-done two years ago, was a higher profile and when he re-did it, he lowered it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: We always look to have them lowered actually. I didn't have a problem with it and I would recommend Approval. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER. Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE FOSTER: I'll make a motion to Approve the application. • _ • 0 90 • • .• 0 TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 7. ARTHUR & BERNADETTE WALSH request a Wetland Permit to construct a single-family dwelling, garage, driveway, and septic system. Located: Private Road, Fishers Island. SCTM#7-2-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI; Is there anyone here to speak in favor of the application? GLEN ,LUST: I'm here for the application. Permits were issued for John Stripp and then again to Mr. Walsh last year and they hadn't started construction on the lot when the wetlands ordinance changed. Initially we had a non-jurisdiction for the project and the project the Walsh's are proposing is basically the same but they are removing the pool and the surrounding decking, and replacing it with a small garage. It's just barely into your jurisdiction. The house will be I think 82' or 77' set back from the freshwater wetland line. The same buffer will be maintained as originally asked for. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't we had a problem with decking on there, did we? GLEN JUST: We removed the decking that was around the pool. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Oh, that was around the pool, ok. What is that straight line that nuns sort of parallel to the house? GLEN JUST: What's that? That's the staked hay bale line. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, the hay bale line is marked on here. It's further towards the wetland. TRUSTEE KING: Right at where the wetland point comes in, almost at the 100' mark. GLEN JUST: I don't know. I actually don't know. I would truly have to find out. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: 1'd recommend no clearing within 50' of that wetland. GLEN JUST: The hay bale line shown on the plan is 50' at the closest point to the,wetland. Actually most of it will be more like 75' to 80' buffer area. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: That's fine. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes, because you do have Barlow Pond there to consider. GLEN JUST: This is across the street from Barlow Pond but close enough to it. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? Do I have a motion to close the. hearing? TRUSTEE KING: So moved. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application, with a 50' non- disturbance buffer. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 8. Frank Uellendahl on behalf of THOMAS LEWICK requests a Wetland Permit to add a partial second-floor addition on existing one-story building. Added gross floor area will be 945 sq.ft. Located: 1315 North Parish Dr., Southold. SCTM#71=1-13 TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Would anyone here like to comment on this? FRANK UELLENDAHL: I'm the architect. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Ok. Would anyone like to comment against this application? I looked at this today and I had no problem with it. I have one • • • 23! ! r • • • TRUSTEE FOSTER: I guess you could push it back but I don't know how long it's going to stay there. The next high storm tide would pull it right down again. JOE EDGAR: May I make a suggestion? Take and perhaps pump the material into a Geo-Tube temporarily at the toe of the bluff and take any excess and put it up behind the Gen-Tube. Re-establish the bluff, re-vegetate it and at a time where you feel it's stable enough, remove the Geo-Tube. What's the elevation of the bluff? JIM FITZGERALD: 35' JOE EDGAR: You could pump the material back up too if you have a way to contain it up top. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Pump it with what? JOE EDGAR: Mobile dredge booster pump, TRUSTEE FOSTER: That's 90% water, 10% sediment. JOE EDGAR: No, you can push a 20% mix. TRUSTEE FOSTER: And then what do you do with the 80% of water. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'd have a problem at the top. TRUSTEE KING: You have a problem up there now and that would make it worse. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I think that we'll go with the re-vegetation and re-grading plan-at the top and I'll move to Table the application until we get the top stabilized. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 16.Latham Sand & Gravel & Susan E. Long Permits on behalf of WILLIAM GORDON requests a Wetland Permit to install a 4'X 65' catwalk, 3'X 14' ramp, 61X 29 float with two 2-pile dolphins. Located: 2875 Wells Rd., Peconic. SCTM#86-2-3 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? TERRY LATHAM: You spoke with Mr. Gordon about moving the dock over? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. TERRY LATHAM: We rnoved it over 8', shortened it 10'. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we wanted, isn't it. TRUSTEE FOSTER:- You can't ask for anything more than that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to comment on the application? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion that we Approve the revised plans, for the relocation.of the dock and that the end of the float extend no further seaward than the end of the two adjacent floats. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 17.Latham Sand & Gravel on behalf of JACQUELINE MOELLER requests a Wetland Permit for the pre-existing 45' west jetty and 125 east jetty maintained beach level to maintain bulkhead and prevent loss of upland property. Jetties washed away during storm wind and waves. Two low-profile jetties 2.5'X 45' and • . • • 24• i i • • 75' will aid to maintain beach level and prevent property loss of subject property. Located: 4305 Soundview Ave., Southold. SCTM#68-1-17.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here who would like to speak in favor of the application? TERRY LATHAM: I can answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? GREG YAKABOSKI: I'm speaking on behalf of the Town of Southold. The last time I spoke last month, I do represent the Trustees and I'm representing them now and not giving them advice because I am representing the Town Board. This was Tabled last time based on a request to see if the owner of the property had given permission. I believe there is no such letter in the file. I request that this hearing be adjourned until ... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't understand—it was Tabled because... GREG YAKABOSKI: The owner of property, where this structure is being placed, is the State of New York. The Officer of General Services is the one that governs the property. 1 don't believe, in the file, that there is such authorization from the owner. As in any other application, you need authorization of the owner of the property. involved. I don't believe that exists in this case. At the time of the last Board meeting; the Board did Table this, I believe, pending such approval. don't believe at this time, approval has been obtained. I think it would be prudent to have that initial threshold crossed, or taken care of. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do have a fax from Mr. Pendergrass stating that the Department of State has,been advised that the Southold Trustees may be considering local permits for construction of groins in waters of Long Island Sound. The Trustees should be aware that such construction would require permits from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers, the NYSDEC, the Trustees should provide the project application with this information so that they are fully informed as weh: Please fee/free to contact me directly at the phone number below if you have any questions on these matters. I think you representing the applicant, Mr. Latham, please be advised that construction of these groins would require permits from the U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers and as well as from the NYSDEC, So we've advised the applicant. GREG YAKABOSKI: That letter, I don't believe, addresses the fact that the Office of General Services, that letter does not speak on behalf of the Office of General Services. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI. Why wouldn't they,comment? GREG YAKABOSKI: I don't know if the applicant has made application to the Office of General Services. I don't believe it's a.permit,i believe it's permission. TRUSTEE KRLJPKSI: But if the request was made, what would prevent them_ from approving or denying it. GREG YAKABOSKI: That's up to the property owner. It's just like any other property owner making a decision. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But what does that have to do with us? GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe both Chapter 97 and the Coastal Erosion chapter speak about the owner making application. I don't believe...if you allow the permit to go forward at this point, you'd be addressing an application on a piece • • • 250 • • • of property, which the applicant does not own. I don't believe the Board, unless it's in their past practice would normally entertain such an application unless the applicant was listed as an agent and had written permission of the owner. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Was there ever permission from the owner, because the structure existed. They are just replacing what was there to prevent loss of what is theirs. GREG YAKABOSKI: I believe if the Board went out there right now, there are no such structures. TRUSTEE FOSTER: They were there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When the application was made, the Board did see the structures there and one was partially functional, on the initial application. If we act on this, there is nothing from stopping the State from acting independently on this. GREG YAKABOSKI: Is the Board going to move forward on an application for property where the owner has not given its' permission? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm trying to find where it says that in the Code. GREG YAKAIJOSKI: Stepping back from the Code just for a second, would the Board entertain an application for a property to do construction where the owner has not stepped forward, without written consent. TRUSTEE 'FOSTER: Well we do it all the time. Consultants come in here with applications and we approve them. GREG YAKABOSKI: Who are the approved agents, correct. That's a different situation, that's;an approved agent of the owner. There is no approved agent of the owner here.tonight. l don't believe there is any approved agent or even an agent of the owner on file with the Trustees. Therefore the application apparently is not complete: Respectfully, the applicant can write to the office of General Services and seek permission. That would solve this issue. TRUSTEE KING: I have a problem with something that has been there. Why didri't.the owner ask to have it removed a long time ago if it's on his property without his permission? GREG YAKABOSKI: I can't speak for the owner. I can tell you at the moment, that at the time of this application, there is.no structure apparently there. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There was at the time of application. GREG YAKABOSKI: They applied for groins at the time or they applied to have the retaining wall on the west side repaired and then that was amended without notice. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I guess we would have to determine when the groins actually disappeared. GREG YAKABOSKI: You have to determine when it's a valid application_ It goes back to whether or not there's permission of the owner. Respectfully, I believe it's a cut and dry issue for this Board. Forthe Board to spend significant time and resources, when you don't have a complete application, or you don't have the-owner on board, it might not be a prudent use of time. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What did the CAC recommend? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC did not make an inspection. 97--21 Section A, In aff cases where the applicant is not the owner of the premises which such • • • • 26• • • • • operations are proposed to be conducted, the consent of the owner duly acknowledged must be attached to said application. Is there anyone here who is ready to speak for the State? Is there any question that this proposal is on State land? TERRY LATHAM: It extends on State land,,yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Under the Code the applicant has to get permission of the land owner in order to pursue the application. Do you want to Table this application? GREG YAKABOSKI: If it's Tabled, does that mean it automatically comes back next time? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Automatically, TRUSTEE KING: We should send a letter to the State and recommend that they remove all of these things off of their property that they don't want on their property. There is an aluminum groin to the east that's tremendous. That would be my recommendation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Table.the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 18.En-Consultants, Inc. on behalf of ERIKA SWIMMER requests a Wetland Permit to construct a two-story, one-family dwelling; sanitary system with retaining wall; pervious driveway; and connect to public water service: Approx. 250 cy. of clean sand fill will be trucked in to raise grades. Located: 850 Orchard Lane, Southold. SCTM#90-4-12 POSTPONED�UNTIL MAY AS PER THE AGENT'S REQUEST 19.En-Consultants, Inc'. on behalf of DOROTHY ABBOTT requests a Wetland Permit:to;con*uct a 58'westerly extension of an existing rook revetment and a 15, westerly return. Backfill with approx. 25 cy. of clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source and planted with Cape American beach grass (12" on center).Proposed revetment extension, including return, will consist of 3-5 ton quarry capstone and 50-100 lb. core stone to be underlain with Carthage 6%. filter cloth. Located: 1995 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient. SCTM#15-3-1.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of the application? RO.B'HERRMANN:. I'm hereon behalf of the applicant. This structure also fronts Long Island Sound but is on the homeowners property. It is a pretty'straight 'Forward application. It's a proposed extension of a revetment that was previously approved.by this Board as well as the NYSDEC. As the Board.could probably see from the site, the bluff between the house and the existing revetment ha's become fairly well stabilized whereas there is continued.landward transgression of the bluff in the westerly portion of the property where this extension is proposed. If the Board has any questions regarding this proposal, I'd be happy to address them. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone else like to address the Board on this application? Doses the Board have any comments? Do I have a motion to close the hearing? 38 TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with 6" poles and hand-dig through the marsh. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES 25.Costello Marine Contracting, Inc. on behalf of RICARDO RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct the existing 4'X 46' existing dock, inkindlinplace and continuing with a new 32"X 16' ramp leading to a new 6'X 20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Installing two single mooring piles adding 24 new piles to face of existing bulkhead and reconstruct 30' existing jetty in-place with C-Loc vinyl sheathing. Located: 1875 Shore Rd., Greenport. SGTM##47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant. One of the purposes of this job is to try to get a little more water. At the end of this dock, several times in the moon phases, there's about a foot, or a foot and a half of water. They tried an offshore pulley and a stake one time, and the ice took it out the first year. They would like to just put a seasonal float in and be able to access it. They are 70 years.old. That's the purpose of it. The bulkhead was probably built in the early 60's by Ralph T. Preston. He wants to resheath it and re-enforce the bulkhead. The existing jetty is there and is creosoted and we would like to take it out and put a CGIoc in, something that's going to have more life. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you inspect the site? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes I did. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I don't see why there's a shortage of water. They seem to be discharging water from both points. JOHN COSTELLO: Discharging water? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are three separate pipes coming out of the bulkhead. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, that whole property, that whole stretch of beach, we dM.1ed holes in the wood, in the bulkhead, after several of those bulkheads collapsed in the 1960's because of the clay and the backfilled material. It trapped the water and it collapsed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How does that fit in with discharging...so those pipes are just coming out of the ground? JOHN COSTELLO: It's rain water. There are no swimming pools, I don't know anybody who has a swimming pool. We had to drill holes through the sheathing. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There are all kinds of pipes shooting out of there. What about that bulkhead on the west side of the property? When was that built? That's looks awfully new. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we're going to find out before we act on this application.because there's an awful lot going on down there. The Bay Constable . is going to pay a visit and we're going to find out when that bulkhead was built, we're going to find out where the pipes go,.and then we'll.act on the application. JOHN COSTELLO: Then you'll act on it? • _ • • • 39• • • ! • TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct. You can tell the applicant that we're going to Table this application until we find out the story and if you don't know, the Bay Constable will find out_ JOHN COSTELLO. I have no idea. Find out and let me know. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You'll know, because then we'll proceed with the application. I'll make a motion to Table the application. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 26.Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of ROBERT & RITA WIECZOREK requests a Wetland Permit to dredge approx. 30'X 15' at existing dock (15 cy.) and dredge area approx. 50'X 26' at channel entrance (40 cy.). Located: 835 Tarpon Or., Southold. SCTM#53-5-8 & 57-1-39.2 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO:I I'm the agent for Mr. & Mrs. Wieczorek. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I've got a question for, I guess the applicant. It shows here that the Water.depth of'about 4' by the float: What I don't understand is that we grab ed a dock ermit last year and the water depths, on last years permit shows'62 6'8 by the float. JOHN COSTELLO., Just off shore of that there is. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well that's not what it shows. I don't' see how there could be such'a big!d1 Terence in a year, or less than a`year. JOHN COSTELLO:' Well let me tell you, first of all, I was (can't understand)for the first 6' or 6.. and then driven and there's a lot of siltation in it. The tides are just takan certainitirnes of the year, certain times of the moon phases. They vary considerably. Do You know what tides vary around here? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: 2'. JOHN COSTELLO:Yes sir. His boat is hitting bottom and-that whole creek, as you well-know,:is;a mane-made, it was basically closed at one time, opened up, and its clay. it's approx. 70' of clay underneath there before you run through the clay. We tools those test borings when they rebuilt the bridge going into Mill Creek. When they did, you're going to fine out,when they did dredge that place, they used:it for a brick.factory. it varies considerably: The last dredging, that was done in the area was done by Melrose Marine and it is clay. The:Town landfill was where they, took the last of it. The Town landfill said that they would take this material There are two spots that he hits, when the tide is below normal,'he would:like to correct that problem. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: You.see, the measurements vary-an awful lot through. It's not like it's an inch or two. Its 2' on the soundings. Its more than 2'. It's 2'6" and it's 10' on the dock. The measurements are really variable out there. JOHN COSTELLO: Do you want to go measure with me? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured the dock without you and the permit for the dock, which says a 6'X 20' float, has actually turned into a 6'X 30' float. JOHN. COSTELLO: I didn't measure the dock this time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we measured it.* And, I'm not saying that you installed it. I'm lust saying that we measured it. Mr. Wieczorek is in violation with 50 5. THOMAS & CHERYLE AMARA request a stake in Arshamomaque Pond for an 18' Canoe. (Replace Stake #358.) Access: Public TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES 6. THOMAS & PATRICIA FRENZ request a mooring in Broadwaters Cove for a 9' boat. Mooring will be cancelled after dock is built. Access: Private. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI moved to Approve the application for a 9' boat with the condition that once the dock is built, the mooring will be cancelled. TRUSTEE FOSTER seconded. ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT:, 12:30 AM Respectfully submitted by, Lauren M. Standish, Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED JUL 21 01 MAW Torn 0 Albert J. Krupski,President OFF0 � J Town Hall Jaynes King,Vice-President O�S �Q� 53095 Route 25 .Z. y P.O. Box 1179 HenrySmith Southold, New York 11971-0959 Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda r Telephone(631) 765-1892 Pax(631)765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Thursday, May 24,2001 7:00 P.M. PRESENT WERE; Albert J.Krupski, Jr.President James King,Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Kenneth Poliwoda,Trustee Charlotte Cunningham, Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Wednesday,June 13, 2001 at 8:00 a.m- TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES v= NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING:Thursday, June 21, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. x .- WORKSESSION: 6:00 p.m. TRUSTEE SAUTH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. APPROVE MINIUTES: Approve Minutes of March 21,2001 held April 18, 2001 for June 21,meeting.TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustee monthly report for April 2001. A check for $4,295.93 was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. 37 See if the contractor would be able to work in that area with equipment to see if that can be graded. To a more natural angle proposed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I will make a motion to table the application and revisit the site on June 13`�. All in favor. ALL AYES 24.En-Consultants, Ina on behalf of CHRISTINE HUNT requests a Wetland Permit to remove and replace(in-place) existing lb' timber groin with 15' low profile timber groin. Remove and replace in-kind/in-place approx. 83 linear ft. of landward timber retaining wall and back fill with approx, 25 cy of clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source and placed with beach grass, rosa rugosa, and or other native species. Located: 5700 Vanstan Road, Cutchogue;NY SCTM#11-10-13.1 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone here would like to speak in favor of the application. ROB HERRMANN: Rob Herrmann on behalf of the applicant Christine Hunt. The application is pretty straight forward it is consistent with an application that was recently approved for Eileen Cashow to the south. What I would add to that in the project description is the proposal mad I would assume this Board would agree with it. Is that upon the inspection of the site Iiy the DEC it was their recommendations that the existing 22-foot groin remain along the property. In fact not be removed. Ms. Hunt was agreeable to that and indicated that she had directed to provide the plans accordingly and resubmit then to the DEC and to your attention to that you would agree to that. Or at least not have any objections to it. Basically that is a deteriorating groin, which will benefit the Cashows But proper to remove it, which the DEC has recommended, and she has agreed to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: What is the height. RO$ HERRMANN: It is currently if you look at the cross section it is currently six feet, we are proposing to re-set to five feet to be consistently with what was approved by Cashow. I just said those numbers wrong. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am looking at it. ROB HERRMANN: It is three now,.and we are planning to decrease the height to five feet from the top of the bulkhead. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I am looking at the plan, when you said it. ROB HER MANN: Lower it by two feet. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have a problem with this? Do'I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE KING; Seconded. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a ,motion to approve the application as amended? ROB HERRMANN: I will give you the plans TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: All in favor. ALL AYES 37 t 47 _. V. RESOLUTIONS; 1.FLORENCE H. IKLEISS request a Grandfather Permit for a 75' of bulkhead installed and backfilled. Located: 1500 Leeton Drive, Southold, NY SCTM#58-2-4 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Table it until.next month. Had no plans has to be looked at. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES. V1. MOORINGS: 1, PETER MCGREEVY request to replace mooring 4901 in Mattituck Creek for a 24' Sailboat Access: Public TRUSTEE SMITH moved to Approve the application. TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED: 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitte by: Charlotte Cunnin am, erk Board of Trustee 1ZECEIVED AND FILED BY T"r SO1i �= 7 T0.11%`1I CIZ'dK HOL 47 Albert J.Krupski, President Town Hall James King;Vice-President **oaf � 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster �0 C0 P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwod'a � J..� Southold, New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631)765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES Wednesday, December 19, 2001 7:00 PM PRESENT WERE: Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President ,fames King, Vice-President Artie Foster, Trustee Henry Smith, Trustee Ken Poliwoda, Trustee Lauren Standish, Senior Clerk CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION:' Wednesday, January 16, 2002 at 8:00 AM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE POLIWODA seconded. ALL AYES NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 at 7:00 PM WORKSESSION: 6.00 PM TRUSTEE KING moved to Approve, TRUSTEE KING seconded. ALL AYES APPROVE MINUTES: App�ove Minutes of October 24, 2001. (Held until January.) I. MONTHLY RE�I,: The Trustees monthly report for November 2001. A check for$7,542.34 Was forwarded to the Supervisor's Office for the General Fund. Il. PUBLIC NOTICES: Public Notices are posted on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board for review. Ill. AMENDMENTSIWAIVERSfCHANGES: 20 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Any other comment? TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we close the hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion we Approve the application. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 17.Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of WILLIAM LEHMANN requests a Wetland Permit to remove and dispose of a 44' portion of an existing jetty. Install a new 44'jetty in-kind, in-place using CCA treated materials. Located: 730 Rabbit Lane, East Marion. SCTM#31-17-17&31-18-16 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: 1 am the agent for William Lehmann on this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The CAC Tabled.this. They question the need for replacement and has a concern with the amount of material that's being excavated. JOHN COSTELLO: The amount of material that's being excavated? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: How much material is being excavated on this project? JOHN'-COSTELLO: None. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It says 100 cy. JOHN COSTELLO: There would be 100 cy. disturbed because we would be using a water jack. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: We had a question about the length. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We measured 44' out, then there was extra. JOHN COSTELLO: There is anew 16' piece at the end of this jetty that was put in probably 14, 15.years ago. The inshore end was not done because it was in reasonably good condition. Now the sheathing is failing and they want to replace it. TRUSTEE FOSTER: So you're not going to do the end portion. You're going to leave that? JOHN COSTELLO: Yes, it's functional and in good condition. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Ok, it's just the piece in the middle. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Between the excavation and the extra piece on the end, everybody had some questions. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there a permit for that entire jetty's TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There's a 1962 survey showing a jetty that's cut off but it shows a 60' jetty. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to Approve the application with the condition that the jetty starts 22" or 24" from the top of the deck. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 18.Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of MORRIS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP requests a Wetland Permit to construct 100' new bulkhead (with 34 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Can I make a motion to Approve the plan with the proposed landscape action in a 100' area to be designated, and we can draw it on here tonight, and that all restoration work can proceed in the "C" areas and all drywell could be put in immediately. Then, following a review by the Board, we can proceed with other areas of the other landscape plan. Can 1 make that a motion? Is that clear enough Lauren? LAUREN STANDISH: What was the condition? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The proposed landscape action can be...what do you suggest for.the "A' and the "B'? -rbm WOLPERT: I really don't care. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Or a little bit of both. TOM WOLPERT: Probably"A" & "D". TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well"D" you're going to do anyway. "C„ and "D" you're going to get anyway. Pick a spot. TOM WOLPERT: What about this area, somewhere in here, 35 & 36. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Sure. How about 37 & 38? You get "A" and you get "B". TOM WOLPERT: Ok. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'll say by cottage 37 & 38 and he can use his discretion to move it. TRUSTEE SMITH: Seconded. ALL AYES MEETING AJOURNED AT: 10:40 PM Respectfully submitted by, a&V_tn Fm - _4tara Lauren M. Standish, Senior Clerk Board of Trustees RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2002 Q Southold Town Oett a y� Telephone p Town Hall (631)765-1892 53095 Route 25 O P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Mon., April 11, 2005, the following recommendation was made: Moved by Don Wilder, seconded by Jack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL of the Wetland Permit application of VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO for complete removal of the existing 64' wood jetty and restoration of the beach on subject property with approx. 300 cy. of dredged or borrow sand. Located: 8225 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-10 Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion Carried TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN, REALE & QUARTARARO, LLP Attorneys at Law THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL STEPHEN B. LATHAM Post Ottice BOX 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE JOHN F. SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD A CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 1 1 901-9398 ❑AVID M. OUBINO ANNE MARIE GOODALE P. EDWARD REALE LAURA I. SGUAZZIN� JAY P.QUARTARAROt Telephone: 631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO PETER M. MOTT Facsimile: 631.727.1767 BRYAN C.VAN GOTT JANICE L. SNEAD ALICIA S.O'CONNORA MARTHA L.LUFT LISA A.AZZATO+ JANE DIGIACOMO WWW.sUftolklaW.com KATHRYN DALL1 PHILIP D. NYKAMP DANIEL G.WANIt MARTIN D_ FINNEGANO NY&LA BARS C` LL M.IN TAXATION t email address: PNykamp rgt suffo lk law.com NY a CT BARS o NY,NJ.&PA BARS o NY&N1 BARS Direct Fax: 631-727-2385 NY FL.&GA BARS+ Extension 261 August 23, 2005 S6,7s uMo1 �e11 S VIA FACSIMILE(631)765-6641 AND FEDERAL EXPRESSii Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: This firm represents John and Vera Aloia, the owners of the jetty that is subject to the above- referenced application. I write in response to the letter from Charlotte Bibiow dated August 15, 2005, and in further opposition to the application. As an initial matter, the applicant refers to the alleged "devastation", "devastating injury", and "destructive effects" of the jetty that the Aloias have owned and maintained since 1984, which jetty has been on the Aloias' property for approximately 50 years. The Aloias have previously sent the Trustees a letter with certain photographs attached that prove that the Manago's beach has clearly not been "devastated". See letter to the Board of Trustees from John Aloia, dated May 5, 2005. Indeed, those photographs taken on April 28, 2005, show that on that day the Manago's beach was actually in better condition that the Aloia's beach. Therefore, the lawful repair and 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O,BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold August 23, 2005 Page 2 maintenance on the inshore 16 feet of the jetty that was performed in 2001 cannot possibly be the cause any "devastating injury" to the Manago's beach. Rather, the beaches on Nassau Point appear to be in a constant state of flux. With respect to the repair and maintenance that was performed on the jetty in 2001, it was "ordinary repair and maintenance" for which no permit is required. There was no "double row" of sheathing installed, only a new row of sheathing was placed along side the existing row that lies between the existing stringers. In addition, while a 6" x 6"timber wail was added to the top of the jetty in 1999, it had no effect on Plaintiffs beach because it was removed and the DEC declined to impose any fine. Finally, as the ownership of the jetty has not yet been decided by the Supreme Court, I again request that any decision on this application be made only after the Supreme Court has rendered a decision. In the meantime, I have attached a copy of the transcript of the oral argument in the case Manago v. Aloia, et al, dated May 3, 2005. With respect to the merits of the application, Section 97-20 of the Southold Code states that, "the Trustees may adopt a resolution directing the issuance of a permit to perform operations applied for only if it determines that such operations will„not suhstantiallX: a. Adversely effect the wetlands of the Town; b. Cause damage from erosion... d. Adversely effect...marine organisms, aquatic wildlife and vegetation or the natural habitat thereof; e. Increase the danger of flood and storm-tide damage; h. Weaken or undermine the lateral support of other lands in the vicinity; and j. Adversely effect the aesthetic value of the wetland and adjacent areas." Granting Manago's application, which requests "complete removal of existing 64-foot jetty", or if the existing jetty is lowered or otherwise made smaller, will clearly have a substantial effect the Aloias' beach and bulkhead. It will adversely effect the wetlands of the Town. It will cause damage from the erosion of Aloia's beach and potential damage to the Aloia's bulkhead. It will adversely effect the natural habitat of marine organisms or vegetation. It will substantially increase the danger of storm-tide damage on the Aloia's property. It will weaken or undermine the lateral support of the Aloia's bulkhead. It will severely effect the aesthetic value of the Aloia's beach. Interestingly, these are the exact complaints of the Managos, whose predecessor in interest, Dr. Pupura, decided to forego the expense of building a jetty on his property when they were asked over 50 years ago, and which was clearly reflected in the purchase price of the Manago's property. Thus, not only are the standards for granting the permit not met, the Manago's sole purpose in this application is to cause the erosion of the Aloia's beach with the unfounded hope that his own beach will benefit. I have attached the affidavit of Stephen M. Olko, an expert engineer and consultant in the area of coastal and beach engineering, including the study and remedy of beach erosion, littoral drift Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold August 23, 2005 Page 3 problems, and the design, location and construction of shore protection works and structures. Mr. Olko concludes as follows: • The construction and maintenance of the wooden groin does not cause erosion of the Managos' beach. • Removal of the wooden groin would cause erosion of the Aloias' beach, and would cause additional erosion of the Managos' beach. • The deteriorated and partial stone groin on the Managos' property is not sufficient to stabilize the Managos' beachfront. • The vertical bulkhead reconstructed by the Managos in 1996 along their beachfront worsens the erosion of their beach. • The repairs by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. to the subject wooden groin, did not cause erosion of the Managos' beachfront. • Any sand which may have passed from the Aloias' property onto the Managos' beach through the wooden groin prior to its repair would not have been retained on the Manago property, because the Managos' property is not protected by an adequate groin or groins. Any such pass-through sand would have continued to move southward along the shore of Nassau Point, because the Mangos' stone groin is inadequate and because there is no groin at the southern end of the Managos' property. • The shape, dimensions and depth of the bay upon which the Aloia and Manago properties face are such that normal wind and wave-driven littoral drift of sand does not occur. • Instead, the beaches along Nassau Point are replenished with sand mainly as a result of dredging of Little Creek Inlet, located near the north end of Nassau Point. • The repairs to the wooden groin did not impact the condition of the Manago beach. • The 6" x 6" x 30-foot timber placed atop the inshore end of the wooden groin in 1999, and subsequently removed in 2001,had no effect because of its small size (less than six inches in height) and its location at the upper beach elevation as opposed to the seaward end of the groin. This is confirmed by Mr. Manago's statement that no change in sand retention occurred on his beach after his timber was removed. Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold August 23, 2005 Page 4 • That a second layer of vertical sheeting was added to the wooden groin in 1999 (middle thirty feet of the groin) and in 2001 (inshore sixteen feet) makes a difference only in the structural strength of the groin. The thickness of sheeting has no effect whatsoever on the amount of sand retained by the groin. • If the subject wooden groin were not present, the Mango beach would not have more sand. Instead, both the Aloia and Manago beaches would be eroded. • The amount of sand retained by the subject wooden groin is insignificant. If the groin were removed,that volume of sand would be washed away, at high tide during the first moderate winter storm, and would quickly pass southward through and past the Manago property. Both the Aloia and Manago properties are located in an "erosion zone" where the"natural," stable beach is essentially a coarse, shingle, gravel beach and not a fine-grained sandy beach. • The shoreline north of the Manago property has sand only because property owners there built and maintained groins to protect their properties. • Beaches along the eastern shore of Nassau Point are artificially replenished with sand by the dredging of Little Creel Inlet to the north. Finally, two other experts in this field, Henry Bokuniewicz, professor of oceanography at Stony Brook University, and Jay Tanski,New York Sea Grant Coastal Process Specialist,published an article in Newsday,dated March 27, 2005 (attached hereto), regarding erosion problems on Long Island. In the article they state ". . . we should not be too hasty to dismantle old groins and jetties. There is seldom any guarantee that taking these out will solve an existing problem without reintroducing and perhaps exacerbating old ones." For all of these reasons, the application must be denied. Very truly yours, Philip D. N p PDN;kjc Enclosure cc: E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. (via Fax) John&Vera Aloia(via Fax) 1 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - X VINCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, 5 Plaintiffs , INDEX # 6 - against - 02 - 15690 7 ORAL JOHN F . ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA, ARGUMENT 8 COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP . and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES , INC . , 9 Defendants . 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - X May 3 , 2005 11 Riverhead, New York 12 B E F 0 R E : 13 HON . PAUL J . BAISLEY, JR . , 14 SUPREME COURT JUSTICE 15 A P P E A R A N C E S : 16 FARRELL FRITZ, P . C . 17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs EAB Plaza 18 Uniondale , New York 11556 - 0120 BY : CHARLOTTE A . BIBLOW, ESQ . 19 20 KENNEDY, LILLIS , SCHMIDT & ENGLISH, ESQS . Attorneys for Defendant Costello 21 75 Maiden Lane - Suite 402 New York , New York 10038 -4816 22 BY : CRAIG S . ENGLISH , ESQ . 23 (Appearances continued on next page ) 24 25 BY : ANNA M . LOPINTO , RPR Official Court Reporter 2 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 Appearances ( Continued) : 3 NANCY R . WEINER, ESQ. Attorney for Defendant Aloia 4 734 Franklin Avenue - Suite 644 Garden City, New York 11530 5 6 THE CLERK : Oral argument , Manago 7 versus Aloia , et . al . 8 THE COURT : Good morning . 9 MR . ENGLISH : Good morning , Your 10 Honor . 11 THE COURT : Before we get started, I 12 was speaking to my law secretary and she 13 told me there was a phone conference within 14 the last month or so , and one of the things 15 that came up was this question of a 16 proceeding of some sort in Southampton, 17 either in the justice court or town board 18 to remove the jetty? 19 MS . BIBLOW : Yes , it was the town 20 board, Your Honor, the town trustees . 21 THE COURT : What ' s the status of that 22 proceeding right now? 23 MS . BIBLOW : It ' s been adjourned 24 until May 18 . 25 THE COURT : All right , thank you . 3 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 Who wants to be heard first on the- - Is it 3 your motion? 4 MR . ENGLISH : Yes , Your Honor , it is . 5 THE COURT : Mr . English. 6 MR . ENGLISH : Your Honor, I represent 7 the Costello defendants , who are Costello 8 Marine Contracting Corp and Costello Marine 9 Services , Inc . And what I would like to do 10 is just highlight a couple of points of our 11 motion, and the first point is that 12 Costello Marine Services , Inc really didn ' t 13 have anything to do with this- - with any 14 of the repair work that was done on the 15 jetty that ' s involved here . And the 16 plaintiff has conceded that , but they 17 haven ' t really introduced any evidence to 18 show that they did any work . And if you 19 look at the contracts which were- - which 20 Costello Marine had for each of the jobs , 21 it ' s all on Costello Marine Contracting 22 Corporation forms and so forth . 23 So I think as a preliminary matter , 24 Costello Marine Services should be let out . 25 They ' re a company which provides captains 4 1 Manago v Al.oia - 5/3/05 2 and crews for commercial vessels , and they 3 have nothing to do with the construction of 4 waterfront property . There ' s joint 5 ownership . That ' s really the only 6 connection with this case , joint ownership 7 between Costello Marine Contracting and 8 Costello Marine Services , Inc . 9 Your Honor, our client , I ' ll just 10 call them Costello , did three repairs on 11 the jetty . There was a repair in 1995 , and 12 the jetty is -- - It ' s called a jetty or a 13 groin . I guess technically it ' s called a 14 groin because it doesn ' t protect an inlet . 15 I found that out during the case . I didn ' t 16 realize there was a distinction, but 17 apparently there is . But the groin is 60 18 feet long , and it ' s on the south end of the 19 Aloias ' property, basically between the 20 properties of the Aloias and the Managos . 21 And this particular jetty was constructed 22 in the 1950 ' s , and the intent was to 23 prevent - - is to allow a build-up of sand 24 on that particular property, and 25 Mr . Manago , who is to the south of that , he 5 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 only bought the property, I think, in 1996 . 3 But the people who owned his property in 4 the 1950 ' s chose not to put a jetty in, 5 which would mean since the sand comes down, 6 that there would necessarily be an erosion 7 to the south of the particular jetty . And 8 over the years , you ' ll see , if you look at 9 the pictures and so forth, that at times 10 the property owned by the Managos , the 11 beach has built up there and at times it ' s 12 down . It all depends on the weather 13 action; it all depends on the dredging to 14 the inlet in the north ; and whether they 15 put the spoils from that on the south side 16 of the inlet or the north side of the 17 inlet . It depends on the condition of the 18 Managos ' bulkhead there . If you have a 19 tight bulkhead there , our expert tells us 20 that the waves come in there and hits the 21 strong barrier and there ' s a scouring 22 effect . Also , the bulkhead prevents sand 23 from coming down from the dunes , which are 24 actually on the property and filling in . 25 So there has been a wide variation in the 6 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 amount of beach that the Managos have had 3 over the years . But in 1995 , our client 4 was contacted by the Aloias , and there had 5 been ice damage the previous winter in 194 6 and 195 , and the outer 14 feet of this 60 7 foot long jetty had been damaged with the 8 ice , and they asked Costello to make 9 repairs . He made a proposal . At that 10 time , he got permits because there had been 11 no- - apparently, no permitting for these 12 particular-- - for this particular jetty, 13 so he went to both the DEC and the town of 14 Southold and got permits , and the permits 15 weren ' t required because what he was doing 16 was a repair- - it was a repair operation, 17 not a reconstruction or putting in a new 18 jetty . But he felt as a service for the 19 property owners , that they should have- - 20 the relevant agencies should approve the 21 particular jetty, and that would benefit 22 them in the future in case there ever arose 23 any question about whether the jetty was 24 legitimate or not . 25 So they did that repair in 1995 , and 7 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 that was completed by August 11th, 1995 . 3 Several years passed, and in 1999 , the 4 Aloias asked Costello to do stairs and like 5 a patio type of structure , and during the 6 course of that work, they also noticed that 7 the jetty, in 1999 , needed some additional 8 repair , and it needed 30 foot of sheathing , 9 which is the barrier boards that go down 10 in . So they needed that from the old 11 repair at the end of the 14 foot that they 12 replaced in 1995 , back thirty feet . At 13 that time they also put a new stringer on 14 the top because apparently some trucks or 15 something had been driving over it , and the 16 top board had been damaged . So they put a 17 new stringer , which is six by six feet and 18 it was about 20 or 30 feet long on the top . 19 So that was done in 1999 , and we know 20 that the town of Southold is vigilant about 21 these repairs , because in 1999 Costello did 22 not get a permit for the- - actually, the 23 stairs coming down and this deck that he 24 put out there . And so the bay constable 25 noticed that , and that did require a 8 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 permit , and he issued a violation for that . 3 The Aloias were fined $250 . 00 , and my 4 clients , Mr . Costello and his company, 5 deducted $250 . 00 from the job to compensate 6 them for that . 7 I ' m sorry, I mixed up . Let me go 8 back . The 1999 repair only involved that 9 30 feet . I apologize , Your Honor . 10 The 2001 incident was when the bay 11 constable came in when they put the deck 12 and stairs in , so just to be clear , because 13 I introduced some confusion . 14 In 1995 , they did the outer 14 feet . 15 In 1999 , they did 30 feet inside of that , 16 with a sheathing coming down, basically the 17 wall part of the jetty . Then in 2001 was 18 the deck and the stairs , and during the 19 course of that work, they also decided the 20 in-shore 16 feet needed sheathing and they 21 did that . And that ' s when they had the bay 22 constable come in and issued the violation, 23 because Costello did not get a permit for 24 the deck and the stairs . 25 And then it was after this time that 9 1 Manago v Aloia W 5/3/05 2 Mr . Manago claimed that his beach was 3 eroding , basically complained about it , and 4 he made a complaint to the DEC and they 5 initiated a hearing , and the upshot of the 6 hearing was that my client was asked to 7 take off this top stringer of 20 or 30 8 feet . That was it . There were no 9 violations issued ; nobody was fined for not 10 issuing a permit . The town of Southold did 11 not take any further action . 12 All of plaintiff ' s causes of action 13 against my client , all rest on the premise 14 that there was some violation of some of 15 these regulations . And the people who are 16 in charge of that at the DEC and at the 17 town of Southold did not issue any 18 violations . There was nothing issued in 19 that respect whatsoever . 20 With respect to the 195 and 199 21 repairs , the statute of limitations , three 22 years , has long since past on those 23 repairs . So , I think before Your Honor 24 really, we ' re only talking about the 2001 25 repairs to the in- shore 16 feet of the 10 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 jetty . 3 And the particular regulations that 4 the plaintiff cites , the DEC regulations 5 and the town of Southold regulations , do 6 not create a private cause of action . 7 They ' re meant in general to protect the 8 environment . It ' s not like a regulation 9 that you would have under the Labor Law or , 10 let ' s say, a regulation that you might have 11 for seatbelts , which are intended to 12 protect people . They don ' t create any 13 private cause of action . And we would 14 respectfully submit that the determination 15 of whether a permit is required, whether 16 there was a violation of these regulations 17 are matters for the town of Southold and 18 also for the DEC to decide . I think those 19 are the people we have to give deference to 20 those particular decisions , and they 21 haven ' t found any violation on the part of 22 Mr . Costello ' s corporation . 23 1 just want to add one last point , 24 Your Honor , and that is that there ' s a 25 dispute about the ownership of the jetty, 11 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 and when we first did the repairs in 195 , 3 in order to get a permit from the town of 4 Southold, and also a permit from the DEC , 5 Mr . Costello had to present a survey of the 6 property, and he did present a survey of 7 the property, which I think is Exhibit E in 8 the Costello affidavit , and that shows the 9 jetty to be on the Aloias ' property, and at 10 no time prior to the time that we did any 11 of this work did we have any idea- - did 12 Mr . Costello have any idea that there was a 13 dispute about the ownership of the jetty . 14 All the indications were , from the survey, 15 from the way the bulkhead was constructed, 16 from the fact that the jetty was at the 17 south end of the property, which would not 18 do Mr . Manago any good, which would do 19 Mr . Aloia some good, all of those factors 20 indicated that the jetty was on the Aloias ' 21 property, and we had no reason to believe 22 otherwise . 23 Your Honor , we ' re kind of stuck here 24 in a suit , in a kind of a nasty dispute 25 between two neighbors . All we did, we came 12 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 in , we performed repairs three times on 3 this particular jetty, and there ' s no claim 4 that we did any of those repairs 5 negligently. The only complaint is that we 6 didn ' t obtain permits , and those permits 7 were not required, because it was ordinary 8 maintenance and repair work that we were 9 doing . And had permits been required , 10 surely the town of Southold and the DEC 11 would have taken some action . And that ' s 12 really- - if Your Honor has any questions , 13 I ' ll be glad to answer them. 14 THE COURT : Thank you, Mr . English . 15 I don ' t right now, at the moment . Counsel? 16 MS . BIBLOW : Good morning , Your 17 Honor . I ' m Charlotte Biblow . 1$ THE COURT : Good morning . 19 MS . BIBLOW : And I represent Vincent 20 and Carol Manago in this matter , the 21 plaintiffs . I would like to give you a 22 little brief history of the points , some of 23 the things that Mr . English did not include 24 in his recitation - - 25 THE COURT : Okay . 13 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 MS . BIBLOW : - - and then explain 3 why, not only his clients , both the 4 Costello defendants are not entitled to 5 summary judgment , but the plaintiffs are . 6 It is true that the Managos bought the 7 property in 1996 . It is also true that 8 there were repairs done in 1995 by the 9 Costellos on behalf of the Aloias before my 10 client had owned the property. 11 What is not true is the description 12 of what the beach looked like before 1996 13 or in 2001 or in 1999 . Prior to the 2001 14 repairs being done , Your Honor , that beach 15 was able to be used by my clients spring , 16 summer , fall . It had sand on it . You also 17 have been provided with aerial photographs is that are historical in nature that show 19 that the beach, prior to the 2001 20 reconstruction of the jetty, was a sandy 21 beach . Once that reconstruction was done 22 in 2001 , there was a total scouring of my 23 client ' s beach, to the point where they 24 lost up to two to three feet of sand from 25 the front of their bulkhead, which meant 14 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 that there was - - where sand used to be 3 there were rocks . There was rutted pieces 4 of wood from an old bulkhead that meant 5 that their bulkhead didn ' t have two to 6 three feet of sand in front of it holding 7 it up . There ' s a question as to whether 8 that bulkhead could stand this kind of loss 9 of sand in front of it as far as its 10 integrity . 11 Mrs . Manago cannot use her beach 12 anymore because the sand has been lost so 13 much that there ' s a three foot drop between 14 the top step to the bottom of the each now . 15 So she can ' t get up and she can ' t get down . 16 All of this happened after the 2001 repair . 17 There has been some prior disputes 1s between the neighbors , between 1996 and 19 2001 , where the whole question of boundary 20 line came up , and if I may explain, in 21 1996 , when my clients bought the property, 22 they had a survey done . The jetty shows up 23 on our client ' s property . And the survey 24 has been provided to you . 25 THE COURT : Is that the survey that 15 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 - - not the one that Mr . English was just 3 referring to? 4 MS . BIBhOW : No , there are actually 5 three surveys that are involved here , Your 6 Honor . There ' s a 1984 survey done by 7 Donick (phonetic ) , and that was done when 8 the Aloias bought their property. There ' s 9 a 1996 Peconic survey, which is done by 10 John Metzger . That was done when my 11 clients bought the property . And then 12 there ' s a 2002 survey done by Joseph 13 Ingenio (phonetic ) , and that was done on 14 behalf of the Aloia defendants . Both the 15 Ingenio (phonetic ) survey and the Peconic 16 survey show the jetty on my client ' s 17 property, from the bulkhead- - On our 18 survey it ' s at least 16 feet out . On the 19 Ingenio (phonetic) survey, it ' s from seven 20 to ten feet out , but it ' s on our side of 21 the jetty . 22 As I mentioned, there were prior 23 disputes over the boundary between the two 24 parties , and at that point , in 1997 and in 25 1998 , our clients gave a copy of their 16 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 survey to the Aloias . So they had the 3 survey . They knew that the jetty clearly 4 was marked on our side of the property, and 5 in fact , all the encroachments that our 6 clients complained about at that time , 7 there was a light post , there was a fence , 8 there was a sprinkler head, were moved back 9 to match what was on our clients survey . to So they acknowledge that survey, my 11 client ' s survey that was done in 1996 , was 12 the actual boundary line . 13 In addition, there were markers put 14 out there by our surveyor in 1996 , and as 15 the property was redeveloped or used by the 16 Managos , he ' d come out and resurvey it . 17 There was a marker put on top of the dune 18 and there was a marker put on the jetty, 19 and it was directly on top of the jetty . 20 So, again, these are all notice to anybody 21 who ' s doing any repairs to that jetty, this 22 is a boundary marker there . 23 In addition, in 1996 , when our clients 24 bought the property, one of the contractors 25 that they asked to bid on the repair of 17 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 their bulkhead was the Costello defendants . 3 And at that time , the Costello defendants 4 went to the property, observed what was 5 going on, saw the jetty, saw the markings , 6 and put in a bid . So , they were clearly 7 aware, after- - at 1996 forward, that 8 there was a question as to who owned that 9 jetty . Our clients clearly claimed it was 10 their jetty . 11 Now, with respect to the repairs that 12 were done after my clients bought the 13 property, there ' s a question- - and I 14 believe in our papers , we- - initially 15 Mr . Costello at his deposition or for 16 several hours was testifying that the 17 repairs that were claimed to be done in 18 1999 were done in 2000 . Then he claimed it 19 may have been in 1999 . So there ' s a real 20 question of fact here as to exactly when 21 that middle section was repaired . But 22 there ' s no question that it was done by the 23 Costello defendants at the request of the 24 Aloias . My clients never requested that . 25 when you look at the type of repairs , 18 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 what they want you to believe is that the 3 repair- - actually, it ' s a 64 foot jetty, 4 Your Honor , that repairs to 14 feet of the 5 outer portion of the jetty required 6 permits , but the other 50 feet of this 7 jetty did not . They want you to hold that 8 14 feet was not ordinary repairs and 9 maintenance , but 50 feet of the repair is 10 ordinary maintenance . And I believe if you 11 look at their papers , they also say that - - 12 without any benefit of any statute or case 13 law, that a repair to 50 percent or less of 14 the jetty doesn ' t require permits . 15 Their own actions counter that , 16 because they did get permits in 1995 for 14 17 feet and they repaired more than 50 feet of 18 this jetty after that . I think it ' s three 19 quarters of the jetty, with no permits . 20 That , they actually clearly say they didn ' t 21 do . 22 Now, the repairs that were done in 23 1995 , Your Honor , to the stringer or to the 24 sheathing , rather, was - - they put in one 25 row of sheathing , so the outside deck- - 19 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 I ' m sorry - - the outside portion of the 3 jetty has a single row of sheathing in 4 there , and there are pictures of that . 5 When they did the repairs to the inside 5o 6 feet over the course of a couple of years , 7 what they did is , they didn ' t replace the 8 sheathing , they put a second row in there . 9 So this jetty is now wider than it was , at 10 least that 50 - foot portion . So they 11 widened it . As you heard from Mr . English, 12 they heightened it or raised the height of 13 it by the extra stringers . 14 When you look at the statutes , the 15 regulations of the DEC , the town ' s 16 regulations , when they ' re talking about 17 ordinary repair and maintenance , they are 18 not talking about any changes to the 19 make-up of that jetty . In fact , if you 20 look at the permit that they got in 1995 , 21 both permits from the DEC and from the town 22 specifically say, in-kind and in-place 23 repairs . Nothing else was authorized other 24 than in-kind and in-place repairs . so if 25 they had done what they did to the first 20 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 part of the jetty in 1995 , that would have 3 been in violation of their own permit , 4 because they couldn ' t widen it and they 5 couldn ' t raise the height . They basically 6 had to repair it in place . And that ' s with 7 a permit , Your Honor . 8 Now, in 2000 they get a letter from 9 the DEC , and that ' s in our papers , that 10 explains the jurisdictional limits of what 11 the DEC can do , and that ' s a state agency, 12 and the letter says - - And this is in 13 August of 2000 - - anything landward of the 14 bulkhead, you don ' t need a permit from DEC . 15 You may need a town permit , but you don ' t 16 need DEC . Anything from the bulkhead 17 seaward is in the DEC jurisdiction and 18 you ' re required to get a permit . 19 So they were on notice on 2000 that 20 they needed a permit , which they didn ' t get 21 from the DEC . They were on notice in 1995 22 when they got the original permits that 23 permits were required, and their definition 24 of what they did to this jetty is not 25 ordinary repairs and maintenance . 21 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 Now, the DEC in 2001 , issued a notice 3 of violation for the repairs that were done 4 to the jetty . That notice of violation is 5 still outstanding and has not been 6 resolved, as Mr . English indicated to you . 7 In fact , what the DEC said to the Aloias 8 is , there seems to be a question as to who 9 owns this jetty, whatever you want to call 10 it , go get another survey and let ' s see 11 what it is . Well , the Aloias had already 12 had the Ingenio (phonetic) survey done in 13 2002 , and they refused to turn it over to 14 the DEC , even though they knew- - well , 15 probably because they knew, rather , that 16 that survey shows the jetty on the Managos ' 17 side of the property . And had they shown 18 that to the DEC , it certainly wouldn ' t have 19 supported their case . 20 The other thing with respect to 21 getting permits , Your Honor, is that it ' s 22 not just a matter of filling out a piece of 23 paper and you get a permit from the DEC . 24 There ' s a notice requirement for- - of 25 surrounding neighbors ; there ' s a hearing 22 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 that can be held . All of this was 3 eliminated by their failure to get permits . 4 Not only did the town and the DEC had not 5 been able to evaluate whether this was 6 going to be an environmental nightmare , 7 which it turned out to be , but it also 8 prevented my clients from knowing in 9 advance and being heard in advance as to 10 what they were going to do with this jetty, 11 and to indicate that , wait a minute , this 12 is the Manago jetty, not the Aloia jetty . 13 And by them not getting permits and by them 14 doing this kind of repair before the season 15 started, all this was done in an effort to 16 hide what they were doing , which was going 17 to create basically a wall as opposed to a is jetty that has now prevented sand from 19 coming over to our client ' s property . 20 There ' s also- - With respect to no 21 violations being issued with respect to the 22 2001 repair, if Your Honor looks at the 23 record of the transcript of the hearing 24 before the town on the violation issued by 25 the bay constable , you will see that they 23 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 were dealing with the deck and the stairs , 3 but the board of trustees also commented on 4 what was done to the jetty, and several 5 trustees said that what was done was a 6 violation, and there ' s comments in there , 7 and T think if you look at page 31 of that 8 transcript , you will see that . 9 With respect to the statute of 10 limitations issue that Mr . English raised, 11 as we point out in our papers , Your Honor, 12 this was a course of conduct over- - 13 between 19 - - if you want to say 1999 , we 14 believe it was 2000 . Whatever year you 15 want to start the repairs that were done 16 after my clients get into title , there ' s a 17 course of conduct that ended in 2001 , and 18 that ' s when the full impact of the jetty ' s 19 repair impacts my client . We sued within a 20 year of that , of the final repairs to the 21 jetty, and there is case law that holds 22 that if a contractor is doing work, it ' s 23 from the last bit of construction work . 24 That ' s when the statute of limitations 25 runs . 24 1 Manago v Aloia W 5/3/05 2 In addition, Your Honor , this may be a 3 case under 214 -C , which is latent defect 4 kind of thing , where the work was done to 5 hide what was being done . It was not done 6 with permits , it was not done with notice , 7 it was done before the season . No one told 8 anyone what was going on, and it was done 9 in such a manner as to hide the repairs , 10 and in that case , there is discovery period 11 permitted, and this was clearly brought 12 within the discovery period . This was 13 found out in 2001 , when the beach started 14 to erode , which had not happened in the 15 prior six- - five years our client had 16 owned the property . 17 Mr . English mentioned or made the 18 statement that all of the cases or all of 19 the claims against him rest on- - his 20 clients , rest upon ownership of the jetty, 21 and that ' s not true . We have some claims 22 that are clearly aimed at the Aloia 23 defendants with respect to who owns the 24 jetty, who doesn ' t own the jetty, but the 25 other claims such as negligence , negligence 25 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 per se , nuisance trespass , quite frankly, 3 it doesn ' t matter who owns the jetty 4 necessarily in those kinds of cases , as to 5 the resultant damage that was done to our 6 client ' s property . So , I don ' t think that 7 that ' s a correct element . When you look at 8 the elements of the claim of action under 9 negligence , whether there was a duty, 10 whether it was broken, and whether the 11 damages were foreseeable, there are cases 12 that hold that a contractor does have a 13 duty to a third party to not cause 14 irretrievable damage , and in this 15 particular environment context . So there 16 was the duty . If they did the work 17 wrongfully, as was done here , by the 18 widening of the jetty and heightening it , 19 it clearly was foreseeable that this jetty 20 was going to cause damage to our client ' s 21 beach front . 22 With respect to ownership of the 23 jetty, Your Honor , as I mentioned , there 24 are several surveys in there , two of which 25 are modern surveys and show that the jetty 26 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 is on my client ' s property . The 1984 3 survey , when you look at that , there are 4 obvious errors on that - - First of all , 5 all we have here is a xerox of it . No one 6 seems to have an original copy of that 1984 7 survey . But when you look at that survey, 8 what you see is the bulkhead for the Aloias 9 and their right angle , which is the end of 10 the bulkhead that tie back into the land, 11 and then you have the jetty to the left of 12 that right angle on the survey . But when 13 you go out there , Your Honor, when you 14 actually look at the properties , and 15 there ' s photographs of that , that jetty is 16 to the right of the right angle . So , the 17 placement of that jetty on that piece of 18 paper is out of whack with what is really 19 there , and you can see that . I mean , it ' s 20 several feet inside of the line . 21 I think if you look at that survey, it 22 shows- - if somebody is doing work on 23 that , as the Costello defendants were 24 doing , and they ' re looking at that jetty 25 and they ' re looking at the bulkhead and 27 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 they ' re looking at the lines that are on 3 that survey, it clearly is in error . 4 Couple that with the markers on the jetty 5 that were placed there by my clients ' 6 surveyor , to me , you know, somebody is in 7 the marine business , they ' re supposed to 8 know this . 9 with respect to the Costello Marine 14 Services , Your Honor, which is the other 11 defendant , other Costello defendant , 12 there ' s testimony from one of the Aloias 13 that said when Costello was doing the 14 repairs , the equipment and some of the 15 materials came in on boats , Your Honor , and 16 they were Costello boats . The testimony 17 from Mr . Costello is - - Costello Marine 18 rents out boats and marine services , and 19 there ' s nothing that we ' ve seen in the 24 record that they 've put in other than, 21 Mr . Costello saying in his affidavit , it 22 wasn ' t us , that says that who those boats 23 were . So there ' s a real question of fact 24 as to Costello Marine ' s involvement here , 25 because we have one defendant saying that 28 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 they ' re a company that rents out boats and 3 captains . We have the other defendant 4 saying one of the equipment that was used 5 to repair the jetty was by a Costello 6 entity that was a boat that came in 7 seaward . So , I believe that there is 8 certainly enough evidence to keep that 9 defendant as a defendant . 10 The other thing I do want to talk 11 about very briefly is the ownership of the 12 jetty and what needs to be shown with 13 respect to sort of adverse possession claim 14 here that was asserted by the Aloia 15 defendants . My clients have a survey that 16 shows it ' s on their property. They ' re 17 paying taxes on that property . The Aloias 18 claim that they owned the jetty since 184 19 when they bought their property, that 20 either their title gave them title to it or 21 they acquired it through adverse possession 22 without a document . Well , when you look at 23 their written documents , their deed , their 24 mortgage , there ' s nothing in it that refers 25 to the jetty . In fact , the only reference 29 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 to the Donick survey in those documents is 3 to establish the high- - the average high 4 water record . So there ' s no document that 5 says you now own the jetty, Mr . and Mrs . 6 Aloia . 7 So now we have to look at the factors 8 that go into an adverse possession claim, 9 Your Honor . We have to have five common 10 law elements that apply to both, whether 11 it ' s written document or not a written 12 document . It has to be hostile , it has to 13 be open and notorious , it has to be actual , 14 has to be exclusive , has to be continuous 15 for ten years , and has to be under a claim 16 of right . Nothing was done to this jetty 17 until 1995 by the Aloias . They owned that 18 property for 11 years and they made no 19 claim with respect to that jetty . In fact , 20 there ' s no evidence that any repairs were 21 ever done to this jetty before 1995 by 22 anyone . 23 The way they went about making the 24 repair, once my client is in title in 1996 , 25 defeats their claim for open and notorious . 30 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 They didn ' t do this with the right permits , 3 although they ' re required to do so ; they 4 didn ' t do this with notice to everybody . 5 They did this in a manner where , while they 6 were doing other work on the beach, they 7 would be sticking in little pieces of 8 sheathing so that no one would understand 9 what they were doing . 10 THE COURT : Can I just interrupt you 11 for a second? Why isn ' t it the DEC ' s 12 responsibility to do something about the 13 permits or lack of permits , like 14 Mr . English suggested? 15 MS . BIBLOW : There are actually 16 overlapping jurisdictions here , and under 17 the Tidal Wetlands Act , the DEC has 18 authority and has the jurisdiction to 19 regulate all kinds of different activities 20 in the water . One of them is repairs , 21 construction , reconstructions of bulkheads , 22 jetties , groins , and that ' s how they- - 23 it ' s under the Environmental Conservation 24 Law and under their own regulations . And 25 when you look at the state ' s regulations , 31 1 Manago v Aloza - 5/3/05 2 there ' s actually a chart in the regulations 3 and it says , if you do this , you don ' t need 4 a permit . If you do this , it ' s 5 presumptively inconsistent , you do need a 6 permit . And when you look at the kinds of 7 categories we have here , that ' s where they 8 come into play . And there is a notice 9 requirement , and that ' s what ' s going on 10 here . One of the categories is , other than 11 ordinary repairs to a jetty, you need a 12 permit from the DEC . 13 You also need a permit from the board 14 of trustees of the town, under their Tidal 15 Wetlands . It ' s Chapter 97 . And they also 16 have very similar kind of wording , which 17 says that if you ' re doing repairs to or 18 construction of a jetty, you need a permit . 19 Some of this goes back to historical 20 reasons , Your Honor , which is the patents 21 that came from England where the board of 22 trustees of the town have ownership , 23 basically, of the underwater lands , and 24 that ' s where their authority comes from . 25 So they also have a say in it who can do 32 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 what , and you need permits from all of 3 these people . 4 The Corps of Engineers , the Army Corps 5 of Engineers also has permitting 6 requirements . They didn ' t get permits from 7 them either . And they have jurisdiction 8 over navigable waters , based on federal 9 statutes , and in fact , the New York State 10 Department of State also has jurisdiction 11 of coastal waters . They sometimes require 12 permits , and no permits were gotten from 13 them either . So , there ' s a lot of 14 overlapping jurisdictions . 15 THE COURT : Why don ' t any of those 16 agencies issue a violation? 17 MS . BIBLOW : The DEC did issue a 18 notice of violation, Your Honor . It ' s 19 still pending , Your Honor . 20 THE COURT : That ' s because of the 21 border dispute or- - 22 MS . BIBLOW : No , that has to do 23 with- - when you look at the notice of 24 violation from the DEC , what it says is , 25 for repairs for the 16 foot in- shore 33 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 repairs done to the jetty , it required a 3 permit . Plus , it also mentioned the extra 4 stringer they put on top , and that ' s what 5 the notice of violation was issued from the 6 DEC . It had nothing do with the decks or- - 7 it had to do with the repairs to the jetty . 8 THE COURT : All right , thank you . 9 You don ' t have to speak anymore about the 10 adverse possession claim, unless something 11 comes up , but I 'm not expecting it . 12 Do you want to be heard, Counsel? 13 MS . WEINER : Yes , good morning . My 14 name is Nancy Weiner . I ' m the attorney for 15 the Aloia defendants . I just wanted to 16 respond to some of the arguments made by 17 plaintiff ' s counsel . 18 Plaintiff ' s counsel here today and 19 throughout plaintiff ' s entire papers keep 20 referring to the work done on the jetty as 21 reconstruction . The only thing that may 22 even mildly be reconstruction would be the 23 1995 work that was necessitated as a result 24 of an ice storm lifting the pilings , the 25 sheathing , and the stringers completely out 34 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 of the water . A permit was obtained for 3 that . Counsel says that Costello obtained 4 the 195 permit , he should have known enough 5 to get the 199 and 2001 permits . Mr . 6 Costello explained that fully at his 7 deposition , where he says , when he does 8 work for first time on a jetty, he always 9 gets permits whether they ' re needed or not 10 to establish functionality and legality, 11 pursuant to DEC regulations . He did that 12 in ' 95 . 13 Plaintiff also brought up the issue 14 that the sand on the plaintiff ' s beach has 15 now been depleted, so much so that 16 Mrs . Manago has a three foot drop down from 17 the bottom of the stairs to the sand . Your 18 Honor was looking at the plaintiff ' s 19 photos . If Your Honor looks at the photos 20 attached to the Aloias ' motion papers , 21 particularly Exhibit H in the Aloia 22 defendant affirmation in opposition , they 23 are from December 2003 , the sand is 24 directly up to the bottom of the staircase . 25 The plaintiffs seem to have submitted 35 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 only photographs showing rocky beaches , 3 with seaweed , rocks , jagged pieces of 4 wood- - 5 THE COURT : High tide to the bulkhead 6 on their property, not on yours . 7 MS . WEINER : Correct , Judge . The 8 plaintiffs are out there almost every 9 weekend, I would think , during the season 10 and have failed to get any of the type of 11 photographs that I myself have gotten by 12 going there perhaps three or four times a 13 year to take some pictures , and all of 14 those pictures are attached . 15 In fact , Your Honor , last week , on 16 April 27 , 28 , and 29 , photographs were 17 taken of the Manago beach, which now 18 establishes that the Manago beach has more 19 sand than the Aloia beach , if Your Honor 20 would like to see them . 21 THE COURT : Sure . Have you shown 22 those to your colleagues? You got copies 23 of those? 24 MS . BIBLOW : Your Honor , we got 25 xeroxes of those . 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 36 2 THE COURT : Take a look and then I ' ll 3 take a quick look and we ' ll see . 4 (Ms . Weiner handed documents up to 5 the Court ) b MS . WEINER : Those photos , Judge , 7 also establish that the Aloia beach now has 8 more rocks on it than does the Manago 9 beach . 10 THE COURT : More rocks ? 11 MS . WEINER : Yes . And that the sand 12 is actually now built up so high over the 13 jetty, that you can walk on the sand from 14 the Aloia beach right over to the Manago 15 beach . Sand has built up against the 16 Manago bulkhead and under the staircase . 17 These pictures , Your Honor, and the 18 pictures taken by myself from 2002 up until 19 2005 clearly establish that the plaintiff ' s 20 beach is not in a permanent state that they 21 allege and as they purport to show you in 22 the pictures in these motions . The beach 23 is constantly changing . Our experts have 24 said the beach is changing due to tides , 25 storms , weather , and seasons . 37 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 I think those pictures , Judge , in 3 themselves completely defeat the 4 plaintiff ' s claim that the beach has been 5 permanently damaged by anything that was 6 done to the Aloia jetty . Tell me when you 7 would like me to go on . 8 THE COURT : I think that ' s enough on 9 the beach and the photos and the sand, but 10 if you want to speak about the discrepancy 11 on the surveys and who actually owns the 12 jetty, if you want to, I ' d like to hear 13 that . 14 M5 . WEINER : Yes . Plaintiff referred 15 to prior disputes between the neighbors . I 16 would not characterize them as a border 17 dispute . The Aloias purchased that 18 property in 1984 . In 1986 , when the- - in 19 1996 , when the Managos purchased, within a 20 year or two after that , they asked the 21 Aloias to move a lamp post that was four 22 inches over on to the Manago property . The 23 Aloias are quiet people ; they never have 24 problems with their neighbors . They moved 25 it . They moved the sprinkler head . They 38 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 never took down their fence . When they 3 returned to their property in the spring , 4 the fence was thrown on their front lawn . 5 The plaintiffs seem to construe as the 6 Aloias agreeing to the property line so 7 they ' re agreeing that the jetty was on the 8 Manago property . 9 When the Aloias purchased in 1984 , 10 they had a survey done by Donick 11 Associates . They did not have the 12 original . I researched Donick . He is 13 deceased . He did not sell his business . 14 Nobody knows where his records are , and we 15 will present the original . That Donick 16 survey includes the jetty completely within 17 the boundaries of the Aloia property . 18 That survey also notes that the Aloia 19 property consists of 99 feet running across 20 the high water mark of Little Peconic Bay . 21 Ninety-nine feet includes the jetty 22 completely within the confines of that 23 property, the Aloia property . That 24 description, the 99 feet , is contained in 25 the deed and in the mortgage that were 39 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 given to the Aloias at the time of closing . 3 These are documents that constitute written 4 instruments for the purpose of adverse 5 possession, Your Honor . Also , the jetty 6 was referred to, although not documents 7 that you would want under the property 8 laws , the title report and the title policy 9 says that the property is improved by a 10 wooden jetty . There ' s no such description 11 on the Managos ' title report or title 12 policy, other than the jetty encroaches on 13 to their property . 14 There have been many problems on 15 Nassau Point of late because the surveying 16 equipment in prior decades has been so 17 improved now that the border lines are off 18 on many properties . But the Aloias 19 purchased this property in a good faith 20 effort thinking that the jetty was on their 21 property . They took care of it for years , 22 they put a lot of money into that jetty. 23 Before them, Mrs . Shoot , their predecessor 24 owned it , had that jetty built at her own 25 cost and maintained it . We don ' t have any 40 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 records of the maintenance by Mrs . Shoot , 3 but the neighbors to both sides , Mr . Fry 4 and Dr . Porpora ' s (phonetic ) son, John 5 Porpora (phonetic ) , have both provided 6 affidavits that are attached to our motion, 7 saying Mrs . Shoot had the jetty built . 8 From the 1950 ' s up until 1984 when the 9 Aloias purchased, Mrs . Shoot maintained and 10 repaired that jetty at her sole cost . Dr . 11 Porpora ' s (phonetic ) son has also provided 12 an affidavit , because Dr . Porpora is dead, 13 stating that in the 1950 ' s , when the Army 14 Corps of Engineers gave the homeowners on 15 Nassau Point the opportunity to have 16 jetties built , Mrs . Shoot approached Dr . 17 Porpora, asked if he would split the cost 18 and they would put the jetty at the end of 19 the Porpora property, which is now the 20 plaintiff ' s property . Dr . Porpora 21 declined . He did not want to spend that 22 money . Mrs . Shoot thereafter built it at 23 her own cost . 24 The plaintiffs , now due do advances in 25 surveying , their survey shows a portion , a 41 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 wedge of the jetty from the bulkhead out on 3 their property . They now want to claim 4 that the whole jetty is theirs . This just 5 seems to be against public policy, Judge . 6 The Aloias , in a good faith, believe that 7 the jetty was theirs , have treated it as 8 theirs , cared for it , maintained and 9 repaired it at their sole cost . And their 10 predecessor owned it and had it built , and 11 it ' s referred to in their documents , deed, 12 and mortgage provided at the closing . 13 Pursuant to the Real Property Law, this 14 should give them adverse possession, and I 15 also believe- - I won ' t repeat it now, 16 because counsel has already gone into it , 17 but it ' s noted in my papers , all the case 18 law supporting all of the five elements of 19 adverse possession and how the Aloias have 20 met all those elements . 21 THE COURT : Thank you very much . 22 MS . WEINER : Thank you , Judge , 23 THE COURT : All right , thank you very 24 much for your arguments . Would you please 25 make arrangements to order a copy of your 42 1 Manago v Aloia - 5/3/05 2 arguments , and I ' ll reserve decision on all 3 the motions at this point . 4 MS . BIBLOW : Thank you , Your Honor . 5 MR . ENGLISH : Thank you, Your Honor . 6 MS . WEINER : Thank you , Your Honor . 7 (Whereupon , the proceedings were 8 adjourned) . 10 C E R T I F I C A T I O N 11 I , Anna M . Lopinto , RFR , an Official Court 12 Reporter , do hereby certify that the foregoing is a 13 true and accurate transcription of the stenographic 14 notes taken herein . 15 16 4 no 17 Anna M . Lopinto 18 Official Court Reporter 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SERVICE COPY VINCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, ) Index No. 02--15690 Plaintiffs, ) - against - ) AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN M. OLKO IN JOHN F. ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA, ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. , ) Justice Baisley Defendants . ) RETURNABLE January 6, 2005 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss . . COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Stephen M. Olko, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1 . I am the principal of Olko Engineering of New York, New York. 2 . I submit this affidavit in support of the motion of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. for summary judgment . 3 . I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engi- neering from Dartmouth College, a Master of Science degree in Structural Engineering from the Thayer School of Engineering, a Master of Science degree in Soils and Foundations from Harvard University, and I was a Ph . D. Candidate at Columbia University . 4 . A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 . Some aspects of my qualifications and experience are summarized below: 1 5 . 1 am a Licensed Professional Engineer in several states, including New York State. 6 . I have been a waterfront design engineer since 1948 and formed the Firm of Olko Engineering in 1956 . 7 . As a consulting engineer, I specialize in coastal stabilization issues and projects, as well as the design, impact and construction of ports, harbors and marina facilities . 8 . I am and have been for several decades an expert engineer and consultant in the area of coastal and beach engi- neering, including the study and remedy of beach erosion, litto- ral drift problems, and the design, location and construction of shore protection works and structures . 9 . My attached c . v. includes a summary of some of the hundreds of waterfront, shore and coastal engineering projects of which I have been in charge as a consulting engineer . 10 . These projects have included many in Long Island, New York, which have required me to become highly familiar with t � r_ach erosic,., _-�CC!7_t4on and li_t�ora�. ticns which prevail along the shores of Long Island. 11 . I am fully familiar with the effects of beach ero- sion and littoral drift on the shores of Long Island, and with the use of "groins" and "groin fields" to stabilize shorelines 2 and combat beach erosion . For clarity, a "groin" is a jetty-like structure used to stabilize a beach . The term "jetty" is used to describe a similar structure specifically employed to protect a channel inlet . The structure at issue between the Manago and Aloia properties is actually a wooden "groin . " 12 . I prepared a report dated April 20, 2004 in con- nection with the subject lawsuit on behalf of the defendants . A copy of my report is attached as Exhibit 2 to this affidavit . 13 . Prior to making my report (Exhibit 2) , I made per- sonal observations of both the wooden groin in question and the eastern shore of Nassau Point in Cutchogue . The Manago and Aloia properties are but two properties along this shoreline, on which are found several other groins, at other properties . 14 . In making my report, I also considered various re- cords in the case, including the parties' deposition testimony, various maps and charts of the relevant area, an "Erosion Plan" developed for the Town of Southold, and photographs produced by the Managos and the Aloias depicting the wooden groin and sur- ro'-,ndin-, a_eas . 15 . In preparing my report, I reviewed a letter report of "EN-Consultants" dated October 10, 2001, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 to this affidavit . 3 16 . I also received and reviewed a letter report by the Managos' experts, FPM Group Ltd. , dated November 17 , 2003 . 17 . In making this affidavit, I reviewed the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert Gary A. Molnar (of FPM Group Ltd . ) dated November 17, 2004 . 18 . I agree with Mr. Molnar that the purpose of the subject wooden groin is to capture some sand. 19 . I do not agree with Mr . Molnar' s conclusions con- cerning the effect of the wooden groin on the Managos' property, or with the efficacy of Mr. Molnar' s proposed solution of remov- ing the groin entirely from the beach. 20 . My conclusions and opinions in this case are stated in my report, which is Exhibit 2 to this affidavit . For purposes of this affidavit I refer to the contents of my report and, by reference, incorporate those contents herein. My conclu- sions and opinions in this case include the following: 21 . The construction and maintenance of the wooden groin Foes not cause erosion of the. Managos' 22 . Removal of the wooden groin would cause erosion of the Aloias' beach, and would cause additional erosion of the Managos' beach. 4 23 . The deteriorated and partial stone groin on the Managos' property is not sufficient to stabilize the Managos' beachfront . 24 . The vertical bulkhead reconstructed by the Managos in 1996 along their beachfront worsens the erosion of their beach . 25 . The repairs by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. to the subject wooden groin, did not cause erosion of the Mana- gos' beachfront . 26. Any sand which may have passed from the Alcias' property onto the Managos' beach through the wooden groin prior to its repair would not have been retained on the Manago prop- erty, because the Managos' property is not protected by an ade- quate groin or groins . Any such pass-through sand would have continued to move southward along the shore of Nassau Point, be- cause the Managos' stone groin is inadequate and because there is no groin at the southern end of the Managos' property . 27 . The shape, dimensions and depth of the bay upon which the Aloia and Manago properties face are such that normal wind and wave-driven littoral drift of sand does not occur . 28 . Instead, the beaches along Nassau Point are re- plenished with sand mainly as a result of dredging of Little Creek Inlet , located near the north end of Nassau Point . The ex- 5 ,s2 r HA Nu. : 0.5 Ma.y. lit 20015 C4:40R-1 F'? i tent to which beuc•hes south of Little Creek Inlet (inclucting tFie Aloia and Manago teaches) are nourished, as a result of dredca '.ng activity at the Inlet, depends in large part on the quantity oC sand placed on the: beach in a given year . 29. The! movement of sand (known as "littoral drift") along the eastern shore of Nassau Point is predominantly from north to south. The Aloias' property is adjacent to and north of the Managos' property. 30. The wooden groin in question is located on or near the property .line between Aloia and Manago_ 31. A partial stone groin is located on the Manago property about sixty feet south of the subject wooden groin. The partial stone groin extends about thirty feet out from the snore into the bay. 32 . The Manaqos' beach does not retain sand, and therefore often has no beach, because there is no groin at the southern end of the property to capture sand, and because the Managos' stone groin is not sufficient to retain sand. The stone groin is not large enough, and it has not been maintained. 33. The movement of sand in way of the Aloia and Manago properties cannot properly be evaluated except by examin- ing those two properties in conjunction with the overall coastal complex into which they fit_ The eastern shore of Nassau Point, 6 extending south from Little Creek Inlet, is about 3 . 8 miles long, whereas the shore-front properties of Aloia and Manago together only comprise about 250 feet of that coastline . 34 . The analysis in this case cannot properly be made without taking into consideration the effects of the three groins which extend out into the bay from properties to the north of the Aloia and Manago properties . 35 . When properly maintained, the wooden groin in question is capable of retaining about 440 cubic yards of sand. This amount is absolutely insignificant in the context of the overall coastal complex, especially when the effects of the three groins to the north of the subject properties are considered as well . 36 . The wooden bulkhead along the Managos' beachfront (constructed by the Managos) adds to the erosion problem on that beach . The bulkhead reflects incoming wave energy back out into the bay, which causes scouring of the beach in front . In addi- tion, the bulkhead prevents the nourishment of the Managos' beach bJ vro:-Ie? land from bluff b�_hinJ the 37 . It is my understanding that, for years prior to the reconstruction of the bulkhead by the Managos in 1996, there was no bulkhead in place along the beachfront of the Manago prop- erty . This allowed incoming wave energy to be absorbed by the 7 sandy bluff, and the exposed sandy bluff also provided sand to nourish the Manago beach . The reconstruction of the bulkhead by the Managos in 1996 had a detrimental effect on their beach . 38 . The bulkhead along the Aloias' property, which is similar in construction to the Manago bulkhead, does not have a similar detrimental effect on the Aloias' beach because of the presence of the wooden groin, and partially retained sand, which affords protection to the Aloias' beach . 39 . The repairs to the wooden groin did not impact the condition of the Manago beach . 40 . The 6" x 6" x 30-foot timber placed atop the in- shore end of the wooden groin in 1999, and subsequently removed in 2001, had no effect because of its small size ( less than six inches in height) and its location at the upper beach elevation as opposed to the seaward end of the groin . This is confirmed by Mr. Manago' s statement that no change in sand retention occurred on his beach after this timber was removed . 41 . That a second layer of vertical sheeting was added to the wooden groin in 1999 (middle thirty feet of the groin) and in 2001 (inshore sixteen feet) makes a difference only in the structural strength of the groin. The thickness of sheeting has no effect whatsoever on the amount of sand retained by the groin . 8 42 . In my opinion, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. has performed the usual function of a contractor . 43 . The existing condition of the Manago beach at any time is a natural condition . 44 . Photographs claimed to depict "erosion" of the Manago beach appear so only because the adjacent wooden groin does retain some sand - as it was designed and installed to do . 45 . If the subject wooden groin were not present, the Manago beach would not have more sand. Instead, both the Aloia and Manago beaches would be eroded. 46. The amount of sand retained by the subject wooden groin is insignificant . If the groin were removed, that volume of sand would be washed away, at high tide during the first mod- erate winter storm, and would quickly pass southward through and past the Manago property. 47 . Both the Aloia and Manago. properties are located in an "erosion zone" where the "natural, " stable beach is essen- tially a Coarse, shir�gle, gravel 1�Fach Find. sandy beach . 48 . The shoreline north of the Manago property has sand only because property owners there built and maintained groins to protect their properties . 9 5 49 . Beaches along the eastern shore of Nassau Point are artificially replenished with sand by the dredging of Little Creek Inlet to the north . 50 . Because the Manago property lacks a suitable groin, sand traveling southward bypasses the Manago property, leaving a coarse shingle beach. 51 . In making this affidavit, I have reviewed the af- fidavits of John Aloia and Vera Aloia, dated October 14 , 2004 , and the affidavit of George Fry dated November 22, 2004 . The de- scriptions in the Aloia and Fry affidavits of beach conditions at the subject properties in prior years are in my opinion consis- tent with both the natural beach conditions at, and the effects of dredging activities and the several groins along the eastern shore of Nassau Point . U St phen M. Oiko Sworn to before me this Q _FESS% E-N 2Z`r'%day of December, 2004 �1? M, 0 n Not ry Public ZAHMEL ALVARADO NOTARY PUBLIC,Stag of PINT Yoh NumDer OIAL5079594 Quoii ood in Bronx County Certificate Fiied in New Yortt County 'o^misspor Expires June 09.20 ¢] 10 OLKO ENGINEERING Stephen M. 01ko EDUCATION: Darmouth College, BS in Civil Engineering. Thayer School of Engineering, MS in Structural Engineering. Harvard University, MS in Soils and Foundations. Columbia University, PhD Candidate. LICENSES: Licensed Professional Engineer in about a dozen States in the eastern USA. PATENTS: Registered United States Patent Agent. MEMBERSHIP: ACI, AICE, ASCE, ASTM, MTS, SAME, and many other professional organizations. Served on various committees and held executive office in a number of them. NIT ITARY: U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Corps Reserve—Lt. 3g. PUBLICATIONS & LECTURES: Author of papers and publications on ports, Foundation and Structural Engineering. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: Mr. 01ko was Port Engineer, Chief Soils Engineer and Project Manager, 1948-1953, with Frederick R_ Harris, Consulting Engineers, in New York City. In 1953 he was Chief Port Engineer in London under subcontract to the U.S. Navy on studies of classified Naval Bases in the Mediterranean. In 1954-1955 he was Chief Port Engineer for Architects-Engineers, Spanish Bases Madrid, Spain. Since commencing private practice as a Consulting Engineer in 1956,Mr. Olko has been in charge of over 1000 Projects—in the USA and abroad. His prime specialty is Ports, Harbors, Coastal Stabilization and Marinas and their related facilities — including feasibility studies, environmental impacts, economic appraisals, detailed designs, specifications, cost estimates, permit processing, expert testimony, cargo handling equipment and supervision of waterfront construction. Olko short resume Stephen M Olko Coasts!Engineer November 7,2003 Studies and Designs Page 1 STEPHEN NL OLKO COASTAL ENGINEER S.M. Qlko is a specialist in coastal and beach engineering problems involving wave analysis, Littoral drift approach channels,beach erosion and accmdon and shore protection works. During the past 40 years he has worked internationally on projects located offshore, as well as in protected harbors and estuaries. The studies and designs for which he has been responsible generally consist of Evaluation of natural environmental conditions - such as winds, waves, tides, currents and soils. The evaluations often require filed surveys of bathymetry, side scan sonar, seismic surveys, wave and current recordings. Determination of design parameters such as wave forces and net littoral drift. Preparation of technical and economic feasibility studies with conceptual drawings evaluating alternative solutions to problems of coastal engineering. Development of preliminary design and cost estimates for various coastal works- such as navigation channels, groins, revetments, silt traps, sand bypass plants, feeder beaches, training jetties, bulkheads, and breakwaters. Preparation of detailed contract drawings for construction-including inspection of the construction. The following are brief descriptions of some specific,typical past coastal engineering projects,both in the USA and abroad. Breezy Point,NY Studies of navigation channel stabilization, tidal current channel erosion and changes in peninsula due to accretion Entire south shore of Long Island was studied. Served as expert witness to State of NY in land condemnation litigation. Champerico,Guatemala Studies of littoral drift, including hydraulic model studies and wave action. Design of entrance channels and breakwaters with necessary silt traps. Client: Port Authority of Champerico. Port Edward,New York Study of contamination of Hudson River from PCB discharges, including studies of tidal flows, depositions, dredge equipment and dredge disposal. Entire length of Hudson River was studied. Client: General Electric Co. Stephen M Olko Coastal Engineer November 7,2003 Studies and Designs Page 3 Punta Cana,Dominican Republic Studies of beech erosion and stabilization,with dredging of channels for marina development with breakwaters, Prepared contract drawings and inspected the construction. Client: Punta Cana Beach Club. Glen Cove,NY Study of alternative methods and costs to control beach erosion with filling, groins, revetments and offshore breakwaters. Client: U.S. Army Corps of Fmowers. Puerto Plata,Donniaican Republic Study of beach stabilization and use of dredged fill from harbor to regain eroded oceanfront. Inspected dredging work at Coslambar Beach. Client: ADELA. Sheepshead Bay,New York Study and development of beach for students at Kingsborough Communrty College. Inspected construction of groins and beach filling. Client. Dormitory Authority State of NY. East Hampton,New York Studies and construction of revetments for beach stabilization and control of erosion, for several private estates located along the beach. Puerto Quetzal,Guatemala Studies,contract plans and inspection of construction for 6 Km of beach front,consisting of groins,revelments, jetties and dredging for filling and stabilization. Client:Empresa Portuaria Quetzal. Sharm El Sheikh,Egypt Studies of beach/bluff stabilization and underwater walkways for minimum environmental disturbances. Client: Four Seasons Hotel. La Barrita,Guatemala Study and construction of beach stabilization with marina inlet jetties. Inspected dredging, filling, revelment and breakwater construction. Client. Marina del Sur. Cape May,New Jersey Study of tidal cycles and navigational access at Cape May Canal. Client: Rutgers University. Tulum,Meidco Study of offshore parallel geotube breakwaters to stabilize and improve beaches, and estimate wave overtopping for partially submerged breakwaters. Client: Hotels. Punts Same,Ecuador Study of geobag jetties for marina entranceway to prevent siltation of access channel. Client: Casablanca Resort. Puerto Penasco,Mexico Study of geotube dike to create a slat-water lagoon. Wave forces, overtopping and seepage studies tonal iength of 4,050 meters of dike. Client: Phoenix Bank. Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine April 20, 2004 Kennedy Lillis Schmidt & English Attorneys at Law 75 Maiden Lane— Suite 402 New York,NY 1003 84 816 Attn: Thomas C. Murphy Esq. Re: Groin Repairs and Beach Erosion Manago Vs Aloia and Costello Marine Contracting Corporation Cutchogue, NY -KLS&E File 4052 Gentlemen: This letter report constitutes my engineering evaluation and opinion, concerning the responsibility of the 60 ft. long Aloia beach stabilizing groin (jetty), causing "erosion" at the adjacent Manago beach property. After inspecting the beach, reviewing available data, references, photographs and depositions - my conclusions are: 1. The constructed and maintained Aloia groin, does not cause erosion of the Manago beach property. 2. Removal of the Aloia groin would cause (a) New erosion, undermining of the Aloia property and (b) Additional erosion of the Manago beach. 3. The deteriorated and partial stone groin on the Manago property, in its present condition, provides minimal protection and does not stabilize the Manago beach. 4. The vertical timber shore bulkhead, along the Manago beach, worsens the erosion. 5. The groin repairs by Costello Marine Contracting Corporation do not cause erosion of the Manago beach front. Olko Engineering Page 1 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine The basis for the above conclusions will be delineated in the following sections of this letter report, entitled: 1. Individuals and Firms Involved, 2. Approximate Chronology of Events 3. Basis for Manago Claim of Erosion 4. Shore Conditions 5. Eroding Beaches 6. Retention of Sand by Existing Groins 7. Description of Properties and Defects 8. Effect of the Aloia Groin 9. Effect of the Manago Bulkhead 10. Responsibility of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. 11. Concluding Comments 1. Individuals and Firms Involved Dr. John F. Aloia and Mrs. Elvira T. Aloia: Present Owners of the property on which the subject groin retains sand and forms the southern boundary. Dr. and Mrs. Aloia maintain the groin. They are defendants. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Contractor who has repaired the beach protection works on the Aloia property. They are defendants. Mr. Vincent Manago and Mrs. Carol Manago Present Owners of the eroded beach, located immediately south of the Aloia property. They are the plaintiffs. 2. Approximate Chronology of Events The approximate dates of the major events, associated with the subject matter, are as follows: 1955 The 60 ft. long timber groin, on the south end of the Aloia property, was constructed by the former owner, Mr. Chute. 1960 Partial stone groin constructed on the Manago property, by the former owner, Mr. Purpura. Olko Engineering Page 2 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine 1984 Severe storm caused damages to waterfront properties. 1984 Dr. and Mrs. Aloia purchased the property from Mr. Chute. 1995 An ice storm damaged the Aloia groin. 1995 The outermost 14 linear feet of the Aloia groin was repaired by Costello Marine. New timber piles and sheeting were installed 1996 Mr. and Mrs. Manago purchased the property from Mr. Purpura. 1996 A new bulkhead was constructed along the Manago property. 1999 About 30 linear feet of the Aloia groin was repaired by Costello Marine, in the center, primarily by adding a second row of timber sheeting, plus a 30 ft. long 6x6 inch timber stringer cap on top. 2001 About 16 linear feet of the Aloia groin was repaired by Costello Marine, at the shore end, primarily by adding a second row of timber sheeting. 2001 The 6x6 inch timber cap, on top of the Aloia groin, was removed by Costello Marine. 3. Basis for Manago Claim of Erosion It is understood that the 16 feet of shore end repair work, performed in Year 2001 by Costello Marine, is the basis for the Manago claim of beach erosion caused by the Aloia groin. The claim appears to be that the previously deteriorated 16 linear feet of groin allowed sand to pass through and thus replenish the Manago beach. It is correct that some sand would pass through the 16 feet of previously deteriorated Aloia groin — but an insignificant quantity. As subsequently discussed, such pass through sand will continue moving southward, because the Manago stone groin is inadequate. The sand is not retained and therefore, Manago does not have a sandy beach. Olko Engineering Page 3 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine ghm Conditions The Alma and Manago properties are located on a bluff, overlooking the east shore of Little Hog Neck, facing Little Peconic Bay. The Bay is about 4 miles wide, with shoals, but the waters are about 25 feet deep offshore of the two properties. The following excerpt from Reference 1, on Page U-5 describes the general conditions at the Aloia and Manago properties. The shoreline curves around Indian Neck to a north/south orientation along Little Hog Neck. This curve is interrupted by one inlet at Little Creek that is dredged yearly. Shoreline from the public beach south to Nassau Point is bulkheaded along its whole length with many groins. This shoreline is backed by a very steep bluff that quickly rises to more than 50 feet. This bluff has eroded in places from groundwater seeps that are not associated with coastal erosion. Fetch across Hog Neck Bay to Jesup Neck is about 20,000 feet, and waves come directly from the east. Direction of littoral drift is very sensitive to wave direction and can reverse many times during a year. According to baymen, the tidal current along this shoreline always sets towards the south. Nassau Point seems to be elongating in response to littoral drift and the tidal current. The shape of the bay, its dimensions and depths are such that normal wind/wave littoral drift does not occur, to replenish the subject beach. Instead, the beach is replenished by dredging of Little Creek Inlet, to the north of the Aloia and Manago properties, and pumping the sand onto the beach. The usual procedure is to use a floating dredge, with a connecting pipeline. A mixture of sand and water is then pumped to shore, discharging onto the beach. Predominant wave action transports the sand southward, to the Aloia and Manago area. The quantity of dredged sand placed on the beach, affects the nourishment of adjacent beaches. Depending on the seasons, the waves, currents and winds move the sand in different directions. The occasional, severe storms erode the beaches, damage bulkheads and destroy stairs leading down onto the beaches. The sand is washed away, leaving a bedding of shingles (coarse pebbles and gravel). Whereas, the bluffs do not provide sand, because they are protected from erosion by bulkheading. Olko Engineering Page 4 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine S FEWing Beaches The entire east side of the Little Hog Neck Peninsula is predominantly a natural shifting, changing and eroding beach - as evidenced by the following 1. Home owners have built groins and bulkheads to save their beach front. There are 3 groins retaining sand, north of the Aloia groin. The northernmost groin is the longest, retaining the most sand. The partial stone groin on the Manago property, to the south, is the shortest, retaining the least volume of sand. 2. Between the groins, wherever sand is not retained, the beach is coarse grained. In fact, south of the Manago stone groin, the beach is usually a coarse shingle (coarse pebbles and gravel) - the fines have washed away. The Manago property does not have a suitable groin, similar to the properties to the north, it therefore has no retained sand - and no comparable beach. 6. Retention of Sand by Existing Groins As a further introduction to the subjects of groins, beach erosion, etc, the following excerpt from Reference 1, Page S-3, is of interest: The Peconic shores have been subjected to many erosion control structures to prevent landward migration. Over its 136 miles of tidally influenced shoreline, more than a thousand groins have been built. Groins are prominent along the 35+ miles of sandy shoreline. Where houses have been constructed, about 50 percent of the shoreline is bulkheaded. Most of the more than 25 inlets are protected by jetties. In 27 separate areas, the Town has undertaken almost 150 dredging projects since the 1960's. Suffolk County has dredged at least five creeks yearly since the 1950's. This heavy investment has maintained the shoreline, and few, if any, houses have been lost to erosion. However, several areas still flood regularly, leading to property damage. A high level of investment will continue to be necessary in the future to prevent loss of property and minimize damage. In this letter report, the beach structure, between the Aloia and Manago properties, is correctly referred to as a "Groin". Although, the depositions refer to the structure as a "Jetty" — which is not correct because the structure does not train a channel inlet. Olko Engineering �� Page 5 Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine The Aloia and Manago properties are not isolated parcels of land but instead, located towards the southern end of Little Hog Neck, they are a part of the peninsula. The two properties must be evaluated in conjunction with the overall coastal complex. For example, the north/south coastline is about 3.8 miles long, but the Aloia property occupies only 99 Linear feet of the shoreline—about 0.5 of one percent. Particularly important is the fact that north of the Aloia property are 3 relatively uniform groins having the following locations and distances from the 60 ft. long Aloia groin: I. The first groin is located 200 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 65 feet into the Bay. This groin marks the northern boundary of the neighbor (Mr. Fry) located immediately north of Aloia. Sand, traveling northward, is retained by this first groin, particularly during the summer season. 2. The second groin is located 525 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 60 feet into the Bay. Sand is retained by this second groin. 3. The third groin is located 840 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 100 feet into the Bay. The largest volume of sand is retained by this third groin. Accordingly, sand is retained north of Manago by 4 separate groins (Aloia + 3). The volume retained by the Aloia groin is conservatively about 440 cubic yards (99 ft long, 60 ft wide, 2 ft thick). The 440 cubic yards of retained sand by the Aloia groin is absolutely insignificant in terms of overall coastal sand movement. If a case is to be made of sand being withheld from depositing and staying in front of the Manago property, attention is directed to the 3 groins north of Aloia. The 3 groins influence a shoreline of at least 1,000 linear feet — compared to the Alota and north neighbor shoreline of 200 feet, to the next groin. 7. Descriptions of Properties and Defects The Aloia property is 99 feet long and the Manago property is 150 feet long. Both properties are similar, from a coastal engineering viewpoint in that they have a facing of vertical timber sheet piling and uniform offshore contours. Accordingly, wave energies are not dispersed/absorbed by the bluff, because of the solid bulkheading. Instead, any wave backwash Olko Engineering Page 6 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costeilo Marine from the bulkheading tends to scour the beach. Whereas, the uniform offshore contours show that the overall effect of the short Aloia groin is insignificant, other than at the groin itself. The sand, moving southward, bypasses the filled 60 ft wide groin field. Both properties have a groin. The 60 ft. long Aloia groin, at the south end of the property, is of timber sheet pile construction, and extends up about 2.5 to 3.0 above the adjacent Manago Beach. The Manago groin, towards the north end of the Manago property is located about 60 feet south of the Aloia groin. Its original purpose is not clear—either it represents partial construction of a groin, or foundation protection for a structure. Nevertheless, its presence on the beach causes it to act as a groin, retaining some sand. The Manago groin is constructed of random placed stone, rising about two feet above the beach and extends out into the Bay about 30 ft from the bulkhead. The Manago stone groin is too low, too short and has not been maintained. It is ineffective in retaining sand. However, between the Manago groin and the Aloia groin, the short (60 ft. long) Manago Beach sometimes has a shallow layering of medium sand, deposited by southerly waves. But, south of the Manago groin, the Manago beach is decidedly eroded, with a surfacing of coarse shingle. Accordingly, the Manago groin does, but to an insignificant extent, retain some sand. However, the Manago groin is too short and too low to be effective. The Manago groin is not only of insufficient size, but is also located at the wrong (north)end of the Manago property. Mr. Manago purchased a problem beach. Unfortunately, under present environmental regulations, it is very difficult to correct the situation in a reasonable, economic manner — by constructing a groin, particularly since Mr. Manago is on record as an advocate of groin removal. The Manago property lacks a south groin, and probably, only with some costly mitigation measures would a permit be obtained to construct a south groin. However, it would seem that a case could be made to allow rehabilitation and maintenance of the existing north Manago stone groin — to at least retain a thicker layer of protective sand and beach at the north end of the Manago property. Another problem with the Manago beach construction is the access stair, which terminates about 1 112 feet above the shingle beach surface. The Contractor built the stair around the spring of 1996 when there was a surface layer of recently deposited sand. A mistake was make in not taking into account the seasonal/storm shifting sands on this coast. The stairs should have been constructed extending farther down, say about 2 feet, into the more stable shingle (coarse Olko Engineering Page 7 Groin Construction& Beach Erosion Apri] 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine pebbles and gravel) beach material. The longer stairs would have provided easier access to the lower beach surface, eroded by the winter storms. 8. Fffect of the Aloia Groin Overall, the 5 groins combined, have little effect in terms of peninsula protection - because (1) They are all relatively short, compared to the water depths immediately offshore and (2) They are spaced too far apart. A unified "groin field" does not exist. Each individual groin retains some sand, in front of the individual property - as is the situation at the Aloia property. The relatively short cell (200 fl. long) between the Aloia groin and the next groin to the north, does not collect any sand, once it is filled. Instead, the sand bypasses alongside the cell and continues southward, where it would collect in front of the Manago property, if Manago had a groin at the south end of his property. The effect of the relatively short and low Aloia groin, adjacent to the Manago property, in terms of depriving Manago of sand - is absolutely insignificant. If the Aloia groin did not exist, during a winter storm, both properties would experience the same "erosion", because the Aloia groin retains so little sand. In fact, the Manago beach would be eroded deeper because the Aloia groin disperses some of the north east wave energy and thereby "shelters", to some extent, the immediate Manago beach, up to the Manago stone groin - as witnessed by the deposit of finer graded sand between the Aloia and Manago groins. The various photos and measurements showing a difference in height of beach at the Aloia groin, are misleading. It is not a fact that the Aloia groin "permanently" withholds sand from the Manago beach and thereby causes erosion at Manago. Instead, the fact is that if the Aloia groin was removed, the very small volume of sand, retained by the Aloia groin, would very quickly pass through the Manago property and then, both properties would look "eroded". The photos showing differences in elevations at the groin are not necessarily photos showing erosion of the Manago Beach. Instead, the photos show what would be the condition at the Aloia property, if there was no groin. Or, expressed in another way, the photos show the sand that could be retained, if the Manago stone groin had been completed and properly maintained. 9. Effect of the Manago Bulkhead The Manago bulkhead is of relatively recent construction - and has a detrimental effect on the Manago beach front. Olko Engineering Page 8 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine Prior to the Manago bulkhead reconstruction, the old deteriorated bulkhead sheeting, with portions missing, dispersed wave energy on the soil slope in back and even provided some beach fill, resulting from wave wash of the backfill. But with construction of the new, intact bulkhead, wave run-up on the vertical wall, with backwash, erodes away what little sand accumulates in front of the Manago bulkhead. Unfortunately, without an adequate stone groin and additional groin at the south end of the Manago property, sand is not retained, to dampen the wave action. Presently, the underlying coarse shingle beach protects the Manago bulkhead from being further undermined, by normal storm action. The material list for the Manago bulkhead indicates 16 ft. long fender piles and 14 ft. long sheet piles. Accordingly, the penetration of the timber fender and sheet piles,below the shingle beach surface, is about S and 6 feet respectively. 10. Responsibifily of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. The Costello Marine Contracting Corporation has no responsibility for the lack of retained sand along the Manago beach. The groin repairs, performed by Costello, do not impact on the Manago Property conditions_ The bulkhead constructed by Costello Marine on the Aloia property is, from a coastal stabilization viewpoint, the same as the bulkhead constructed by Manago — but, with the groin retaining sand, the Aloia bulkhead and stairs leading down to the beach are afforded additional protection from wave backwash and erosion. The top 6"x6"00 ft long timber cap placed by Costello Marine on top of the Aloia groin in 1999, and subsequently removed in 2001, had no effect because of its small size and location at the upper beach elevation. In fact, it was observed that no change in sand retention occurred, with or without the 6 inch high timber cap. On the 3 separate occasions, when Costello Marine repaired the groin, new timber sheeting was added. In 1995 the 14 linear feet of outermost ice damaged sheeting was removed, because of the severity of the damage, and new sheeting was driven in its place. Whereas, for the I999 center 30 ft. and for the 2001 inshore 16 ft., it was possible to drive new sheeting alongside the old sheeting, because the old sheeting was still in alignment, for the 30+16 feet. Essentially, the new sheeting sealed some gaps in the old sheeting and strengthened the double sheeted structure against wave impacts. Accordingly, today, the outshore 14 ft of groin has one row of 2 inch sheet piles. Whereas, the inshore 46 ft. has two rows of back to back 2 inch sheet piles. The differences in thickness, between one row of sheeting Vs two rows, is a structural matter only. The total thickness of sheeting has no effect whatsoever on the movements of sand along the beach front. The double row of sheeting, for the inshore 46 linear feet of groin, does not in itself cause additional retention of sand, as compared to having only one row of sheeting. Qlko Engineering Page 9 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine Costello Marine has performed the usual function of a contractor. In turn, Aloia has the right to maintain and protect his property from damage. 11. Concludiniz Comments The existing condition of the beach, in front of the Manago property, is a natural condition. It appears "eroded", only by contrast, because the adjacent low, short Aloia groin retains some sand. If the Aloia groin did not exist, the Manago beach would not have more sand in front. Instead, the Aloia beach would appear the same as the Manago beach. Both properties are in an erosion zone — where the "natural" stable beach is essentially a coarse shingle beach—not a sand beach. The amount of sand, retained by the Aloia groin is insignificant. Without the groin, the sand would wash away, at high tide, during the first moderate winter storm — and quickly pass southward through the Manago property. The coast, north of Manago, has sand only because property owners have built/maintained groins. The beaches are artificially replenished with sand by the dredging of the inlet. However, the Manago property lacks a suitable groin and therefore, the sand traveling southward, is not retained-- but bypasses the Manago property, leaving a coarse shingle beach. Qp�15S1� Very truly yours, Y sN Ae,0 < LZA �o S.M. OLKO_ References: N� 27t93 pQ F � 1. Town of Southold Erosion Management Plan,November 1995, Revised January 1996, 2. Letter Report by EN-Consultants, Inc. dated October 10, 2001. 3. Letter Report by FPM Group, Ltd., dated November 17, 2003. Manago Vs Alois Olko Engineering Page 10 1329 North Sea Rcaa Southampton, New York 1196E 631-283-6360 EN- CONSULTANTS, INC. Fcon4 eMni ,3tE-mail; enconQpecornc net wwwenconsuHants.com ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 10, 2001 Vincent Manago 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 Re: 8225 Nassau Point Road Cutcho ue Dear N r. Manago: As promised, I am writing to summarize what we discussed when we met at your property on 12 September 2001, particularly regarding the effects of the timber groin located along your northerly property line, which you indicated was recently partially reconstructed and heightened by your northerly neighbor. To understand the potential impacts of that groin on your beachfront, one must first understand the basic movement of sediment along a shoreline and the correlated function and purpose of shore- perpendicular structures such as groins. in short, because sediment tends to be cumulatively transported in one predominant direction along a shoreline ("littoral drift"), properly engineered groin fields can be successfully used to stabilize and widen long tracts of beaches by trapping and accumulating littorally transported sand within each groin "cell". Sporadically located and individually planned groins (such as those located along your region of bayfront), however, tend to have the more isolated effect of widening the localized updrift beach at the expense of the localized downdrift beach, because the sand captured on the updrift side of the groin represents sediment that would otherwise have been transported alongshore to nourish the downdrift beach. This phenomenon of updri-ft beaches widening at the expense of downdrifl beaches is often referred to as the "groin effect". Therefore, because your property appears to be located downdrift of the groin located along your northerly property boundary, it does not surprise me that your northerly neighbor would be interested in maintaining and even expanding that groin, as the structure benefits his beachfront at the expense of yours. Therefore, while I cannot assist you in determining who rightfully owns the groin, I can suggest that you remove it if it is determined that you have the legal right to do so, as it is trapping sand that would otherwise nourish your beach, while providing no benefit to your property whatsoever. You should also be aware that even if your neighbor can claim legal ownership of the groin, he/she cannot legally reconstruct it without the benefit of permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Town of Southold Trustees; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and New York State Department of State Coastal Resources Division. And though these agencies would likely have issued permits to reconstruct the groin, they would not have authorized the heightening of the groin and consequent expansion of its function, which is what was accomplished when the b" wale was placed on top of the old groin. In effect, the additional groin height prevents the nourishment of your beach by sediment that would have overtopped the groin once the beach elevation met the top elevation of the groin. In short, an increase in groin height increases the groin's ability to starve your beach by trapping additional sediment updrift of the groin Finally, with regard to the marine vegetation you discussed, I suspect that in the short term, inclement weather will clear out the excessive algae that has been allowed to accumulate in the low-energy area downdrift of the groin; and in the long term, removal of the groin would likely inhibit such accumulation in the first place. I do not believe that the removal of the stone groin would benefit you in any significant way, nor would such removal be likely to be allowed by the agencies. if anything, the stone groin would more effectively serve to build up the northerly portion of your beachfront if the timber groin along your property line were removed. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss these matters further, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerel ours, Robert . Herrmann Coastal Management Specialist t e ROAD ` -rUTHILL SPA" r 376.39• r 0.4• a y O r fi3 FOXE —�~-os } n N 12 DO• m` m molt i vow��S/ } i R9 IIET- end o.b' 4X l STY.FIL d t• v e r O ! -9311 , A w f + R 133 p rn s ° � E�A o h 4x o a o o_ _ R -N /A 502.0 410 a d � 1 —� L O m pl0 ► , r , l QFeFa � E E � � J~A, 2.00•00 85 s. a � o T 0 MAR 3 n 2005 t� p�0 SLNW Y OF LOT64 & ' /D LOT 65 oaraSouthold Town Board CERTAFED TO, ,AMENDED MAP A� NASSAU POINT" of Trustee es LAWYERS. TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY FXED AUG 4 FXE NO. W ABSTRACT REPORTS, L TD. -- VINCENT MANA GO AT NA 1U POINT P��°F N EW r� CAROL MANAGO TOWN OF � UTHOLD le, M SUFFOLKr-z-ONT Y, N. Y. AMY ALTERATION OR ADDITION To TF*S SURVEY 1S A VIOL.ATIOw 1U00 - 014 - 10 OF TEE MEW YaW STATE EDLACA TM LAW. � /:��� � :Y. o C. NO. 49618 EXCEPT AS tOF SEC TION�SECTION 72O9-SLfKVV aN a. ALL am s AREA = 13084 Acres SCawla 30 19WON ARE VALD Fq� TNs MAP AND Cp'lE5 7 L��Y ECONI .C. SAV MAP OR cO Es BEAR rF�E essFD sFAL Of TIE SLRVEYOR to tlis Feb. ' 996 WHOSE SAM THE APPEARS �O , April 4; (CER f*)(7A TIONS ADDED) P_ 0 T6 �I�D 6311 T65 - /79 7 ADD/770iNALLY To ctaMwLY w7TH sAo L.aw DE TERM •ALTiERE7D BY' ELEVATIONS AND CONTOUR LINES �� Zr :non,s �E t J /r 25 2°�� � ` t" s P. O. BOX MUST BE USED BY ANY AND ALL SURVEYORS UrLOMG A LAY ARE REFERENCED TO N.G.V.D. !�30 TRAVELER STREET OF ANOTHER SURVEYOMYs MAP. TERMS SUCH AS VOWCTE ' AND FLOOD ZONE LANES DETERMINED FROM N4� �. � p, � E' �Q Ma posrl APR)L 4 , 0! ( update ) 'eRovcNr-ro,oATE- ARE JuaT w cgAPLUNCE wrriy THE LAW. CONTOU14S d FIRM. Apr,r y MARCH 2T, 2oof thew bulkhead) SOUTHO�D, N.Y. I197� 96 - 113 TUTHIL L ROAD o LOT 62 N.82Q00 00 E FR.f7 sc c 1 R 405. 46 ' ~ va.v =.ja9s �Q I �-moo -cv�s O's -35 9 56' p5. -1y ll l Gl I1 II Q, S T Y Fry y 1 b r, .�.� j �T Z SC,4'EE lED ~ 1 n HSE �. :a na4C.r OI I r WOOD 0 h a Jed PATIO! STAIRS'iII it Q N 1£TTY .vJOD �1 Q) fn Ql MPv FND - -3�.33 ' �,� �B I' �t ` i D YS STX S r.8• �,/of rr .t 5.82pW 'W"i n LOT 64 I �j CE14TIF16-0 TO Q LAwrE,45 T1TLE 1N5U1?A11cS- C0:4P D T1TL.E Nf' BA 53OF/ 1�zl MA P OF ✓OHN F AL014 OF NEjV ELIVIrs-,4 T AL01.4 LOT 63 doncick associates NASSAU POINT �` " 313 west main street FLED VGJS 192,L' FILE Y 155 riverhead , new York 11901 ?^ IV. U PO; (516) 369 -I 717 s i o LAND SJ ,.1py 3 , 19,94� .JOb r!O. 8 ,4 -529 IOOt� pia O�+ i9 Scam I = 50 I TUTHIL L ROAD o LOT 62 FR N.820G0 00 E R 405. 461 ` 'w 0-v v-) 0 S S SLOG LVL 1 AEON ., _—moo ev£s 2>s 359- 56 3 os T ` vYT I v .rlq�s .YYT z -�� �i{ rr ^^ 95 v 3 C n 1 2 STY Fr7 b sc`-5-E lEO al���r a� l' " Lf. SLATE Waov PATfot STAIRS x �� o i ` � z�.s 15Trr � O m o� rav Flvo 33�3j rrr� �e, i —� A sT.r s y S 82000 �00=,w 378.50' i LOT 64 CER T/F/ED To Q) L AWrERS TITLE /NSORAACE CORP T/TL E N° 8A_ 539/ MAP OF 10HN F ALO/A OF NFw EL/Vi.;ra T ALO/A LOT 6'3 ��j� - r° �° w �` don ac k associates NA SSA U f'OIN,T _ le ?13 'Nest main street L.ED .4UG 16,192�' Fr L E 15 6 I - r i v e r he a d , new York 11901 a T N,-SCl'�?L' PO; ,�; ,..` (516) 369-1717 �i j r J`o IAND Sv��✓ May 3 , [ 484 Job PJo. 84 -529 " I ors h I >I @g e J tas 1 �^9rk 'fir h Y yra ' �f��y�r 7/Sm"��tlftli��h l SAI i� Sdil���gr��ti P s7 1 r x ,t�hs�� is � �'�' �P � I 6 ��," s✓r�s isffl��rr�` I'10 p' S 91+ „ s � ' � I o (ti �� r��° ✓� 1�✓ f /lr'rrt{r S'I I � i 1 4 i r a r� t ` r,r ,,,,,a,,, a;,,.. -;;Jza ,s,„✓r,..a r ai ry 1����ytb d��P jrrzf�n�lwd rsl �7{0��{�1 S,S a? er a � r, r )rf, /! mdry�r�r rut 6,�!✓fi� 1 b1V �,t n � F � r rt � i�l4frrdx 1Urr ssf tr irf it rr�F��}�dff'�I�y( {- � F a%r rt srr/u,r t rot i9 fr`G rriyirat z rft�r',H{zdlPrt?��Y I?�Y7Yr!l,�i, �IIP£h"r�/,.. ,,{ Prf r r r3rr��uv,;z rr r�YG �r-.t.,,tll rJ>rr' f i:G`s'r'r/u,:r-,11P�7tr,. , , c ,r''4.f'Gi>yrrt lirl II FurF'tt` of ;r r> f !�A�i u ./Ill1 ,rF. rs Id,V surd y'i✓ r r u,,.ra{ /r{!9�'r 'i ,. 3?f r'�t f�j�f�..r i r rt rrlr ! 7,r.,. 'f,'-� 1tY'�j.�f.,a�,:{fi�V q ,Y$. nY 4a /zr r ,/ rtJl r u `,r'wi�,v a v k d �, r, 1 r.J r r 1 1 �d✓,.(.. „f�� r �, of zJJGG, iGrr{ iu'ra/���G �t ,,t Gft X rfrt„t6r ttr&�J�rt�sl�r 4 { sm„; r 7!+r + r.. it rYi�J{Fr: utllrlli v.°r, ,rlflt' ✓f.�C��'�y t d�ydwyy�yl/ d rt ,'w a^r �'��f�`�kG°�` a j4¢ty: ra°k la7 1. J tw e:-a f as fat, z f Yr ar�,"� alYd;,r rf Dfalt.lry' t �1S�d rr'w! lz r lr°f��i` �r!°dY f(rr u 5 s r rr ! rr ruP i r a ;y1lrA� e�l rl1Ps r s r �rr��rFl�''at�y�l4t 7l {-:is 1rr I,l wrr�k., �r/ter ,{r tfS .'.,eF.' as pr crr //�U,. tIF)rlr rrl all ` Jr wr rt r r r; rtr� i rL'�Po r�/ r f „w rs+�';r ras rGY1,<ur("�( ,.r✓ Pf -:,uk a:rr,yfi r,l of fd'a, rI)rt,rr„:f `1ri r,-.r/ as ;7 s.. l.t{ y wt ti,,l,lt, lull -'.r, Y r Jj:, t )t rtU �' n f ,r r u1� .rf rtf rs`i6 r r!y. w irl/f r.:r t t✓ d1/ilt .�,� ru r ',rvi,N7.,, sj r ( srr<e lz ;a( 5�,t-s4f1' ,.�Ir „u!r jr t ....'sl (u ., r✓rr s,.,. ,r„z / J is f r�'+rr �tr lrt.:. r :ub �f r -: :vrri{.f,,,'f✓F fw. tf, ,i n mt r...la t (( a,. a "r r .s, �. 1.%:,!r r L f,i� rw: .rJ ,"u r;or. 1 F r. s rtte.,s/uo tr zr �Ss �s�, a!;1(•'l/ r ..,� ii t a: r U il.,r,:/I t r r.1 i �,)dt Ff ry Pt✓r,.. I t„f( {r l r. r i ''*tt y'd.. ,{!d ,rJ.,(.,. t s.. ,gkY'� .,uu I(a ft:r liu.�s>rr 1"� :G;. -sst >f wF✓:, a r, t( „�r 4 „f n 1,.17a r1 "✓tt 1 a..hj,r r� �,.., f ..atf i J )` awrG / .z r u-,--,u '�.� °9", :.r+, .y L �.rt wrs c:�r f} 4 �,.71d r rfr,.,, 7l rd✓J r,<f r..({+U l,.,,. �r f „v f�l{ fR::wr '� ; a, ua <N,f,.f ,...r,.t, r1 r;u+ 4.f ,.L. sR'tl wl..r,3!f rrY t t,2 {�Ifr'JP d Ir NI sr%Yt}„z fi z l l„ml r , 1 i ,w A'.r, f ,e, f ✓„ a r.. p f..;m, u,."rr t z:, i/✓,:.� v�„n r r, � f r; r{s s..� rf s a � t tj,r"�.,,,y, t z! f .,aY s ,,? au r. rl' .....r�� r�'r+ , ? �r r.✓,.;t Jrl 9u 7�raf 1r,s %�,{�y�Ir 1.;tat sr 1.:t, ,�,.u�u a�i 1t�jilUfrifl f4'r t aw ,,,:, rt +f ,sr,r,,, ;'�7r,..:,zCt%,1'tr?{ ::, u,,l; ✓ ia,e. E fn ..�ir.. i� .:f t sf.... �s.i'.,.✓rJhv� G!^ o'"�"� r.�.,j ri F sfJ 4i/ syfr/,,,.rLlr l�r,.t r,.,: fJ,,! t �, -,e,,$:,,r�. :/ JT� m - .ii au r !.S'�.,.vf �'fr.>faz.l r,,;.vy�a 7� d.a.a rr jr ,4f-,. diy(��5,:£x „I,��77,1,;;'jrt�/ ..f t,:.;ft f a :,. v ,s„t,. k»a., �r tG1 u, a ✓/�,,.. '� : t 4r. �`t ,.zf j �' h:1 rr, ti Z�� rd,{,, �(,tr, �t� �Y,l�r, r3v r1f.., r +� r;:rG s yi, tz ,.f, rrl,.r ,,.x% ��( tp v✓.<, 9y. i z../�f,4 Yd��,� ...a� f v„a r 1G,,.;t e ,.19,. ✓v a, Il' a 1r f i t.:.rwor ,.1 lr.ar�fill{ tl ly. r,Y'm,:, ;l,.v ' a::,kJ G �,-u�ru I ;+� (,?r t rl( :. t iN,.!' lu r r&"r,�i ,. �.. ;, i6.;wiYr.0 r f 4 r✓ �5 lu4fi. 7 „r .d rr �,.. ,9r"`a r at ref �,f sI,y{fj. f-,... r nr,(,(;L(s 1 f (.r�1v�,r f;w-,d �C o;((,, � 1 `rr,u,r.G }r r"i r?'•y, d✓ 1 rl I r r :.f s� ryi,l„ fI J ,gin; sr;!!+, -iii,,u, �Y�.v�Ur/Gl&,flwEzi�,a�rtr;r ro�✓.5,f r,�/dr r,i! ,t, ss ri ���� t„ -..r'�� Prr tf„f t I{ �'' !v my u; ,hf, Nf�f4 d.,/r.,rt-r, airy, ., u, �z,l ri, ,..is syl5fasr lr�,.I,r1 aar O;rJ✓u'?-t* i„,�j (�r ,� � /L.¢G� frElts� uPr.: si 2 11r1 fho'Gr a,f)�tt;��, �"r , ls+'�.,r "��. ''/tit flat llrr;af`;rna f,Ft,G��, l� '�:,��a, a}Ir,*sur, °Ft ,;t,r J -a+ d ,auy,,.', F�rfGllr;l�1�t/rrPrJ,..tlf�r�rr;,✓,, i. ,ti ``} t��j��y��,�urt9�j1�Ypad�;/,¢S`��<a�„ .. �z �%��us�j�.r`6v';r�'�il !�t f1rf���j�vla,�?"'df�`r�.. V ,:', �� r`I Y�1r�P�r✓1�?!.G ?rjt?>�u; ;- „'f,„ f�,,�, uv)IJ,p„� rf r f^ L�r rjwt a � r P J' � r ��r4�w'I✓ �rff%� t % ' rFa nf6J3PY FJ� 52frrr rn ptl�p �.., u IrSV :� �ftl ,j%;yr Yr r 4 1F lr�{ r grr r�iy n1 i kt .yiw f ( ,�rdr,,, i ii r 11f:>a 5 yfr r•;'t8 ,,ulr` ,V I'ra a r r 1� ysS?!��rJf 4���rr ks,�`'ll y: rtk �Gs F�.pltj„�;f ,1,,r, P,P�ji j{1� ir�,r�/,.,�ny,�Q��r��'t,�n f!Vk,',zwssd � ,Lra59",{..� ',9���w'la„�'pvr",,��`;�(,�sfr�u�': +. ,7Id'{y,�„;Gpd„„t', 'ur:"&�(i�/ia/r��r3:;'„r`"��iY4��G✓,�Sfor� r„�"rr'¢aa�w✓k�!%P�ta,Pr2'� f,%5+' e dU6! ,217wi�V,n!Y.sYKv��af�G�lr ..rrw�'4GPq�r,rri�.alalAr:c. § 6 � � 6 � r Irvw W W;{w �`' , i y� as §' J 1 § S� 1 i I r � f d t r d �� re��� N✓ J"� �d� i J(ur �k of,�',� (f `� j� ��i'A J �s �, J�i Ls. of 1 'il' ii° 'r � "JS � � rll ':p�� �i �ti, ✓� f F�43� � w �+ I ✓f i!� (��"1 I � � J N����r ,- � i� f', >� �Yf a � ,� r, l� �iJDr�ys a��� t✓,✓� , �� h✓ .�ia�f4a�t-i �, � � !I,< f t ,li ;i-�'r 'l !✓ d 1 f t� � r; �w�J Sf[, ,r`,t ,L1'f i��1,st y ) e,� t s�g,� 1s l., �' „��: ,i;h,s,r, ,✓ i✓ik, I✓, l��.✓,1 �,f,.�'r✓�.J% ,d', ,,,,�,.. � �.s✓r, �t �,it, ,-r ,���, � ,,,�,.re�r, Eu�/� �,„rr.,,Jllf,,. �?:, „�, ,.t;r✓," 1 ,J � ff r�fi�;,� '�>i�,'�'� 1.,/(;✓... i ✓ S�9 f/,.jl�, ✓1; ,/fi M1 � N'.' „S„ �17✓.,,� ti,,., ,.�,1, c „�, x.l.✓ '„� �,. 6 1, or�1� ,�� / yiF rr, !�e � � �, �l �' �, 4, I✓ �, fir, �✓ r y, rit r ,✓. P✓ r l �! r 0 ,r „�.r,ag J� ✓Ji„tl, ✓gg 1�! �l( � r � ✓1 � 1, Ji r„ t r ✓ 6„✓ s. �t r st, h 1 r,a,6,, � �t, ,D� �a� � � � ��, tJ�s f t,, i, � 7 !� r a >� �, � �,h;r� ,, , <� �9✓� o ,J �r �J,lt,�✓r r IC ✓:. �„ �art� h �i., v� � Lls.), ,,ge r"`i ��r ui�'w,,. )..g. ,1,,,,�7;fi t... ,� rr✓s i. //"�, )air ,✓� ,arfl„�-,,,r ,,,5!,",x � j„ 'a .d.✓ls,.u, i� ,a1� f � 1, '' � �a� ��. ,✓e r,aa�s,u" GG./, F �11 ! 1, R�e n� „�✓,�� a ,i�l� „i �i ,r„i i'. ✓'f�, r � e � ,��, N..,/k.r ,{. dv ��.e1, } v,>I f.g3, .r( >.,g�j 6 r ✓, �J , - 4(� �, d aq�� ,��, � to J,,, � 7`a � y, ✓�r ,dmli4e,;✓�g,� ,,✓ �i ru,xtt,l� a ✓ i..,d� �" fi,/,i,7s 1.,,.�Y;✓l/,.✓e,.a � ,.s „/ ,yid,,, 7..,,u„! � ��. .,.a y s),. � .ills,f xl n u„ � �.✓ u,r i�t ,.. �/ ✓�.tic. ,f ,.l ..�t�t, ✓�,� i.tf, �. ,�,1,. U. 1. r,l �,, J 3 �r 1Y, �� . rl, r , I s„-„r �an, „'6+ ,41, /f, ff! ✓��, 1, J. 4�(✓ d 1 � i s iyy r r. ,4 art 1l f..t.re>"�; el,,r`✓✓, ,� .f ,., f/'.�... ,✓ L � !eE„ fY ( ft - '� asJ >���. s' P,,, ri o3r,, A�.. S 1, � 11... r.arl � ,�f., l.! J�, ii'.,., ,r l i,, .sir 1. {. i��✓ ra.,.� i�,l.,l ✓a 7jet ,p �.�. �� /�„O,,r✓. �'� f }, > ;� ,� �« � 1✓Ifj.' ,,.fg �,(,f„ � .(F. �, ! ,( �>ft�,IJ �,.-5,ell,�^7✓,a� .� �' ,fi✓f,ij' gs. P 8 ul � � �7.�,�h*} t�.1�,„ 1: -✓,�r d ,J, st; 7,.✓ t.taa, /f %i^' J;: rr G„f. ,�. 'ii yBflN��✓`',ergs'. r✓V ,J�r, €if d',� ,f, Jr,� n, l v� �1, t>. ;1r; �k,% a, dS'.. "� 1„ ✓ '��+ . ryax,� -6i$✓` ,nia�/,. .., p;-��.,",1� ,';� „s -r�l✓i,,.,eG��` ,.,vY,J. ,✓b.� a;!. ✓,�r ,!✓l,r/ �r,t5,,; fn. ,�," 'f' ,�"V.�d��,,r,;� �s ,;Sus .g�s,� ?�rl.�!„Hf, i, ' �d�,�.. F; rl 1', �I✓7"'<r a�1.1� ,� ,>�!-;t;1y, t a,: s� � �� sr, �P�✓ � 4S �U� r� i ;� r g � �- g, a Sy,✓,,, � �,., � h I �IJ s q..s y �j?1�ar'N�g�a�'g,; ��, I, r'.a� � ��� �Y. �� �,�,� �,,, �; ,. J 1 d ' ' ✓ r' �t J ✓, � u d ' '� i;eJ'fg g�i /: � '✓ i ' s t ru a ✓yr � i ' £i11s li�� i ✓ ✓✓ J�J,G ryrr 1�{t rJ �✓. � ,r,Fr , 9�`�Jyr' �r � J��� ✓f r s �rf�r; +r��xawJKi ?rlS i� ,��2 ra � � ✓vertysJ f r r✓ r Jr� s s s ! J ., `, s✓ ���s���ag���yy,����t4Ji ✓ ! � r r r et r ✓ f 1 1 a n % J y(� ✓'r7 s r s ( � I tsJ i/ s✓ 1 �r,S s r s ✓� ✓ t s( t ✓ ✓ s rs s s C s j i S •,s" yet ti ✓ Ir✓1 it✓�j.�rtn(r�a�/ r'� ��,� 't ,✓ r s s J f r rs s: y✓e gJ r✓ ✓s✓ ✓ ✓f rj(%//n�glf+;',111¢� .tt V r t tl t ✓ t r rt 1s (iiJ t �'''�i sYl1✓i�dn ySfg��yr�g��k� trs i� ✓ ✓ r f W ✓ ✓ i s r ✓ !✓r n ✓ s 6 t r .rt l rJ i s✓fs J*JJ�r ss ff lffS£,'IsFll �ti✓;✓f�lsr7r(�L,�1�e4��✓tJy��t��94� s ✓r�� � � �, � ✓✓I ✓ ✓ r Itfvlaf�r✓ r�, rgs%,'�t e,'rarera�dr✓3� �,J �! -.�l ✓ e ✓✓J gS�ts, � s ✓ � -i ✓ ✓✓ r✓SI /1 s le i�it,���1gSiglga.�g�}d i�^W b s�ti J d.fy fin" t g'�i ts�t rd i a'417 r ✓ s,,.""" ✓ t✓ v ;::,✓.!lslro4aex �1 r 1 s /lrsi. f�?� f��/r}�£/j✓1,rt4i.; „9���fJ j e ��'Sl,���e , s a.✓d+ yx!r✓sigt✓Jarrz�sflr ✓1J SJfr '. fr fi �.F`✓'lS r✓ t:r 1Y pr s yf b �7 )ggj✓;7✓ �g Z� s ! t fSt{ssfJ(�l✓ ,.�gek 4t logY(�i�plie dYFia n rtf t✓✓rr�s spa✓S�,�g�i.9`�gL✓6rin lYrr��3�,�r„�(y'�`i`���2{�fg ��,��,'(rw ti ..�3 ✓ i✓���J✓yf5�'�$��'-e�����d�gAH(y4i';8r(S a;^�;zjh7li:y�St c � rf"�'l�ra f�✓aJr 7Sr.✓✓✓1 A K�fl�'✓ d e�✓g'��' ,�(i,,k.FvfO�it�i�, �! J � 1" lr,rf s fe d,yshSPjllgPs ',.�,�✓��7J diff�l�t,,: ��yt�J�t✓fly'lPy � jJs,C�✓�2/�rntl6aa Aa�6��l�yi� /z��✓y����(., Sy��i�� ✓"3.���S7pri �.- � rs ✓lslf Jiirt ti -� lY � jj ,r ralr ✓a iil 1rP� ..r " rygg, � �f .�J,�s�',6i,.�.Sg,J-��il t✓✓✓J,.;` a��1rY`'.M1sSrr;tJr'�ilKi,:x�z 7���r1 S�l�a7� '(f�sp�9J 1ryf�Ifl,'�tY�ttlSf�J��,.il�iii��✓�ti 1..( � �' , a�✓ gy"rirstylf�.,7}✓eaf�t'i�,��4it;,,x r°��((�u,":r`�S r1,�Jr) � S a3 11e f��gi r�i3li�gsd>f,S},��1���lvj gl(��,�. ,. �y,. 1 Y i ssp � Yr�xgJg; JJj Ys�a��� 1'�t3ip�'i,Y�g�hi� gy�,,!1}ti}�✓f yi�,�/plr yJ�'�k��uf�t)f� �rfy{��4�tlh ,�. .y(ll"+y,,?a,' � s ,,'Or r g"afi��gry ti'������J Ji�i�a�i�l� 3✓�i kT�J�sdy3}Sl 1t1,iS SI`�����J'rJ" r}d`✓M1tu`/,a{f��i�1�t� ^gig'l ;� '�( if H�✓:{f✓/�k�! e ,%�✓'✓y)�a jra ':�"1a3�� ill�;"YtyjS��,11�idS.719;ify�J) Y�t�7��lr✓.,,a r �a� �f i5, sFr ,�(ayr r� „;�9�t r{i(✓r!a .��� ✓� `��, ✓trr' arty y �r;��/,Yf ��)"l'Y(J�,.S� S��f S>rlrtaa��T of,��✓'�'y+S'e a�/�aaj�r��f�r' p/ a� p��1, 1 is�✓r2^�i'!n ✓6✓ &dt�vf�����y���,.� 4Yfu��y��d�k�k�19iV��1g3��f;��r�''1 ff��d�j�7�Ir g l Pr+."p✓'r����gg��)i�Ef�g ��v��5,1+��P „a✓te�s�4�dg�f��a✓t � it�� '�%�t u�w���i��`Tf Y+¢t�/tr)..�g�✓yf�,a1a(.,{,yJra��+de si'g ;�t7Si{���� v,�i �,��s _ ✓ sa Jr1 J✓✓i iG✓,� �l�g�t���� �erE4,�i, rR' �ri,�,,,trJJ �rYN�"'',�t��a✓;���1✓°�����+�q,,+� �� � �� , rs.� i� erSe f��J y✓6 �/IJ P�{✓✓r,M tG,tzr9l��9ilpi 11��'0)l✓� !{(�.5y7 ��f 4 it£ Ifa�r'"y��j y9{l� r 7 S�« I ,,tf r D r�s � �' (�er�4F.a/i ✓sla�V✓✓SJ�,y��`� (( �yy�a �N `iS`�1 j�t��",�i �� l�fY�„gi h�� v��-arJ��; a No✓'� t)t �'✓ cie 'J 9��AfS11"u ✓s A y.�ii j r �g�r)�J��✓i�ty� 1,rsf i �, 0, i, ✓ ✓�f ✓ a ^i f sY rP, i"l f�y,✓g✓✓�1y 1.^J � ?"S� � ��ia's '�d�✓�����,>sg'> I �> J. Jg S 9 "� '. ,IYi 1 dj/f s^i�uy �r�..., d r9S�✓�lr'r,��y�r i `w o3 1' 1,' >i �� r�-. +i -., li �� i ¢al,�✓ f u✓�'✓ �r�4t l�adsr,,� �x�e 7j ;a, ) 1,�,(`� �1�ui (p i�✓� i �J,t1,�✓s t��^ ":j.Sr aI✓� ;df�r,✓" 9. ," � 4a, � � J„rt✓�✓r✓s ra � �,g�p s ry�y >� ✓r J � a t; '(��.�,,t,y, i f� �; �, r "� i-. � rd✓r�J�Sy ie�i the � lr ��''f��✓J��Ng. �`fyG�,���r���,.i�i�, (Y{�ls;r., sR f, i?, Y7�';,, �l/, "; ✓ if +y�`✓EU�btY✓z.,lJ,Ey fs ✓ �t e✓�„ /a ✓r,r�. Y?k}/i^�g ! � ?, �.�,�� s -, tt �` ei��, ✓.;I,.✓r ,.y. ,a � 1. ryr`tS i, ✓� ✓ '��.✓... U..r�� a',a'.,.e ,.) .` /7 „��s r � (' J ti � �f �)S. yy6r lr .i � ✓r✓J"l9�.. .;,y.� 1. �r- ��r4�, ,G +"„ ✓ so s "�, ��f>,�;,,vyS�b✓✓'^I�„�g,.ei,sa(J�Jy`�,vY,D es as✓�rd�6tst„✓, $t ly,v,.�„f✓5�rtt✓J r,&f rai'���wiP,�;,�f�1�Y��el�¢4 a ✓ �f � r�ie otlG/ra,?�ln� �',�✓�„�f 3�'r�?t4�o-", Ir i ��.� { �I;,' �', � r rrt�- n lS ra r, ���1�iYfS',1i��� rr,,.p� r�'ro t��r� ` � �,� � l�ii7 ��rf�; r,,�wiiu''"7fo ��ir-*°i Yt��"J rf r f r m�✓rl, S rr '`s r'�h���rf�1�{IR���'?+3�1i"'t�4�.�" � •, , , �� "N,�,� r f �{-p�1'ry'� i�i,r rt I� r�!r,,, `"a a',sr��fr�.,,w� t 1�/ rlttj,r,, `r,r,',: x,`�+;ldNti f.'y�rr%*xv>4, ��6,a i i:�',k,,Y �, j2 �t ,P f�..�t,�'�yf Y(l�;�Sr�if 4� ,*�.�;,.,��fi��A,�r""*7 ,wr r bS�,rc✓rt��t�u x �r kry��4}�/l°ir � +�, J 9�� Y A ri � ��3r ,y 9�1�� �dfryt� wr 5D?��"�£'✓� ��'st" �"'�rr rtt(rrik;. i d �� �� ) i �. � Sr�8 tmR'"'�� ✓�'� j'i r r r.3 r f 7 r r tr r irMI i I i Mr.and Mrs.George Fry 8045 Nassau Point Road. Cutchogue,New York 11935 734-5106 Board of Trustees Southold,New York It 971 August 20,2005 Dear Trustees: My name is George H. Fry. I live at 8045 Nassau Point Road. My wife Eva and I bought our property in the summer of 1955,just a mere 50 years ago.Our property is located on the eastside of Nassau Point,between Dougall Frasier to the north and John Aloia to the south.Our beach is between two jetties, which have been placed there on the advice of the Army Corp of Engineers.Both jetties have required repairs over these fifty years. I knew nothing about jetties and thought them ugly,and wondered why we couldn't have a nice clear beach where we could walk freely from causeway to the point,a nice pretty walk. 1 began to keep my ears open for information on jetties,etc.My neighbor,Harold Schmidt,was president of the Nassau Point Property Owners' Association.(In later years Mrs.Schmidt married Mr.Mortimer Chute.) Harald Schmidt was a friendly man and we had many nice talks. When I mentioned my dislike of jetties,he assured me that Nassau Point would have the beaches washed away without them,and a few more should be added.A former trustee or councilman of Southold Town,Howard Valentine,told me the same thing.He also said an U.S.Government Agency;the Army Corp of Engineers had jurisdiction over various waterways. I do not know if this is so,but I've heard it many times. Some of my personal observations are as follows,there is a house on the beach about 300 yards south of us,which we used to be told was used by rum runners during the years when liquor was illegal.I used to walk from my beach to Nassau Point past this boathouse without getting my feet wet. I cannot do this now as this beach has lost too much sand.Possible one or two jetties north of this house would have prevented this erosion. If the Aloia jetty was removed,my beach would suffer,but due to the Frasier jetty north of our beach it would eventually rebuild itself,but would never be the same.The beaches south of me would be far worse off they would not improve by the removal of the jetty. The beach to the south of the Aloia jetty was adversely affected by the damaged bulkhead during the last two years of ownership by the Purpura family during a severe Noreaster.However the beaches to the south although they have gradually lost sand over the past fifty years,they have never been as sandy as the beaches that have jetties protecting them. Possibly there should be more jetties rather than eliminating any present ones. The decision to remove a jetty,which could seriously affect our beaches,bulkheads,and property values,should not be determined by us property owners who are not expert in the study of water currents and storms and their affect on beaches.If a government agency with more knowledge than most of us is not considered,it will be a serious mistake. My wife and I object to the application for a permit by Manago to remove the jetty to our south. Thanks for letting me speak my mind. Very Sincerely, George and Eva Fry �0 Stanley J . Keating, M.D. 9275 Nassau Point Road P.O. Box 90 Cutchogue , NY 11935 August 17 , 2005 Albert Krupski , Chairman ff� ff , •� Board of Trustees Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 € Southold, NY 11971 AUG RE• Aloia and Manago Southild Town Board of Trnstees Dear Mr. Krupski : It has come to my attention that there is a hearing before the trustees on Wednesday, August 24 , 2005 , relating to a groin or jetty north of my property of disputed ownership but apparently maintained and enhanced over time by the Aloias . Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting but I take this opportunity to ex- press some of my concerns regarding this matter. I purchased the property at 9275 Nassau Point Road in 1991 . At the time and for the following several years there was a bay- front beach of mixed sand and stone buffering my property ' s bulkheading from the water even at high tide . This allowed for ready passage of beach walkers alog substantially the entire length of shoreline from the causeway to the north southward to the end of Nassau Point. During the past several years however, I have noted a significant degradation of beach to the point that easy passage along the waterfront is essentially impossible and at high tide the wave action extends entirely to the bulk- heading. I have resided on Nassau Point for over twenty five years . I have been under the impression that groin construction or en- hancement was inhibited by several federal , state and local regulations . Hence when my beachfront began to deteriorate I was frankly puzzled. Relying on previous experience with littoral sand drifting I was not overly concerned expecting that over time the natural ebb and flow related to among other things seasonal storms would restore balance. The matter currently before you casts the situation in a new light . I am now concerned that groin enhancement by the Aloias has , albeit inadvertently, caused what may be irreparable damage to those of us living south of that groin. When reviewing the material on file in your office I was quite impressed with the aerial photographs comparing the groin in question in 1996 and again in 2002 . It appears to show rather clearly the extension of the groin and the resulting negative impact on property to the south. In short I am concerned that this groin has had a negatve effect on those of us to the south by interrupting the nat- ural replenishment afforded by the north to south drift of sand. Your attention and consideration is greatly appreciated . Sincerely : -a-1 01 Stanley J. Keating, M.D. 560 Carter Street New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 (203) 966-4299 Board of Trustees June 5, 2005 Town Hall -Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Manago Hearing—June 22, 2005 Dear Members of the Board: We are the owners of a home at 9045 Nassau Point Road which is located 500 feet to the south of the jetty which you will be discussing at your June 22 meeting. Regrettably, we are unable to attend the Hearing to address the Board personally, but we are hopeful that you will accept this written communication as an indication of our deep concern. The' formerly compromised and dilapidated jetty which will be the subject of the June 22 discussion has been reconstructed, reinforced (and possibly extended) without a hearing, any sort of approvals or any due process. This controversial and self-serving action on the part of one property owner has resulted in serious consequences for a number of neighbors whose properties no longer benefit from the natural littoral drift of sand to replenish our beaches. This jetty is a substantial wall of recent vintage which blocks any natural drift. Without a natural source of new sand, the level of our beach has dropped approximately two feet in the past two years. We now have lost the natural protective shelf in front of our home against which waves would wash, even at high tide, thereby absorbing the energy of normal wave action. The consistent smacking of waves against our bulkhead, which is now the norm as each high tide approaches, threatens the stability of the bulkhead and will eventually weaken and compromise the structure. In 2000-2001 we made three separate applications to the Town Trustees in connection with the construction of our current home and certain other site work. We deeply respect and support the work and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees and appreciated each of your personal commitments and responsibilities as Trustees. We believe strongly that compliance with Trustee and Town guidelines and requirements cannot be a matter of individual homeowner preference or sentiment. In our fragile environment, the welfare and interests of all residents are inter-linked. Unilateral, aggressive and self-serving actions by individual members of our community which violate public policy simply cannot be condoned. If you concur that this jetty has been re-built without your required approvals, we then strongly urge you to conclude further that the only appropriate remediation would be the complete dismantling and removal of this structure. This is the only proper outcome of this discussion given the inappropriate actions of those who re-constructed this wall and given the resulting damage already suffered by the neighbors "downstream." This is an important message for the Southold Town Trustees to deliver. Sincerely, David W. Kilbnde Kathleen B. Kilbnde Stanley J . Keating , M. D. 9275 [Nassau Point Road P . O . Box 90 Cutchogue, NY 11935 August 17 , 2005 Albert Krupski , Chairman Board of Trustees Town of Southold P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE : Aloia and Manago Dear Mr . Krupski : It has come to my attention that there is a hearing before the trustees on Wednesday, August 24 , 2005 , relating to a groin or jetty north of my property of disputed ownership but apparently maintained and enhanced over time by the Aloias . Unfortunately I cannot attend the meeting but I take thi's opportunity to ex- press some of my concerns regarding this matter . I purchased the property at 9275 Nassau Point Road in 1991 . At the time and for the following several years there was a bay-- front beach of mixed sand and stone buffering my property ' s bulkheading from the water even at high tide . This allowed for ready passage of beach walkers alog substantially the entire length of shoreline from the causeway to the north southward to the end of Nassau Point . During the past several years however, I have noted a significant degradation of beach to the point that easy passage along the waterfront is essentially impossible and at high tide the wave action extends entirely to the bulk- heading. I have resided on Nassau Point for over twenty five years . I have been under the impression that groin construction or en- hancement was inhibited by several federal , state and local regulations . Hence when my beachfront began to deteriorate I was frankly puzzled . Relying on previous experience with littoral sand drifting I was not overly concerned expecting that over time the natural ebb and flow related to among other things seasonal storms would restore balance . The matter currently before you casts the situation in a new light . I am now concerned that groin enhancement by the Aloias has , albeit inadvertently, caused what may be irreparable damage to those of us living south of that groin . When reviewing the material on file in your office I was quite impressed with the aerial photographs comparing the groin in question in 1996 and again in 2002 . It appears to show rather clearly the extension of the groin and the resulting negative impact on property to the south. In short I am concerned that this groin has had a negatve effect on those of us to the south by interrupting the nat- ural replenishment afforded by the north to south drift of sand . Your- attention and consideration is greatly appreciated . Sincerely : Stanley J . Keating , M.D. l Y Propertv Owners Association . President's Letter Spring 2005 Greetings Nassau Point Residents, The grass has turned green and been cut for the first time. The Spring flowers have come and gone,with the azaleas ready to bloom. The roses are growing and the trees are budding. It is the season of renewal.Welcome to another beautiful Spring, the start of our best season of the year. I want to welcome back all of the snowbirds (yes I am jealous as I hope to be one someday), and say how nice it is to see my fellow full-timers who have been huddled inside this past Winter. While in some ways it has been a quiet Winter, there have been some serious issues that have occurred which I want to share with you. Two decisions have been rendered by the Courts which we consider adversarial to the NPPOA, both concerning rights of way. We are actively pursuing appeals in both cases. Yet the decisions have placed us on notice that these valuable resources which are unique to our community are in jeopardy. Clearly, these decisions do not necessarily mean that we will loose other rights of ways, but we would be fools to ignore the potential impact of these two decisions. We do not expect there to be any rulings on our appeals prior to the Fall. The other important issue centered on an application to the Town Trustees for the removal of a jetty on the East side of the Point.While ownership of the jetty is in question, which impacted the Trustees decision to table the request for a month, the reality of the destruction which the jetty has caused to the neighbor's beaches is unquestionable. Personally, I have lost a very large portion of my beach as a result of an artificial jetty to my north. I know that when jetties were proposed way back in the 1960's, the Army Corp of Engineers were concerned about the adverse effect which these structures caused compared to the benefits gained. As such,jetty construction was discouraged. But with the recent influx of new homeowners, it is easy to get caught up in the personal benefit which a jetty might provide you, but at a huge expense to your neighbor.The answer is NOT to require your neighbor to build one,which would require their neighbor to build one, and so it would go all the way down the beach to the south. I have received support of some 1 ' Board members to oppose any application for either a new jetty, or an improvement to any jetty. I plan on discussing these issues in public at our annual meeting July 30. Finally, we are actively recruiting new Board members. Board members serve for three year terms. As President, I have issued the challenge that all new Board members must accept one of the many leadership opportunities which are offered. Examples include committee chair, officer, responsibility for the organization and production of one of our major annual events (wine and cheese party, children's picnic, yard sale, etc.) or an additional task assigned by the President. We are looking for residents who are dedicated to preserving the quality of life which we have grown to love and cherish, and are willing to actively contribute to our community. Feel fee to contact either myself or Alvaro Martinez-Fonts, First Vice President for information pertaining to Board positions. As always, feel free to contact me via e-mail (bergendCc�sunysuffolk.edu] or phone if I can be of any assistance to you. I look forward to seeing all of you at our annual meeting July 30. Until then, enjoy our great community! David Bergen President, NPPOA 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 Tel: 917 753 45731 631 734 2221 e-mail: dmschiff@gmail.com 16tn August 2005 Hon. Albert J. Krupski, President F�F, N, and Members of the Town of Southold Board of TrusteesTown of Southold 53095 Main RoadSouthold, New York 11971 i Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustee I am the owner of residential property located at 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York. My property is located directly south of property owned by Vincent and Carol Manago. John and Elvira Aloia own the property directly north of the Manago property. There is a jetty located between the Managos and the Aloias, which is the source of my complaint to this Board. We believe that this matter is scheduled to be discussed at the Town meeting on Wednesday 24tn August. We would like to present our view of the situation (and one which I believe is held by many of our neighbors on Nassau Point). In September 1998, 1 purchased my waterfront residence on Nassau Point. From 1998 to mid-2001, I had a beach at high tide and I was able to use and enjoy the sandy beach. Beginning in the summer of 2001, 1 noticed significant changes to my beachfront. Specifically, sand began to erode from the shore and was not being replenished. This sand loss has continued since 2001, and has virtually denuded my beachfront of sand. During the summer of 2004, the sand loss was so severe that I no longer have a beach at high tide and can no longer walk on my beach without protective sandals because of the exposed rocks and stones. Perhaps more worrisome and a more serious problem is the fact that the lower level of sand has exposed significantly more of the base of our bulkhead, which we fear will undermine the stability of the bulkhead and will ultimately require significant investment to avoid a collapse. In 2001, Costello Marine reconstructed the jetty at the request of the Aloias, wherein the jetty was widened and raised. I understand that this Board has been provided with copies of the summary judgment papers in the lawsuit commenced by the Managos against the Aloias and Costello Marine. Those papers demonstrate beyond doubt that the Aloias and Costello Marine made extensive changes to the jetty without any Town permits. This denied us, as neighbors directly impacted by it, the opportunity to voice our disagreement with the proposed work. See Costello Affidavit at 1182 to 107; Deposition of Mrs. Aloia r ► at P. 118, L. 25 to P. 121, L. 2; P. 123, L. 9-11; and P. 128, L. 24 to P. 132, L. 15 and Deposition of Mr. Aloia at P. 176, L. 20 to P. 180, L. 5. The Aloias and Costello Marine also failed to apply for or obtain permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States Army Corps of Engineers or any other applicable governmental agency to reconstruct the jetty. See Costello Affidavit at 1101, Costello Deposition at P. 37, L. 6 to P. 41, L. 4; P. 50, L. 14 to P. 51, L. 15; P. 76, L. 14 to P. 79, L. 14; P. 113, L. 15 to P. 114, L. 8; P. 142, L. 22-25; and P. 227, L. 9-21 and Deposition of Mr. Aloia at P. 181, L. 4- 22. The town maintains a permit process and it should be equally applied to all, prior to work being performed. Neighbors should have the opportunity to voice disagreements with permit applications through a formal, just process. In our firm opinion, people who do work illegally undermine the town's authority and deny those impacted by it to express their grievances. We understand that there is a separate ownership issue currently under discussion between both parties, but the fact remains that the work on the jetty was done illegally and we believe that this work should be undone, and the jetty should be returned to its previous state as a non-functioning jetty. In addition, appropriate violations and summons should be issued by the town. We k forty rtyrd to discussing this issue with you further, David and Jennifer Schiff 560 Carter Street New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 (203) 966-4299 Board of Trustees ROO June 5, 2005 Town Hall -Town of Southold saa�OI PIO IOS u�roi DIo4a�o5 53095 Main Road --" Southold, New York 11971 5oaZ s — N n r Re: Manago Hearing—June 22, 2005 10, R nn Dear Members of the Board: Ull Q We are the owners of a home at 9045 Nassau Point Road which is located 500 feet to the south of the jetty which you will be discussing at your June 22 meeting. Regrettably, we are unable to attend the Hearing to address the Board personally, but we are hopeful that you will accept this written communication as an indication of our deep concern. The formerly compromised and dilapidated jetty which will be the subject of the June 22 discussion has been reconstructed, reinforced (and possibly extended)without a hearing, any sort of approvals or any due process. This controversial and self-serving action on the part of one property owner has resulted in serious consequences for a number of neighbors whose properties no longer benefit from the natural littoral drift of sand to replenish our beaches. This jetty is a substantial wall of recent vintage which blocks any natural drift. Without a natural source of new sand, the level of our beach has dropped approximately two feet in the past two years. We now have lost the natural protective shelf in front of our home against which waves would wash, even at high tide, thereby absorbing the energy of normal wave action. The consistent smacking of waves against our bulkhead, which is now the norm as each high tide approaches, threatens the stability of the bulkhead and will eventually weaken and compromise the structure. In 2000-2001 we made three separate applications to the Town Trustees in connection with the construction of our current home and certain other site work. We deeply respect and support the work and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees and appreciated each of your personal commitments and responsibilities as Trustees. We believe strongly that compliance with Trustee and Town guidelines and requirements cannot be a matter of individual homeowner preference or sentiment. In our fragile environment, the welfare and interests of all residents are inter-linked. Unilateral, aggressive and self-serving actions by individual members of our community which violate public policy simply cannot be condoned. If you concur that this jetty has been re-built without your required approvals, we then strongly urge you to conclude further that the only appropriate remediation would be the complete dismantling and removal of this structure. This is the only proper outcome of this discussion given the inappropriate actions of those who re-constructed this wall and given the resulting damage already suffered by the neighbors "downstream." This is an important message for the Southold Town Trustees to deliver. incerely, c David W. Kilbride Kathleen B. Kilbnde r FPM ( fl.-0111) <<�. FPM Group, Ltd. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS nue FPM Engineering Group, P.C. 909 RonkonMarconkoma, 117 Ronkonkoma,NY 11779 formerly Fanning, Phillips and Molnar 631/737-6200 March 28, 2005 Fax 631/737-2410 President Albert J. Krupski _L,� And Board of Town Trustees D Town of Southold �� Main Road MAR ' ZN5 —� Southold, NY 11971 SG'Ahold lawn Re: Permit to Restore Beach at the Manago Property Board of Trustees Located at 8225 Nassau Point Road Dear Honorable President and Board of Town Trustees: Vincent and Carol Manago retained our firm to investigate the causes of severe erosion to their beach and to provide recommendations for corrective action. It was suspected that a wood jetty located on their north property line and extending into Little Peconic Bay was the major cause of their beach erosion. On May 29, 2003, 1 inspected the shoreline area of the Manago property located at 8225 Nassau Point Road, in the Town of Southold, New York. The purpose of the inspection was to assess if damage to the Manago shoreline was being created by the wood jetty (AKA groin) located near the north side property line of their property, and extending out into Little Peconic Bay, and to recommend corrections. Moreover, I have reviewed several historical photographs, maps and surveys pertaining to this shoreline, and researched applicable engineering theory of coastal processes to analyze the problem and to make recommendations.. I have concluded that: 1. The subject jetty is the primary cause of extreme erosion to the beach on Manago property. 2. The base portion of the jetty lies within the bounds of the Manago property. 3. Corrective action should include removal of the jetty and replenishment of the eroded beach with dredged or borrow sand. OBSERVATIONS Attached photos nos. 1 and 2 shows the change in the Manago beach area between the summer of 1996 to the summer of 2002. These historical photos clearly document that significant beach erosion occurred at the Manago beach during this period. On May 29, 2003, 1 had observed the conditions of the beach and had taken several photos. The photos nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 attached were taken at about 11:00 a.m. which was just about full high tide for that date and location. Photo no. 3 shows that an apparent loss of beach elevation of 2 to 3 feet had RONKONKOMA,NY • ROME,NY 9 SAN ANTONIO,TX 9 SPOKANE,WA • LANCASTER,CA • MIDWEST CITY,OK • MT.HOLLY, NJ • LAS VEGAS,NV President Albert Krupski -2- March 28, 2005 occurred below the beach access stair. Photo no. 4 shows the obvious effect the subject jetty is having on the Manago beach. Sand was built up on the north side of the jetty, and eroded on the south side (Manago side). The sand elevation was about two feet higher on north side of the jetty compared to the south (Manago) side. From these observations there should be no question that the jetty is the primary cause of erosion to the Manago beach area. The base of the jetty is clearly located within the bounds of the Manago property. The property survey entitled "Survey of Lot 64 and PIO Lot 65" by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., shows the wood jetty starting from a westerly point at the Manago bulkhead, within the Manago property, and extending easterly into Little Peconic Bay. From the survey, the first 10 to 15 feet (by scale measure) of the jetty is clearly within the bounds of the Manago property. From photos nos. 5 and 6 attached, it can be further observed that most of the jetty appears to be within the Manago property. Another survey for the Aloia property prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, shows about 7 to 10 feet (by scale measure) of the base of the jetty to be located on the Manago property. The angle of the jetty to the property line is very small, thereby a subtle emphasis in drawing the property line, even within an allowable margin of drafting error, can show a magnified difference in the amount of jetty on the Manago property. In any event, the most current surveys and my personal observation show a substantial portion of the base of the subject jetty to be within the bounds of the Manago property. ANALYSIS The subject "wood jetty" is more commonly known as a "groin" in coastal engineering practice for this type of application. Groins are an effective means for capturing sand by interrupting "longshore" currents and wave induced sediment transport along a beach. Sand is captured on the up-drift side of the groin, the amount of which is related to the length and height of the structure. The down-drift side of the groin is typically deprived of sand, causing an erosional effect. Longshore currents and wave action can vary in direction from day to day, however, a groins up-drift sand collection and down-drift erosion will eventually assume an equilibrium shape that is consistent with the direction of the predominant or prevailing currents and wave actions over a period of time. Different periods of time may yield different prevailing conditions and therefore different shapes. At the Manago beach front, it is apparent that the predominant longshore current and consequent sand drift has been from north to south. The Manago beach front, being down-drift of the groin (jetty), is clearly being affected by this groin effect. Sand is captured on the Aloia side of the jetty, and eroded from the Manago side. Mr. Manago had reported to me that the problem was not so severe prior to recent modifications to the wood jetty by Aloia. He stated prior to the recent modifications, the jetty was lower and was porous (sheeting missing). Under that situation, sand could be transported by longshore currents and wave action, through and over the jetty, providing some re-nourishment of his beach. It is my opinion however, that the Manago beach front would experience less damage if the jetty was removed entirely. FPM President Albert Krupski -3- March 28, 2005 Forecasting future localized erosive effects due to groins or other structures is difficult and not an exact science. There are some coastal engineering analytical and rule of thumb methods used to estimate coastal dynamics, but they are only starting points. As inaccurate as they may be, these methods sometimes are used when no other information is available. A myriad of factors, such as changing current and weather patterns, periodic storms, varying geometry of the shoreline over time, etc., all play into the dynamics of the unpredictability of shorefront stability and of any engineering forecasting models. Therefore, much of what is designed to protect the shoreline is a trial and error process. The actual damaging effect the subject jetty is imposing on to the Manago beachfront is an obvious after the fact observation. As described above, it is a well known fact that groins cause this effect. Therefore, there is no question the jetty is the cause of erosion to the Manago shorefront. The jetty should be removed to allow the beach to naturally stabilize. CONCLUSIONS It is my opinion that the subject jetty is the primary cause of the severe erosion of the Manago shoreline. I am not certain if the erosion has stabilized or if further erosion will continue in the future with this jetty in place. Only time will tell. However, there is no question that the jetty has damaged the Manago shorefront. Further, it is my opinion, from review of the various surveys and observation, that the jetty is located predominantly within the bounds of Manago property (the base or first 10 to 15 feet of the jetty) and thus the remaining part (in the bay) should be under the Manago jurisdiction. I recommend the jetty be partially or entirely removed to allow for a more natural localized beach dynamic. Moreover, to restore the beach to its previous line and elevations, I recommend replenishing the beach with dredged or borrow sand. We have calculated that approximately 300 cubic yards of sand will be required. I have marked on the attached part survey the location and depth profile of sand required. Very truly yours, `Gary . Molnar, P.E. Princ' al FP Group GAM:df Enclosures FPM f. �s r, , I h1y �✓i U ��� ; fig/ii,� Ivli� I "or SUMMER 1996 Photo No, 1 Note: Building uip of sand at 1Wlanago beach area. ul� SUMMER 2002 Photo No, 2 Note: Loss s of sand at Manago beach area compared to 1996 photo. �t l jr r I � i l � 0 �i f; �' uVifi4V�i�N�ViI'illu Viluuui ^�w�rr'uuuo � VO u(D��� �� � Photo No. 3 Stair to beach at Manago property (Flay 20013, high tide). Nate: Apparent lass of 2 feet to 3 feet of beach elevation since stair was built. n i photo No. The subject jetty is in the Little Peconic Bay, perpendicular to the sharelline. Note: Manage beach is to the right (South), is experiencing erosion dine to the obvious erosion effect of the jetty. r, Y, f a, f Fl r, !a � �j )l� (' yY i AIM Photo No. 5 Standing on jetty looking westerly. Note: Mr. Manago is holding a stick on top of the surveyors property line monument„ suggesting most of the jetty is within the Manago property (to the left). ri ry IrY " bA0 /t �'%�,, J ;+y IIYY,ar j� 51 �r r it �jfyU ,s �,W,i t ijf Jr A✓p �,j P I � M IrlZ "t 4) Wk1n q ° �a n ;'gym "`��"�,,, • � '�� �"� 1 v 04 �u k 'Np o pW'ry , e 7JA� 1 �� rovt 9 i �, �W �" �r�/f�(� i"�;y r� r u e fr:.irr,*^ �✓W" 6"w' u „ wl ' 1 1% x i ii " Vi "M rr f I vo 4 � • 7 M s, - • I` • is • N 376.39' O.t' r y zo W �w 1� w�s ,� � ,�` 3t y�Y r I t�+ Z5 4X FIL 1�1 I S+ 0 �,1 ti w tx 14.g o d ~ a �orcre� �1 O � uy rnW • Q � R O N hg � 358.99' .� UR 1/.,EY OF & P10L0T65 ,z' P A,' ,0F NA SSA U POINT G AXW FIDEW 156 ASSAU POINT " 'y®� OF SOUTHOLD -10 X COUNTY, N. Y. Rod/�. -� 0 118'w 04 - 10 idB: I„ = 30f � ,�. �� �. NO. 49616 ►b. 16t_ 1996 EcoNic (6311 765 - 1T9T -- •11 4, f�F (CERT*rAWNS ADDED) (631) 765 - P.C. r99 fmo•�.s sc� J'iy 25,zovi (ararec•fr�-�sJBOX 909 R o 230 TRAVELER STREET APRAL 4, Roof l Wdgfe 1 (art ff j MARCH 27� 2001 blew 6ulFhegd) SOUTHOL.D, N.Y. 11971 u 1 e �o I I's a ems v r, NN r �n rcu,r� dl�0 P / #, / •, t m, r ���ow ,. ,.. w7 u,,��'✓ r ,4 ,<pyF! r ,� l r r F,�� a/�."�� , L r m .. �illly� '��f";"�'V�+/F'kl��Y//a`nfi�y���iuVla;2r(JdIM�f,P((!U�✓ki�klb j�d`NraN�lfbi4°�/��%'Jr/J�.S� �r�' � r Fx � M o� F. �r ,�. r- �� . ' . AIoiar Bcach - frill ()I'sa" ,go Boach in �'m'Qkll'0Lllld scoured rer ry v r lr �M ¢p� 77 i Rcconstruch011 M',Isaa o Beach is l-c.)C Il Y loi a 11cach IBIIe(I with S<tid 1 9N J y,N59 i ,o , y VYI 17777 o , - m � a r. ,l ,,,�yi, � it 1J�n I �m�'LL,"✓!�"� � ���'l'�u � rimanl, �. ,a �r m l�", � �t ��,„l ����m m i.� ., l�i� '� ia+W"�fy� i�%i� (v 1li�yl %1��� i s � ���«Y4��✓�Ik�,'�ytW E �7;w � i� r rI/� I�imii �, / �ilr�i i �^✓� ar / �Qm i �yt( f�j,� r/r 7/i �db� Imp ✓N� ��r�l✓�E� {�'� 4 i i p� ,� ')I� �� � Y `�Yf 1 i✓a! w1�� � f1J�� ��� mt/%@m � 3�J�� �"��� I r°fir 9 'N r p . 111dV'!WI�!fr%rweb�7N' �a�r..a.v-.ak:J� .�✓a ,i,r�"r � �„ „aa;•uu.�� ,.., d, dW pp f yfy✓� �0��� 4+Y ,I`tcr recaMstl'Udio ll - khl li,�O Leach tal higdl tidC - watcr colllc; 1.11a to ImAN°tead /%Iola Benh IiHed ti,vidi sand l �v f .f I � r I tr h f i P; a Double row ofshcadlilq, ii� v k� tip�� y y r ray ap4 r � r 711� ZA Yi �kVn a m ,rr�i r� A a �P ', r��ir q�p yin f o t �y i Post I`ecoll5tru tioll. [-ligh ticic at Ma11ago Beach N's, high ✓ jJyJrfJ�r/r J ���r!�6!✓°if`Rl��rli! ���, r / ;r� !r 4f r'Ci/ � ��� �` � ( '; - ,'r`i ��i't I J f/��✓; Wf I�'1 Jain, f �"rb/ `it/a'✓ !�"//i � i�` F�/a r r-r��ljr;J D����ir�yr�� rr���',!;4�f�jJ�° �'F qw (l �i If low Ow jr ,iF X" d � a°` I ? r s r. P " ;n [lost rc°r ollsvrllcwll - row ol, sheathill", arrrl new r,walers r' r 60 r bY�i YrXh ii Y%%i r j ✓j i Yf rj p d i 1�47SG I"CC° INS FLIl:1I II a i F s P i � n w �1 `n now , y a fuiar� ,p@ aer a:aflc lack i:)f and wait Malla, r, r 1 r � xv r nr i 7 ,r i� � )+ (r��JrrraNa�fo, u,riiptM3FJirr �' r � Meech is lille I v idi rock G wr ✓r // l✓irl� / m J M�✓ ''� .�" re v i r a�' PoJ pa n, pf IVY�r I J V111W aiumm �„•;,- r 1,J�., �i 1�.". � ��" � � k"" „U �...gvn �` r � r Po , J V�� r a ra tw✓rlw a �✓mC,�w�i'Y'� '' 4 ,,„.m ✓ �w M o�✓J r�:✓ e y l w a, �f � rdlp1H�Jti% �MHU �� rA �" alb vm k �r mN, N r/ f J �- 0 , r, Pam' L r realty !f,, R ✓1 a+�ii q✓;� >� °,�� ° �/rr srµ ew���„ i✓^ �✓ � �� y� ✓ rlJ���9����r��r�irr��1� ✓ ra �,��✓„; � ir9�/,�p��17�4 r 'a S �„ x✓r ✓� ✓ a�w�� �P ° fir' ��v t��r �� f�i J +✓ - � r ✓ ,� r'NI< a a J r J�� ✓ `�4�i�� vm r� r�ilpai ry�c "� I f�l ....... ......... jj AMA m r,�?vet.�nr r'w;i�+` '(0i'✓ V;r•��Is VF ,iN,�,✓ 6���J �1iko'm,d ✓i C04 IV IN 2—0011 i � nu i �br i ' m � 'r �e � y yM � ��,z�rr Y ` �✓'� � r„ m,. r�i�% � r� a or�l���'oi rr{ �/��m�y i��P � �✓ ,,,,,,,�',r �.,. �r„� nN'SN tth�� �. �a'WY !r'm d /�PI�✓� „yJ i �; /m/ ; u J'�� .r✓� / s � yri ✓ �J ,� l��vi"1/�,✓�1 �ypl DA WN,'/�' 1 ✓ ✓ �w�r✓ �� ti 1" r r i mi y' ,mIY � � ��,�mym'""' �r� � J a 7 11���i�i��d(����t� y�4 M uM1!"�"i�� "YY� � l �' ✓ �m a "�,H iW /�I�9t1' !%�K.� � t11 �' fd✓/ i � 1Y ?✓�. b �i%�^''^"�"i i�NUlmw9'I�;� ,m�' rv+�P �Nm in 1. .,,d irr t !. �as�i �r 'nr i frf ,�✓ it , /4 f Ik „r ,muc. gym„ v �w ow work. "I'I.rc 1995 w(:)rk tried sin,";Ic .jetty 0" wab, addled to %� oCktty «A M n. e" i ,w r a7 har .sod '�'"".»",,� "• ir�� iVY�''i�tl'��� �V aw , Y maw Summer 2002 �H yr, u d � Summer 2002 i i t S ,. 2002 = l N�:.+�. - .�5.��_c�-:ram.' .� tt '�`• ^�• Board Of Southold - Town Trustee •, k �- SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK n _ 4 DATE: t. 4, 01 PERMIT NO. ... .... ........ .. APR 2 0 20 DR. JOHN ALOIA _.. __...-_..._.----••- . ISSUED TO .._._....-__._..�...._..-._....��..__...__...-_.........._..._. .. .. .r. Saufhafd Town Board of Trustees ` Pursuant to the-Provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of y• the State of New York, 1843: and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the « State of New York 1 qS2: and the Southold Town Ordinance en- OF OBSTRUCTIONS titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING =y IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and fhe REMOVAL OF SAND, GRAVEL-OR T nRaccordan a withLS the LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS,• Au 29, Resoluf ion of The Board adopted at a meetingheel , n _._Z..... -_... 00 2001 A Y _ and in consideration of the sum of �..____.._-._.._.......__ Pat t a Costello Marine for Dr..,...John, Aloia : • ................_........................... - Cutchogue N. Y. and. subject 10.the of Terms and Conditions 1is e-d on the reverse side hereof, « a of Southold Town Trustees authorises and permits the following: . : Wetland Permit for the re-built existing stairway inkind/inplace, �u that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck which was expanded to WX 24', and for the rebuilt. and expanded existing retaining ` wall. - L,; al in accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in �+ the originating application. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees here- by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these sents to of the said Board as of t is data. be subscribed by a majority « � « Truslecs ��- col• i 27 Y when you're installing it, you can say it's going to here or here, it's still going to be 120'. You're measuring from the water side. Give us a drawing that shows it to scale. Draw it up and measure it because you're not going to get the permit until you get the plans in. IAN CROWLEY- So you want it 120' from the end of the fixed-pier. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Seaward end of catwalk. Then you have that where you want to swing it in. We'll leave that up to you. OSCAR BLEVINS: There is no possibility of having hand-rails because I young children, grandkids? TRUSTEE POLIWODA: They can walk down to the end of the ramp. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I have little kids too and hand-rails don't stop them. We really want to keep it low. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: It's an open marsh. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Why don't you keep it no hand-rails and come back in a year and see how it worked out. You might be satisfied with it. The problem with have with these high docks, it's such a seasonal use. They aren't using these things every day or twice a day or something. They are using them how many times over the course of the year. These docks are getting higher and higher and higher and it's a major impact on a wetland that's really, it's not like a sidewalk that you use everyday. TRUSTEE FOSTER: It's only 2 1/' high, they'd jump off of there. OSCAR BLEVINS: Ok, thank you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do I have a motion to close the hearing? TRUSTEE SMITH: So moved. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'll make a motion to Approve the application for a 120' catwalk, 3' wide, 2 '/Z' high with a 3'X 16' ramp and a 6'X 20' float in an "L" configuration secured with two 2-pile dolphins subject to receipt of new plans showing the exact location and that the marsh should be restored, excess fill material from the pile installation should be removed after the piles are jetted in. TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES 19. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DR. JOHN ALOIA requests a Wetland Permit for the re-built existing stairway inkindlinplace, that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck which was expanded to 16'X 24'. Rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. Located 8145 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118-4-9 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm the agent for the applicant, Mr. Aloia and I'm here if you have any questions? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Anyone else, there is a letter here that I'll read, but is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor of or against the application? JOHN ALOIA: This is somewhat complicated because...(changed tape) damage and actually this was done with failure of a permit by Costello Marine simply because there was a clerical error in their office and we apologize for that. The deck is fits in with the aerial that's similar to decks throughout Nassau Point and t 28 we are seeking approval. There is an objection from our neighbors that have to do with something that we think isn't related to what we have before you and that is repairs that was made on sheathing of our jetty, which we understand is minor repairs and didn't require a permit. What we request is that we be issued a permit for a deck, which is what we've applied for and what we're here for to speak for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Is there any other comment' PAT MOORS: I have Mr. & Mrs. Manago here who are the adjacent property owners and I also asked Mr. Samuels to stay because he did the work on the Manago property and the letter that was sent by Dr. Aloia, most recently and I just got a copy of it, alleged that some of the work that was being done was based on some damage that Mr. Samuels did, or Rambo Construction, did to the property and I think that it was only fair that Tom address that because he was very careful, very specific, in the area that he was working. With respect to the permit before you, the reason that he's here is because of the notice of violation. But, in that interim, we were given, my clients were given notice of the work that was done and they also noted that the permit did not include any of the work to the jetty. We would respectfully disagree that it was minor work done to the jetty and it appears from the record in this file that back in 1995 there was an application based on a survey that we think is inaccurate and that survey with that application came with a request to extend and rebuild the jetty 14' out in a shore area, I guess nearshore area... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, did we issue the permit to repair that jetty? PAT MOORE: Apparently in 1995 you issued a permit for a 14' off the end of jetty however that work was never done, not to our knowledge it wasn't done. This past year, significant work was done to the jetty that is not that 14' area but in fact the area along the beach and was actually an expansion of the jetty and in fact has caused some significant affects on the Manago's beach because the jetty that had been built and was functioning was not functioning completely so that there was still some ability for the Manago beach to be re-nourished. Since it was repaired, there have been affects on the Manago beach. I asked Tom because he's certainly more qualified than I am to explain the work that was done and the affects right now that the jetty that has been, the work that has been to the jetty, affects my client's property. TOM SAMUELS.- Just very brieftly, the jetty is the Manago's property down-lift, the literal drift, which is north to south and the jetty is or has been scouring the property. I have no way of knowing to the extent of it's increased by way of repair to the jetty, however, and I'm certainly not prepared to answer the question as to who actually owns the jetty, which is another problem, but 1 would like to make a point to the letter that was written describing the damage that was done to the jetty when we re-built the Manago bulkhead. That couldn't be more inaccurate and false. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm sorry, I just want to get this straight because I'm not sure who's on first here. You work for Manago? TOM SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you work for Aloia? 29 TOM SAMUEL& Some years ago. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you work for Manago? PAT MOORE: Yes. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you work for Aloia? PAT MOORS: No. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is everybody following this because I'm not following this at all. PAT MOORE: Aloia has an application before you after given a notice of violation. There has been additional work that's not covered under the permit application that's before you. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But whose jetty is it? PAT MOORE: We think it's the Manago jetty based on our very current and specific survey. We have stakes that were actually placed on the property and we have photographs that Mr. Manago took and didn't go over them with you that clearly show that the jetty, at minimum, begins on the Manago property, and extends out into the water. The Aloia's have an old survey that I don't believe addressed the waterfront very carefully because it was dealing mostly with upland issues. Surveyors, unless you're very specific with them, really won't deal with waterfront issues. They are primarily concerned with the meets and bounds based on the deed and prior descriptions. TRUSTEE SMITH: This permit that they're looking for tonight, all they're requesting is a Wetland Permit for the existing stairway, inkindlinplace, that lead to an exiting 8'X 12' deck with an expanded 16'X 24', and retaining wall. PAT MOORE: I understand that, but their application is incomplete. They made additional work to a jetty that they did not own and don't have an application before you, They're in violation in addition on the jetty. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: When did they do the work? PAT MOORE: At the same time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Now, how do you know they did the work? Did you see it? PAT MOORE: My client. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, did you see it? PAT MOORE: Mr. Krupski, did you see it? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, that's why I'm asking you, who did the work? PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello has admitted that he did the work. There is no question that the work was done. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm just trying to figure out whose doing this work and when, and is there a permit. PAT MOORE: Mr. Costello is the contractor. They survey is an accurate survey that shows that the jetty belongs to the Manago's. You have an application before you that incomplete. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Where is the survey that shows it's Mr. Manago's? MR. MANAGO: This is the survey and John Metzger signed it. (Mr. Manago is not speaking into microphone.) If you look at their survey, you'll see that the same jetty is on their survey as well but their survey is inaccurate because these lines are exactly parallel, but his property is not parallel. It goes from 100' of the road and it ends, and it says it right there, the lines do not match. That's why I'm 30 convinced that my survey is absolutely right. John Metzger assures me that it is. own the jetty. It is on my property, not on their property, TRUSTEE SMITH: And he repaired it? MR. MANAGO: Who did? TRUSTEE SMITH: Costello, MR. MANAGO: Mr. Costello repaired it. He worked for the Aloia's, when we were away. We did not know he was doing it in advance. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well he repaired it. So what's the problem? MR. MANAGO: Because it's now destroyed my beach environmentally. I have no beach. This is what's happened to my beach. These are before pictures and these are after pictures, and I get all of the muck and seaweed. We have also, there is a rock jetty. All of this, every time it rains, and at high tide, not at low tide, but at high tide, this is what my beach looks like, in the last couple weeks. So, we are convinced, you see, they raised the jetty. They raised it by another 6". They put a board, and I think you can see the board. So when Mr. Costello came to my house, he said he would remove part of it. I said, what are you going to remove all of it. All of the work he did, they replaced the entire south side of the jetty, which now captures everything onto my beach and if you look at this, you can't swim in this. It's horrible. So I said to wait for the meeting and let's resolve this because when we came to my house, I pointed out the stake marks and the monuments, and you realize now the jetty is on my property. TRUSTEE SMITH: Well Mr. Costello should remove whatever you want removed then. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well let's hear what Mr. Costello's story is because this is getting more interesting. JOHN COSTELLO: This Board is aware that there is application for the deck. I don't know why we're even interviewing anything to do with the jetty. I have a survey that was submitted by the owner of the property that was dated in 1984. That is almost 40 newer that the one Pat was saying about the pond in VanTuyle's earlier. This survey was part of the application, it was given to you as part of the application, and indicated that the jetty was on his property, Mr. Aloia's property. That has nothing, it's all totally irrelevant to the application. He had a violation on the deck. The violation included making an application before this Board for the deck, so we did. Let me tell you, I don't know if Mr. Aloia's house is the neighbor's house is where it's supposed to be, if the setback is... I know none of that. I don't even care. All I want to do is address everything that is relevant to the application that you have before you. That's it. The bulkhead is shown on the 1984 survey that is certified with Title Ins. I have no idea whether that Title Ins. Co. is still in business but the fact of the matter is the survey. Whether one survey is right and one is wrong, I have no idea and it's not part of this application. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: They can't both be right. JOHN COSTELLO: Let me tell you, it's irrelevant to this application for the deck. The deck, I believe, is 100% on Mr. Aloia's property and I do admit the guilt that we did make it bigger than we should of and we're before you, with the 31 appiication, for the deck that going behind the bulkhead, environmentally it has no impacts, but that's the application. TRUSTEE SMITH: The jetty is a separate issue. That's a direct violation. JOHN COSTELLO: When they can find out who owns which two feet of it... TRUSTEE SMITH: 1 don't care who owns it. That's a violation. JOHN COSTELLO: I don't know if...we'll have to go out and find out if it's a violation. If it is, ... TRUSTEE SMITH: It's higher than it was John. Even if it's a repair, you're making it higher, it's a violation. If you did it inkindfinplace, I could say that's a repair. But, when you go higher, that's a direct violation. JOHN COSTELLO.- You're going to give me a violation, now? For what? The issue, your Bay Constable went out to the site and issued a violation for the deck. We are doing exactly what we were told. That's simple. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: This is what I told the other people in Nassau Point who had the problem with the surveys. Here we have two surveys showing two different things. There's a survey here and you can see where Mr. Costello looked... MR. MANAGO: That's not an original survey. Those lines were drawn in there. Both cannot be right. The words and the lines cannot be right, so the survey is inaccurate. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not saying it is. All I'm saying is if Dr. Aioia came in here last month, two months ago, three months ago, whatever, and said I want to build a deck, I want to fix the jetty, we would have looked at this, we would've said, to be honest with you, because we get these surveys all the time. We can't verify them, we shouldn't have to. They are stamped by a licensed surveyor. We shouldn't have to verify them, MR. MANAGO: That's not what the property looks like today. That is obsolete. The property doesn't look anything like that. There have been major alterations on the property. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I know what you're saying, I'm not disagreeing with you. MR. MANAGO: You make an application to any of the Boards and just put any survey, even a very old one, if that's not what the property looks like. All we're asking is that they get a new survey and this will then, I think, will show the real facts. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But that's going to have to be worked out between you and your neighbor because we're looking at this for environmental... PAT MOORE: But right now you've got a violation that wasn't complete. The notice of violation had to be...if the Bay Constable realized that the work was done to the jetty, he would've also included that into the notice of violation and the permit would've been... JOHN COSTELLO: You don't know that Pat. You can't mind read the Bay Constable. MARK ALOIA: Those are my parents. I happen to be an attorney and when I saw that they got a letter from an attorney I came but I didn't that it was going to be necessary for me to speak. There are a lot of factual inaccuracies with what they are saying and we could be here all night and we can do that because we have photographs and affidavits and so forth and we can through that as to who owns what and where the border really lies and so forth. In any event, I thought, and I'm hopeful, is the determination going to be just on the deck, or are we discussing the jetty as well, because then we have a lot of proof that we have to offer as well. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the jetty came up as a surprise to the Board. MARK ALOIA: There was a letter written to the Board by Ms. Moore discussing the jetty and raising issues about the jetty. It had nothing to do with our application. Basically, from what I see, the deck, there is no objection from the Manago's about the deck. The deck is very much like every deck all along Nassau Point. It's the same thing. Every house you can see on either side, as far as you can see, has the same thing. As far as the jetty goes, we have unfortunately a bad neighbor situation. If we have to decide who owns what we could do that. I don't think this is the place to do that. TRUSTEE SMITH: What do you say if we take care of the deck tonight? TRUSTEE FOSTER: Let's just act on the application before us and let them hash the rest of it. MARK ALOW We own the jetty and I have to tell you, I believe, and I don't know if it was you, but someone ... we don't care what the jetty looks like or is repaired. We care that there is a jetty there because it preserves the beach. We don't tell specifically, we want to repair it here, or we want three things over here, there are holes there, we rely on Costello to tell us what we need. If it's wrong, then it's got to be taken down. We'll take it down. Oh by the way, the timber was put in like three or four years ago under that other permit. It was not put in recently. I have pictures. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but the problem is, if the Bay Constable goes out, who gets the violation. MARK ALOIA: That's right. They want the violation. Quite frankly, the permits have been issued to our predecessor, all the permits for the jetty. He doesn't own the land underwater. So, the permits were issued for the construction of the jetty. The last permit that was issued, was issued to my parents. We have spent a lot of money repairing it and now we have our neighbors telling us oh, thanks a lot for repairing it but you know, it's our jetty, and take it down. In any event, what I would really like to know is whether any thing is going to moved on something beyond the application that's before you. If we go beyond that we have things to say. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Honestly, the jetty is going to have to be restored to what is was, the height. Is it going to take 6 hours of work, or is going to take 6 years of haggling. That's going to be up to the two neighbors, I'm afraid. MARK ALOIA: Well are they going to pay to remove it? PAT MOORE: I think it was unauthorized when it was done so I think you know the answer to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the choice is going to be between the Aloias and the Managos. MARK ALOW Well we can send Costello down to take it down. 33 PAT MOORE: That would certainly satisfy my clients to have them take it down because the whole purpose here is to allow the jetty to deteriorate because that is actually preserving his beach more so. MARK ALOIA: I mean I don't like it, it's bulky. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well if we send the Bay Constable out and it's not there, and it's not there, then there's no violation. Right? PAT MOORE: But there's a great deal more than just that strip that was added. There was sheathing that was added as well. MARK ALOIA: You mean you want us to pull the sheathing out? PAT MOORE: That's what was working before. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Did you see the sheathing that was pulled out Pat? PAT MOORE: My clients testified to that. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Ok, but did you see it? PAT MOORE: Is that a joke? TRUSTEE SMITH: Let's move on with the deck. The jetty is through for tonight. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Does anyone have any other comments? PAT MOORE: Do you want the photographs for the file? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We would like them. MARK ALOIA: Well is you're giving things for the file, then I'll start. PAT MOORE: Now he has to remove it or it will be a violation. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Exactly. That 6 X 6 on top either has to be removed or it's a violation. PAT MOORE: What about the sheathing? TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: If you think you have a legitimate claim besides the 6 X 6, that the jetty was altered either in height or in length... MR. MANAGO: All of the sheathing has been replaced on my side and all I wanted to do was to work it out with the Aloias, in a reasonable way. TRUSTEE SMITH: Why don't you two work it out between you? MR. MANAGO. Well we are trying to resolve this. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We'd like to see this resolved by you. JOHN ALOIA: We ask that you give us the permit for the deck and we'll work to resolve whatever has been changed to the jetty. I'm certainly not...the jetty was built by the person who sold us the house. The neighbors on both sides who lived there knew that it belonged to the house and all I ask to have done was repair some rotted sheathing. I'm not going to tear out sheathing and drill holes in the jetty, but if there is any obstruction, we'll see to it that it's removed. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not going to resolve, obviously, the ownership issue tonight so let's not even mention it. PAT MOORE: So, it either gets resolved or the Bay Constable will go out. TRUSTEE SMITH: Right, the Bay Constable is the enforcement, so you have to contact them. MARK ALOIA: So the permit for the deck is... TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's what we're considering. The permit for the deck, and rebuilding the existing stairways, and the rebuilt and expanded retaining walls. Do you have any comment on those? _34 MR. MANAGO: I have no objections on whatever they want to do on their property other than that. I just wanted them to get a new survey. I didn't think that either this Board or the Building Dept. would want a survey that's inaccurate. The Building Dept, needs an accurate survey. That's all I wanted. I think that would be the first step in our resolution as to who owns what. Mine goes out to the high water mark and there's does not. They're assuming that they own for some other reason but it's on my land. No matter what happens, it's on my land. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I'm not disputing that. Certainly your statement is backed up by a really recent survey. MR. MANAGO: That's all we ask is that they get a more recent survey. MARK ALOIA: Really, there is so much more history and how things have been over the last... before they even looked here, but we really don't want to get into that. I would again ask that we talk about the other issue. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES TRUSTEE SMITH: I'll make a motion that we Approve the deck, the existing 8'X 12' deck expanded to 16'X 24', rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. TRUSTEE FOSTER: Seconded. ALL AYES 20. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of RICARDO RENGIFO requests a Wetland Permit to reconstruct existing 4'X 46' dock, inkindlinplace, and extending it another 10' far a total of 56' then continuing with a new 32"X 16' ramp leading to a new 6'X 20' float secured with a 2-pile dolphin and two single piles. Install two single mooring piles. Install 142' new bulkhead in front of existing and reconstructing 30' existing jetty in-place with "C-Loc" vinyl sheathing for each. Located: 1875 Shore Rd., Greenport. SCTM#47-2-32 TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to speak in favor of the application? JOHN COSTELLO: I'm here on behalf of the applicant. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: There were structures built on his property. JOHN COSTELLO: I didn't build either one of these structures, but I can tell you when the bulkhead was built. I was built probably in the late 50's by Ralph T. Preston Inc. with a company that i had affiliation with somewhat later on. TRUSTEE POLIWODA: What about the retaining walls. JOHN COSTELLO: I have no idea, oh I can tell you, it was built in 1984, because I saw a contract by Edgar and Austin Burke, but they had a contract from that company at that time. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: I just want to read a letter here from Robert Stackler. (Trustee Krupski reading letter on file.) Ok, where are the photographs. These are the ones that don't show the retaining wall, or the shower. So, we have an issue here, the dock, the jetty, which we saw there was a jetty, a retaining wall and all the pipes coming from the bulkhead. Now there was an old survey from 1972 that shows a bulkhead and a return. You see, we can't permit a return on someone else's property, as I'm sure you know after tonight's meeting. Albert J. Krupski, President FFOLA- Town Hall L'James King,Vice-President 53095 Route 25��. OGy HenryP.O.Box 1179 Smith Southold, New York 11971-0959 Artie Foster y Ken Poliwoda 0 Telephone(631) 765-1892 Fax(631) 765-1366 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 4, 2001 Mr. John Costello Costello Marine Contracting Corp. P.O. Box 2124 Greenport, NY 11944 RE: DR. JOHN ALOIA 8145 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue SCTM#I 18-4-9 Dear Mr. Costello: The Board of Town Trustees tools the following action during its regular meeting held on Wednesday, August 29, 2001 regarding the above matter: WHEREAS, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. on behalf of DR. JOHN AL01A applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated June 29, 2001, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on August 29, 2001, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS,the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS,the structure complies with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT, RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of DR. JOHN ALOIA for the re-built existing stairway inkind/inplace, that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck which was expanded to lb'X 24', and for the rebuilt bLnd expanded existing retaining wall. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this determination should not be considered a determination made for any other Department or Agency, which may also have an application pending for the same or similar project. Permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date it is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Two inspections are required and the Trustees are to be notified upon completion of said project. Fees: None Very truly yours, Albert J. Krupski,Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/lms DEC Bldg. Dept. John and Elvira Aloia 8145 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, NY 11791 August 24, 2001 I kl G 2 7 . Hand Delivered Southold Town Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold Town Hall, Main Road Southold NY 11971 Dear President Krupski and Board: My wife and I have been homeowners on Nassau Point since 1984. We received a letter dated August 16, 2001 from our neighbors' attorney, Patricia Moore, addressed to you, to which we feel we should respond. The letter was sent on behalf of the Manago's, our neighbors, in connection with our application for a permit for the replacement and expansion of our deck, originally scheduled to take place in July. The application was adjourned to Wednesday,August 29,2001 at the request of the Mango's. We respectfully request that the application for the deck be the only application heard. We believe the letter was sent not as a true objection to the deck, but because our neighbors of the last few years,the Manago's, wish to use this forum to engage in a border dispute. For the record, we refute all of the comments made in the letter. We also respectfully request that our application be granted as the decking is less obtrusive than what existed before, it is similar to the deck of both of our neighbors and because there appears to be no real objection to it. The decking is connected to our stairs leading to the beach behind our house. There previously was a raised platform deck connected to the stairs which was smaller in area but elevated. The subject decking is similar to that of the Manago's and almost everyone with a similar elevation along Nassau Point, including that of our other neighbor, George Fry. Moreover, there appears to be no real objection to the deck. I understand that Mr. Manago told our contractor that they had no problem with the deck, but that they were interested in claiming ownership to the jetty. I have enclosed a letter from Mr. Fry. He states in his note that he has no objection to the issuance of a permit for the deck and he has asked you to call him. If you find it to be relevant or of interest, he can confirm that the jetty is ours as well. We apologize for not having obtained the permit for the deck in the first place. We believed that our contractor was obtaining all necessary permits. In fact we stressed to our contractor that we had troublesome neighbors and thus they should be certain that they obtain all necessary permits. When we received the notice of violation we were surprised. Unfortunately, there was a miscommunication in our contractor's office. This application is intended to correct our contractor's oversight. As to our ownership of and the repairs to the jetty, we do not believe it to be an issue, despite our neighbors' claim to ownership. We own the jetty. The permit for construction of the jetty was issued decades ago to our predecessors, the Chutes and, in the past when we made major repairs, the permit was issued in our name. We have owned and maintained it at our cost since we purchased the property in 1984. Our survey shows that if our boundary were extended into the water, the jetty would lie within it. We can also confirm our ownership in affidavits from Mr. Fr)- and the person who sold to the Manago's, if the Board decides to entertain this issue. With respect to the complaints concerning the repairs to the jetty, it was and is our belief that they do not require a permit. The Manago's make reference to various repairs, some of which were performed under a permit years ago. The current repairs consisted of minor repairs of rotted sheathing which we believe do not require a permit. The timber complained of was installed to repair damage done when the Manago's contractor's truck ran over it while constructing their bulkheading and deck. It is six inches high and does not present an unusual obstruction along the beach. Our contractor asked the Manago's if they would like him to remove the timber and Mr. Manago told him to leave it there. The debris to which they refer in their attorney's letter is seaweed. The jetty clearly benefits our neighbors all the way down Nassau Point as it preserves their beaches. We request that this Board not permit our neighbors to drag this border dispute they have created into our application for the deck. We do not believe this to be the issue before you,nor do we wish to take your time with it. V tr y yours, i John F. Aloia, M.D. Elvira Aloia Cc: Patricia C. Moore PATRICIA C. MOORE Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631) 765-4330 Fax: (631) 765-4643 Margaret Rutkowski Secretary August 16, 2001 Southold Town Trustees 6 P.O.Box 1179 2� f Southold Town Hall I Main Road, " Southold, NY 11971 Re : Dr. John Aloia application Property: 8145 Nassau Point Road Dear President Krupski and Board: I represent the Aloia' s neighbor, Carol and Vincent Manago. Dr. Aloia and his agent, Costello Marine Contracting Corp. , were issued a notice of violation for construction of certain structures without a wetland permit. In addition to the work for which the Town issued a violation notice, they performed work on my client' s Jetty without consent or authorization. The Jetty which is on my client ' s property was clearly identified with a surveyor' s spike and colored ribbon which was removed during construction. Enclosed is my client' s survey which shows the location of the Jetty. The property lines are well defined and identified with surveyor' s stakes . Dr . Aloia has had a copy of this survey since 1998 when the Aloia' s fence and lamp post were discovered to be on my client' s property and were subsequently removed. In review of the file it appears that the work performed on the Jetty did not have current Trustees and DEC permits . We believe that the boards on the Jetty were replaced on one side (south side) and a horizontal 6 x 6 timber was added to the top . Additional work may have been performed. The Jetty is now significantly higher on one side and creates an obstruction to pedestrians along the beach. In addition the change to the Jetty has resulted in beach loss to my client and accumulation of debris on my client' s beach. My client objects to any work performed on his property and they do not waive their rights to demand that they remove their unauthorized work. We respectfully request a copy of the plan of any and all work done to the Jetty prior to the Board' s next meeting. Very truly yours, i Patricia C. Moore cc : Costello Marine Contractors Mr. And Mrs . Manago j } COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORPORATION DOCK BUILDING •JETTIES•BULKHEADING •STEEL & WOOD PILING • FLOATS 423 FIFTH STREET, P.O. BOX 2124 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 • (516)477-1199/477-1393/477-0682 July 24, 2001 Southold Town Trustees z P.O. Box 1179 r f fx Southold, NY 11971 _ = RE: Dr. John Aloia Property 1 S.C.T.M. 1000-118-04-09 Dear Sirs: J As per my client's instruction, I am requesting to remove our permit application from the Trustees' Public Hearing agenda on Wednesday, July 25, 2001. We would like the application put on the Trustees' agenda for August so that we have time to adequately inform our client's neighbor of our proposal. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours a� /-Z Z��P47 Jane Costello Walsh Permit Manger NOTICE Police Dept. - Bay Constable Town of Southold Peconic, New York 11958 NOTICE,OF VIOLATION Date: Juce 5, 9-001 To: John Aloia (Owner or authorized agent of owner) Address: 39 Passau Slvd. , Garden City, N.Y. 11530 (Address of owner or authorized agent of owner) Please take notice there exists a violation of the Code of the Town of Southold, Chapter 97 Article II, Section 97-20 a premises hereinafter described in that you have erected a 16x24 foot deck and 2x3o foot retaining wall within 19 feet of a wetland without first obtaining a Trustee Permit. You are therefore directed and ordered to comply with the following: cease all further activity within 1:OO feet of *.:e.,ands. Apply for a Southold Town Trustee Permit. If permit is denied deck is to be removed. on or before the 29 day of June , 20 o i The premises to which this Notice of Violation refers are situated at: 8145 Nassau Pt. Rd. Cutcho e N.Y. 11935 Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY (Suffolk County Tax Map Designation: Dist. 1000 Section: 118 Block: 4 Lot: 9 } Failure to comply with the applicable provisions of the law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both: NOTICE: You have the right to apply for a hearing before the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold, provided that you file a written request with the Clerk of the Trustees within 10 days after service of the Notice of Violation. Such request shall have annexed thereto a copy of the Notice of Violation upon which a Hearing is requested and shall set forth the reasons why such notice of viola- tion should be modified or rescinded. Bay Ponstable, ToWn of Southol 11 NY Local Criminal Court t.C.NUMBER 01-4971 ARREST NUMBERS) VILLAGE OF TOWN OF Southold DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY DOCKET NO.(S} ` VIOLATION INFORMATION FROM DATE a HOUR TO DATE a HOUR STATE OF NEW YORK 1. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK VILLAGE OF SS } Defendant( ) 2. TOWN OF Southold John Aloia 3. Name(Complainant) B.C. Kent B. McCarthy of No. Southold Town Police Department, POB 911 , Peconic, N.Y. 11958 being duly sworn,says that on or about May 30, 2001 .._at about Hamlet at 8145 Nassau Pt. Rd. Hof Cutchogue Townof Southold County of Suffolk,State of New York,the defendant(x) John Aloia DOB 3/24/38 39 Nassau Blvd. , Garden City, N.Y. 11530 wrongfully,intentionally,knowing] committed the offense(j)of: Conduct operations in wetlands. No Trustee Permit pursuant to 97-20. A violation ____ of Section 97-33.A of the Southold Town Code-. Count#1 in that: the defenjant, at 8145 Nassau Pt. Rd. , Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, on or about May 30, 2001 , having no right to do so, did construct a 16 ft x 24 ft wood deck and a 2 ft x 30 ft retaining wall without first obtaining a permit from the Southold Town Trustees. Therefore violating Section 97-33.A of the Southold Town Code. This complaint is based on (personal knowledge) &(jn# xati>r3ae�#iaxt# a$i� R �a93tt11�f5t'�l� lidR>RrRf Direct involvement of deponent. dated J [the attached laboratory report of the dated )*• SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 5 DAY OF June AV 2001 J_ r3 I C. '16. SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTERING 6ATH COMPLAINANT Sergeant- Southold Town Police TITLE VILLAGE OF TOWN OF Southold SSCS-3000b 'STRIKE OUT WORDS NOT APPLICABLE 53-240.-5l91cs Focal Criminal Court NUMBER 01-4971 ARREST NUMBER(S) VILLAGE OF TOWN OF Southold DEFENDANTS IN CUSTODY DOCKED NO.(S} VIOLATION INFORMATION FROM DATE&HOUR TO DATE 3 HOUR STATE OF NEW YORK 1. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK VILLAGE OF SS ] DefendantW 2. TOWN OF Southold Costello Marine Contracting Corp. s Name(Complainant) B.C. Kent B. McCarthy of No. Southold Town Police Department, POB 911 , Peconic, N.Y. 11958 being duly sworn,says that on or about May 30 2001 at about Hamlet Cutcho ue Townof Southold at 8145 Nassau Pt. Ad. tgdCof County of Suffolk,State of New York,thedefendanti�5) Costello Marine Contracting Corp. 423 5th St. , Greenport, N.Y. 11944 wrongfully, intentionally. committed the offense( of: Conduct operations in wetlands. No Trustee Permit pursuant to 97-20. A violation of Section 97-33.A of the Southold Town Code. Count_#1 inthat: the defendant, at 8145 Nassau Pt. Rd. , Hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, on or about May 30, 2001, having no right to do so, did construct a 16 ft x 24 ft wood deck and a 2 ft x 30 ft retaining wall without first obtaining a permit from the Southold Town Trustees. Therefore violating Section 97-33.A of the Southold Town Code. This complaint is based on (personal knowledge) & a�fcsdcbsi�xt6o[ f��t�1L �� � Rf Direct involvement of deponent. dated ] [the attached laboratory report of the dated ]" SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS 5 DAY OF June 2001 SIGNATURE OF OFFICIAL ADMINISTERING OATH COMPLAINANT Sergeant- Southold Town Police TITLE VILLAGE OF TOwNOF Southold SSCS-300(}b 'STRIKE OUT WORDS NOT APPLICABLE 53.2a0..5l91cs t. Agency 2 Oivuoni"--_inct :�_,. f�-• . ter': New YorE State'` 3.oa, @ Ong 5 Case Ntl. 6 1.• S4ovr1+oLtj iowN 8<% 1NGD�NTREPORT NY�StS L7 5u� lot- 4/?" 1.Report Day S.Date 9 Report time Ddurred-¢; 10.Day 11.Date k2.Time �-" 1 13-Day l4 Date r � � sa a! latex:` '•'� r•., t i f„ 16-Incident Type n l r 17 Business Name 18,Weapon(s) W T'oWA3 1Aa� VI•QLAT-16tj A Q L 19-IrKi&n[[Address(Street No..Street Name.Bldg No..Apt.No.) 20.City,State,Z1p(❑C ❑' IT ❑V/) Q y L 2, Location Code O✓�I JM ��r eJ'S�t L�► �I 7L-O 0W re.HaC.U E /•-a� l� +rl J� 3�-r}'r B. 21.OFF.NO. LAW SECTION SUB 0. CAT DEG ATT NAMEOFOFFE195Ci.;i - a �"v�' =TS 23 NO.of victims C. t '� i 11jC 3 •I'T 2 24. No.of Suspects D j 3 Q 1 25.Person Type:CO=Complainant OT=Other P1m Person interviewed PIR Penpn Reporting WI-WitnoMNI.Not interrie+rt V;-ViclIim 26.Vicimalsocomplainant ❑Y❑N - E N IYPEMO - NAME(LAST.MRST,MIDDLE,TITLE) Date w STREET ND-.STREET NAME.SLOC,NO.,APT,No.,CITY, STATE, LPG,.� �•- - T �,•;•,.,._ y firth N�sor� out nn !f Q!! • i7 F. C !►S3d G. W ' a OT- 0 Lot A b e• 3o►4 1,J 3 &_59 041, ZLv z-r t73'1= 7057 O ad3 rxjz O 'll1'C['ve- l / f H a or a, Ca..,rr_,.�i y Niz, Co" -� ya3 S Sr Po i <?'YV f 27.Date of Birth 28.Age 29,701 30-Race 31.Ethnoc 32.Handicap 33 Residence Statu7 ❑Temp.Res--Foreign Nat- - ❑ M ❑ white❑ Black❑ Other 0 Hispanit❑ Unk. ❑ Yes ❑ Resident TOurrs[ ❑Student Other1. ❑Indian ❑Asian❑Unk. ❑Non-Hispanic ❑NO ❑Commuter�Milita a ❑llnk ry ❑Home ess 34.Type/NO 35.Name(Last,First.Middle) 36.AliasMocknamelMaiden Name{Last,First,Middle) 37.Apparent Condition K. Z ❑ n Impaired Drugs ❑ Metal Dos ❑Unk, 0 ❑Impaired Al[o 0 Inj 1 III ❑ App Norm uJ K d 30.Address(Street No.,Street Name,0169 NC.,Apt No..City,State,Zip) 39 Phone No. ❑ Home 40 Socoal Security No L r-O ❑ work W tViry�i 41-Date Of Birth 42 Age 43 Sex 44.Race 45.Ethnic 46.Skin 47.Occupation �� ] M C F ] White❑ Black ]Other ❑ Hispanic 0 Unk- ❑ Light [)Dark ❑Unk. 9A :3 ❑U C] Indian C] Awn ❑Unk. C]Non-Hispanic ❑Medium ❑ Other - v+a l9 49.Height L41agM SO Mair 51.Eyes 52.Glasses 53.Build 54 Empioyerl9chool S5.Address N Z ❑ Yes 0Contacts ]Small ❑Large yt ❑ No ❑Medium 56,Scars/Marks/T a"oos(Descri e) 57-Mtfe. El 1 58.Victim or Property Property Quantityl Make or ❑ No. Status Type Measure T Model Serial No. Description Value 2 El o59.Vehicle 60.License Prue No Full❑ 61.State 62.Erp.Yr. 1 63.Plate Type 64 Value ❑ a Status O Partial❑ 5 t. a 1J1 65.Veh,Yr. 66 Make 67 Model 68-Style 69 VIN ❑ = 6 W 70.Color(s) y 72 Vehicle NotesLLi ❑n. Towrd e 7 To: 73- aY 'T� U�.s-� � -�-� -�ry u El Y t T �D IA l 4 L cJL r+. D g GuY"�T#4 t�t c f�� Y J ,c o ,o 3 0 oo L+.�i iu Car _14&t> ti 1r r n = v- Gm Y L R a amln'si, t t °C e 7ta u ❑ a Tt tav o "d Tt e. ea +¢. W 13 W 74.Inquiries(Check all that apply) 75. NYSPIN Message No 76.Complainant Signature B � t T ❑ DMV 0 Want/Warrant ❑ScOHlaw � ❑Crim.History 0 Stolen Property ❑Other Low cover a 77,Reporting Officer Signature hnctude Rank) 78 10 NO 79 S iper wr-s S,gnatwe(In[IUde Rank) 60,ID No. IS M-C16-__9 /Vil- - I I d 81. C sed(If Closed.cn bor below P94 age Status Status Dpen ❑ o ❑ ) ❑UnfOuntled 82 Status Date 83. NptrhedrTOT DI I a Q vi[t.Refused to Coop. ❑Arrest C]Pros Declined ❑Warrant Advised {/ ❑CBI ❑Juv.-No Custody ❑Arrest.juv DOffender Dead 1]•fxtrad Detlon ]Unanown I ° lot pages XJS-3205 (2/97) `FALSE STATEMENTS ARE PUNISHABLE AS A CRIME.PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE PENAL LAW New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Environmental Permits, Region One AM Building-40 -SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356 Phone: (631)444-0365_ PAX: (631)444-0360 John P.Cahill Commissioner Letter of Non-Jurisdiction -Tidal Wetlands Act John and Vera Aloia August 17, 2000 39 Nassau Blvd. Garden City,NY 11935 'r: Re: Aloia Property, 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchugue SCTM# 100-118-04-09L v irliI Application# 1-4738-01138/00007 Dear Mr. and Mrs.Aloia: Based on the information you have submitted, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has determined that: The property that is landward of the pre-existing(prior to 8/20/77)bulkhead which is more than 100 feet in length, as seen on the aerial photograph (exposure 71-2002)produced by Aerographics and on infrared aerial photograph#974, is beyond the jurisdiction of Article 25 (Tidal Wetlands). Therefore, in accordance with the current Tidal Wetlands Land Use Regulations (6NYCRR Part 661) no permit is required under the Tidal Wetlands Act. Please be advised, however, that no construction, sedimentation, or disturbance of any kind may take place seaward of the tidal wetlands jurisdictional boundary, as indicated above, without a permit. It is your responsibility to ensure that all necessary precautions are taken to prevent any sedimentation or other alteration or disturbance to the ground surface or vegetation within Tidal Wetlands jurisdiction which may result from your project. Such precautions may include maintaining adequate work area between the tidal wetland jurisdictional boundary and your project(i.e. a 15'to 20'wide construction area) or erecting a temporary fence, barrier, m or hay bale ber Please be further advised that this letter does not relieve you of the responsibility of obtaining any necessary permits or approvals from other agencies. Sincerely, ark C. Carrara Permit Administrator cc: BMBY J. Costello Walsh, Costello Marine Contracting Corporation File Town Hall. M5 Maa= Road cars P.O. Box 1179 Telephone O.y. t-• Southold. New York 11971 (631) 765-1892 Ql SouTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Tuesday, July 17, 2001, the following recommendation was made: JOHN ALOIA 118-4-9 for the rebuilt existing stairway inkindlinplace that lead to an existing 8'X 12' deck, which was expanded to 16'X 24'. Rebuilt and expanded existing retaining wall. 8145 Nassau Point Rd., Cutchogue The CAC did not make an inspection, therefore no recommendation was made. `` � � `' r• r_(Y 1 .� _ �-rca -. -it v ~ +r a III oil pill moM I OV AE mum- ��r "''�t'k-� '.ter�X! ��?` _ ^� _ '}:y �•• �-� / wax$77 � 1 l fi t T s rs.. C �Z.F r i�r•�� - ti r S x�' '���-+ " a �-•7'��`� � ! 7-,Fy 1t:' �. a' � � -.Fs �• � it �t -�r• ��r t �.-,�� ,{� 1.yp •.a � � i .fit ^-'�� f` � -� �• � t -;�j l: S"•�� t .!. J it �x e.t '[ ► '. f..Y � riK+'"�� 7•' C�. _-• 'v d.-�r �- �.r /fir. �A f; `• �-,# � � t � r -i'. - :�.'7y �7�"-+_ :•=mil --'!!�-w _, _ Ac 4 O f `.94 -pc� 27 :� �. - � `. � x _. F ..- .. .�"'�-ma's � � «�. ! • • / ���y % � T�L� try :.�g ..•!- �4�����`�. 4 � -t3'.-��-c _i -ham-7� !{df yr' '�•G-�iaM1,� 't'J3Y,•7 �- .d a�� ��� err'y i"•Z *re. :-.. i `i S't, - �_ .,ram s-'�' s m'�•*�, �L-.}r �� �� sty- ,�.r•��f� �s "4!�� • Photo S Photo 6 r i " _ •ate �����' y Rs �,ra.[,}� ,�.�Sv� -',yam- ..:l�lrs�'-�„ < Y e^• �.. r yX` - ' ��-;.-e i �7}�.a r���';Tc„rt°�f'+� .-;��' f,,,,f SY�'`fi.- •r� �--i� ^.t t� ,:�. d`�a [ �'��� �'r"��+a '.w� iii. �►i�iiu Southold, NY 6/14/01 - 40 ram" z :4 r � - ly ,•r'' -fir �'.�' .-���L *� -. k a,` ". .' ,,,ter •y�,i°P sT..i .,,P � -� x� � �s � �<.� :�..ST."�. '_ �jai- '`*�'��. ���r3��w' 'C ,3 :_-� �.�� M'r'4`1-�,_ .�� �s'•x�' :r ,'•"S`''�� "�' E�� �-i�i-..�'; ��,-� err �t ?r'`. �,� -,yrw �,y xrF``'2-�'�SY �+.�-�"•f 1 ��'�� .'".�1��`�-� ".^r����wr'�r� g r��'^`�^�;y�i`- 'g`�',� -�'.�yf•`T� 5�3:� 3ti. -�� s.,c��. .s-a'4�(`�J r7k ,F ��s•� ~-- sz'a=�'�-r•�', * Z�3? 5s''v`-��, �'f� +r ��a: t��^'b�•'�tr. _,�• ; �:��`.n, tw. _ - i..A3 � Photo 11 R.,..i_ " ..+n l-r '�+ e? --x..��„t,r ..... ! 3:1*'s.?:.W� F :_ate .o-- .K�a_...,��'• s,F -...-mac �.. �T�7"� �. r w�' -. i a Photo 12 Js r. 2' •rT, UF. Aioia Southold, NY 6/14/01 S r Yt �j+' 4�s.?'�.� t-"�►�,t'�sf 1r1�__�t �,.Cj"��a.f+:ir �>l�H� �,�r;'�' t+y:x f b��_p.,� . r � 4 i- t f. t� Ys�.dL i ;a;i A � w �� ks Photo I 1 Y i I �Y"�t'i' 7117. iia-s .y, ...�- jw s �ti z Sir't J Photo 12 'k i y r.. iJf. Aiwa Southold, NY 6/14/01 Photo - �-�• ...-. - ..'.�-•--.. ..ate' - •";sue .:,.r" � - _``,_�s.y .�. v N .r n 't`'t 7w F�ix� .��-•�-'4rY�r��xi„�, `y�,�'"' -�►yi- _ .ate• �ti-`,� _f.T�C�4��yY+ti`M��.o��� �� is Alola Southold, 6/14/01 ram: Y'F r j4 • � I r r � e aRi. :wig.,•-„- _ - F - o " � a ,•-'� f _`!t- s '-: 'i.'�r.!%n,y:^'"a.� - x "^'� r- 3 ,fi '�' -';� f�•,t't'.l}�"7��� �^; IX l.t�-�_•f,`'r; .a r M lilt I, ;,.,yam• _ �- '� � - 'fir�- -- _ ., - r-•+'y.�T,«e- i�7� r • � I � I Photo 5 ti. d S. Photo 6 Yr OW la ' irlF F C3 7 h h T%— A 1—.�. i.f i. I""1 i v i" Southold, NY 6/14/01 .r'rizMyle f '-'�' ..ail� -�_.�_~ n.; � �tiy. _ "+ :•4re� 1�p m - 45'�' f•". '�Z s»yqEpp- . » r -`r f^' x ^ 't.'.�' .roe Y ` .Y,y,.,r ��,,,, 4:s r ,.''.►-1 'o' �'S'Y s t � A, j. v Fo.- Photo 1 I ZIA :Q {p- �a Photo 12 , rr.Yi isf .r . L L "�G r.. y' t � �•}'�r�� s*,s -1 S*'7�� t e $ �?FgpyJ'}t'.,'r a:T { Ll. Alma Southold, NY 6/14/01 Y - UFFO(Kc. Albert J. Krupski, President Off" OG Town Hall John Hoizapfel, Vice President c� y� 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson ti r P.O. Box 1179 Martin H. Garrell D fir , New York 1 1971 Peter Wenczel Tel epltiage (314)IM-1$92 Fax 516 BOARD Or TOWN 'rRUST$XS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 30, 1995 , Costello Marine Contracting P.O. Box 2124 Greenport RY 11944 Re: DR. JPHN ALOIA SCTM #118-4-9 Dear Mr. Costello, The following action was taken by the BogI41 of Town TrustEMS during it4 regular meeting held on June 29, 1995 regarding the above mattgr: WHEREAS, Costello Marine Contracting, on pehalf of DR. JQW ALOIA applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated May 24, 1995 , and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council for their findings and recommendations, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on June 29 , 1995, at which time all, interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area , and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standard set forth in Chapter 37-18 of the Southold Town Code, WHEREAS , the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NQW THEREFORE BE IT, . USOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approvos the $pplication 'of DR. JOHN ALOIA to rebuild inkind/inplape 14' of off store ead of jetty, rebuild a 3 ' X 3 ' access stairway from existing P2a-tfbzM=t_ _ -hul- install 3_' X 8_--fit of._access. .stairs from bulkhead to beach, and replant behind tha head. Permit to construct project will expire two years from the date it is signed. Fees must be paid, if applicable, and permit issued within six months of the date of this notification. Two inspections are required and the Trustees are to be notified upon completion of said project. FEES. NO/V Lr VVe�ry� truly yours, Albert J. Krupski, Jr. President, Board of Trustees AJK/djh cc . CAC � - �`�''�'�'i�•-'ryl: ,'"�' �TF' +�'4`f :Il�f' "�` �y�' -�"+a12J$'� a�.aC�.,"j��`'y ,R',,��c4�y i�'rv'�' I ..../l �� 3';.,' ,.��.:t-.:7'y.:'�,.'Y""'�''�;"r'y'Xl.'T �s��;�"`��` �'�'•.✓:�5�-r�..��-,_rA,—'�P'-••Y"5� - r 1 oar ; ournold I own 1rustees 'i SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PERMIT NO. ! `7 �� DATE: 6/29/95 r;, s <` ISSUED TO DR . 10„f,, 4; i Ali tlprizatin1i Pursuant to the provisions of Chapfer 615 of the Laws of u , i ' the State of New York 1893• and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the r `Y State of New York 1452; and the Southold Town Ordinance en- titled "REGULATING AND THE PLACING OF OBSTRUCTIONS IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the REMOVAL OF SAND, 'GRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM 4'7 ' r LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;" and in accordance with the Resolution of The Board adopted at a meeting 2 P e rng held an G1.,9195 i k 19 95 , and in consideration of the sum of $ 150.00 paid by I " CUsteilo Nlarine for 1)111 . JOHN AL01A i rr of C:,Ic110 1:ks N. Y. and sub'ect to the Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse side hereof, ' r. of Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the following: Y To t e i�,,;ilci inkiiidliiz}dace 11' of off-shore end jetty , rebuildi 3' access stiiirs from e.xist. platform to bulkhead, install a 3' X 17' set of access stairs from bulkhead to beach and plant bE.hind bulkhe d. '! all in accordance with the detailed specifications as presented in the originating application. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees here- by causes its Corporate Seal to be affixed, and these presents to be su'oscribed by a majority of the said Board as of this date. L , -8 vfF04 Aibert 1. Krupski. President 1 �p�- Town Hall Ely John Halzapfel, Vice President 53095 Main Road William G. Albertson s ". P.O. Box 1179 - Mardn H. Garrell Southold, New York 11971 Peter Wenczely' Telephone (516) 765-1892 Fax (516) 765-1823 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO : DR. .JOHN ALOIA Please be advised that your application, dated M 2 �q has bee reviewed by this Board, at the regular meeting of�� 6/29/95 and the following action was taken: ( XX Xi Application Approved. ( see below) ( 1 Application Denied. {see below) ) Application 'fabled. (See below) If you application is approved as noted above , a permit fee is now due . Make check or money order payable to the Southold Town Trustees . The zee is computed below according to the schedule of rates as set forth int he sintruction sheet. The following fee must be paid within 90 days or reapplication including Tees will be necessary. COMMEN'!'S AND REMARKS : Wetlands Applications Fee: $150.00 CCMPLITATION OF PERMIT FEES: TOTAL FEES DUE: s 150.00 SIGNED: PRESIDENT, BOARD OF TRUSTEES CARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES Exhibit No. Q � MrAL FIN &CARNEY CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS 39 West 37ih Sheer,6[h Floor NYr-Toole (212)efi475oo � • � p O POO- A`pll°► �Iqp� 04 .�ems,"' - �bc� 1::*4.4 N AW &wjvA r dftowpso eta Awpw v .LOW4[!77W!W A42W AWCoraAcW I dJ�OS�.�il�l 7d•LpOefx�m,�i�!. • �a�r CiTy,.siy.li�ro s ,er►�,sw.ffw'vx'o'C*,dCeM.,Ts��- arcs sk�x+u, re, Sws��a�ea@.d�v�bt- SO ly not , I ! �O /% t r f i/% „i�ar i,ia a� /1%�/ l J r UY11 , i / i i � I 1 �f AA a; �s 3" vk xoPfHS MM�io� W^. rnl �`" r n v � ryw Www AN,a�� ,fir I � , 4 J f � vo i e Y pi q ,0 i 1 i i 9 1,r as � ��\ . a . .\ \y \�\ , a . � �® � ° /� . � ��\ ~ ^ » � : m . � s � � � � \ «\yw�. / \\ � , ,< ° � � ^\�� , . � � . �\ 2 � \ \:�/\ \~ � � ���� �` < .\ � � �� � . » \\\ � \ � � � � �I % a . � � � � � ,«> � � ©5 ` c / � � � �� �Z » m . � a« » � �/\ « � . : \ � < . 2 � i \ ° � ^ � \\�\\ � � \ \ w � , : % <^� w\���m. , �\/� « § m \ w% v � \ \� %2 \ � \ . , �\ ° : ltF�?��Ir " rIJyVI,f` rF0!%P�r� imwwtiJ i3t�flfi�7?,'rbrrNr , y, tGJws�„�r' /lsrsrrlili"!ils VIS�I;,,�YwlirFifl,�b{�wf�r� ",, �.�, �ai 1�r��rur���)r�1N;.! rr lY r r;�r,yt,��i� � r r'`p1e !IS i r� `s fr / `t)P n m y/a rt64rk r✓F"�'r�� ri✓7v� 1 � I rtwl,� f�rh�f�l�r �,r arrr�`h)�y� I. raI �/( ��fia�l�r� `r� ,�lr�=,�;/ �tl�ij l ��S%1}S � � ✓ raY l�rl)�/✓��r�j /'�1/>"�S wl � i'ir�,. t� � I��-I� r it I,,T a ]jy r I SK y u U N r i i , I N -� "� f r?r1^x f�J r / fir x^ (? r/r"W V i" ✓ � 'w1r,'r Itr r6Vf ` �n N 9 l fro; '� o uf. r r %rz":/ ,�� x '�,r '1,1 G k d ' t>T`/ u J r � rwr„ +2 �e „rt/G .��ur,i,�i,„� ,� r'tl,, Y rp;`>r ,�arv, ,� ,ref;1 rr � WWI h Ma,,,r,,,�;, "aS r ,: 'd rr4 Ie 'rii `N`' ',�6`,wl, r•,r %�r 1 rW, r it r, ,q,rJ l/ � r x � rirg �" /,���� �, m' , kOi9,. h�y+r b` r r / r r � r i i r r v pp x rr �f�re ra '� dN r°P� ai,r w. /rr ,�r�` ry. J�',, r "W( °ri , rlerd��y'�' l✓!1N, ri- xJ l,,j rrr + 'rpr,q%/ /✓r/lr r/�j J �rr1//rr/�t l�r)��r/ I�� �i"i/Ir r ;�G//�9 I i�4 ,r m +. I "".q r ' Urtw�%r� r �llr ✓r�fjr`p,rl/r /rr�y��.. 0✓l/1 i''1llrii Y/1r y/irr r, r ��f/r1„ rrJY" �4r y e�✓ d ,ix..Sri (�/r�r s u�,.... �,,:urr�r�ra,�, v z �rrlsx� ��c% f� ,r x �✓ ,%�j'Mil�' r IP, j w x, a' J r"'? vr I� `�� � �� �a� i� " Noi �"�✓ irr �/ r � w N6 �r✓r,/rcr, , " "j,sr(,✓r rli�`� // r/ �l/k�� k cwrrw "� � �/�J r�oZx� r r rr��/1 y.;� ,,'a '�, g mho ,r e �'k„�'ir. �i1/"r,.r l/r1 fir. � e� w, �r��r' '� r ?„;� ✓ �^gr ,r� �� ✓wk' ru„"�^ram�r /?/l y ;c¢k>(4 r r+�;� ,«w b r? ��i r mil,-. � YI!i "nle'. �mi ��,� �Mwx �lr<' irxr SNu'�jr � x,�/ o r� xi - �71i "",r!1r„ "i,; ,, �r � ",,. r "�, ,,� j l^rr✓rr Y r� 4 �rti i✓,, r r� `` �+N� "`'"*"" yy,u��, �1,°`, �a., ru'",'JJJJ � I � -W ri� k� ,, /, s/,1 �'' „hip'.f� � '(�.. / l�xiel/�hd�/m x' ,.i//rf/�%✓/lfrri�i��Gr -r y ��` �r, 'r�'' rlf ,I f,„ X(� r � /, rr / � h,lf) �M',r": ii.� ,� r xl i 2 dY,..�l/11Y r r �^�"1 r ✓e v Y 1✓rir'„J ',i ✓ rN l 1 r / ,,, l} �rl4r�: Y r r ' r�wr✓iY1���1 ' r' r r r trPq rr l V l '"D; �,n m�wi.N aro�AW �Mlvt+'"�w/"Nr� rr e 'w..;." Z '�.mry "buy g�Hiu,jr, J "b) „✓h �"" 1 v ,r r�r �r r� �; f r �,J V � �,< y; r�a an,: r ,. rryYTM �tr �l!rir!'rra r rr r./lr'� /r ",- r ;.r // I � �„,. ,��r,✓ r,�rk.. �i ;i rl �c rrn, �rk:N!WwtMGstrtuf,�r / �XI;'I it wjl worfntq✓�nx,'rr�y, w,e f�Yr"r�/l%a,�flx9( ri r r r /r ///1r r i/r,. 1r /�/rr/i� i �,:, '�Yi`� ry" / %i✓ti y�rt� / , ;,�",�'. r�'i arxm''��ur�r6,Jo��l�tvn&Vr0.�1,'f�y �,rr t',k�%l�,w�,�,�", mar N!/��r,��r//rii/ r-.r I �/r / s r r /1 rl r G. It i�i✓ ,xr%N�,u ,^ �+wr irf; 1 r /✓ a 1 /ri Xrr rr Y/y /�. ' J I a � 1 f7" � a»ww, rr Y�,r.. �T Fi �xlJrrri�f) �r/ri�/�j%I fi✓ -011 f / r r r� i/rrri r�//.�i��r r��' I �j �// �r`JWJeY1�"� 1 i 1 ,. ih% /rl f�/ rr � // / lirlrj5 fr / -✓r l r f �,„ww.-'i r rr/✓�/i�/rl� r r // r / l ��� wY��f' r 11� 1 ri 1 dl«� ,,,, , , a�✓�U1'au1, wr ��r r x " r�i rU7 r rr��/� rr f�r.. � /✓ IS r rrr r r u l�rr1 J�.��"yy� ��AIR i Y 1 e 6 dryYY rr ✓� 7 J� r rrjflrrir �r I 1 yrr r WAYS �l; i i�/irr ,/rf Jfr�l �,��r,Gh�14 1, , �. sr„„"; riy; ,ry;I % �„r? �1f,'�/(14�.r! I✓''��/11/�/�fgrlrr rl //. „r x/f, �J�1. ,rn r�N�., �crr�rrr,r,ris,� ly!arr-dARM �r r( VA lad' �� r ��'�oVfY�� � a� �sJJA/ar E,"f 6( � ( r/J�✓ +� ur / s�1%�,'; �1c �/ � ry,�I I � '( ��',v/�L Via✓%� 1v'lyv yl� gf si, '�,; ( %s I ^ ^"���/�D�9 of i � e 1�i/y /n"v�Vi rE�" i Y 'i✓3 y h �%p s s�a� R ✓ y° r I s f r W I NO WR I � 1{�� ��f,;; �„9f�, � r ��,.,`s ,,,'i�'� ro✓�l n��,f �f� �r�i (�,f�r(� iris t �lu df �> " ��a�, r��b ", ✓�^�'f�,r��h, fN 6s ,�, dg, J�I, �:, �,.t( I S �5 � A ,r%$sv(or>(,° ww i✓'� ;Nr� ,b o s"`'� }'� ry w 'rrv�,. �� ;., ?,'°"rb `.r G N' ,FJ�° ,� Hl( y11� ra�%� r ,. i H 9 r'(.:�y✓p��((i���i' oG �ITv6l Yifi�� it/pYF1rv(11✓a J/ :�✓/fvr/y(sid::.i Srr^f�o��,� �s�/D ' r y ✓//C�Prr`ri s'')�.. ,�ffi�l�>!iil } s r✓� a�i rn /( Ji /i� {t +laf�/l1i1�7Jb w , _, t�i✓,.;,r x� �„ ✓ K, u � r✓� � 1 a f�J✓ :�aeclrLi:�,.wd(m A, aAar�� ✓s,I,../.,..�/;(�sr�Y!�/?relYl„�trv,f!^v�2!C�;,.�JdA.J,dd,s✓�I � Y l � '7 / e a. �(' �¢r?4"u �, i s, r S 1 a ti r. m+� fir 4 Vy y, a I, ( �� sW i �,w^'">•% µ r 4 '� v 0, 91 ��k � Jri� H si � v '. f „,�,�'v,rv° "��D °J ,."',�.,vMw rw� �wu, n'� � % �'i {H sv ✓v' + /f ,M a"lx / r� f�✓�„� �, � I �r,�f ,�uVp �1 Ali m'y' 'AIN r ^� A. V vi,,W M� H ,'� a ;� N1+A,,��. � r I nlwaa�,,,,. „use r/ 4vy//JJ;, /ir. AH✓/ r� Y/�� .. r, � !a �,m, /s0(�'„ J r / ,,✓y, Ss ¢ �wM .,h r v(,y/✓J fi�s:1p N, '�+ (��( /� ( t 2 0 ;nh,' °�ro�v"�� ,'Ai,A�)"�l, � �, a's��d �/in if✓�i/-. T ��'�r ,�r/ N✓ /4 a"''„q, � �� d r, 4+�i�'I'�: ,,r;� �5 `Ury/J4 '',i` �f' f,', <I,4� u::, �w�r��f�`�?4 `wa. rg.., '�" r„..y ry ,Si'n,. / ✓� r I v; � �1,y}iN. vs4'r:Iv°s a J'✓' ��r {, �� �/"� s��fs iq.. ,rf,. //dA iJ.:-,� s� rl jG),fri`earxrwf ..�,, I ,...'aiN Jiu+(,�',� „ „w,,,�s.6�i� f��{�Id;,.., %,{ n,2.' / �,„ ✓:. ,�, .i`'" H, 6,` f �ul�.anw� � i, J✓ rt,:. p ib a��,v„�+,,,//�� e�rw.ram +A,f„`.� �fP„�j,; 1'l./ � /�l yy,i, !,, SIV } r z,ra?sNi.T/ �11 �na '� r'-J;)/a"Id+��9+i h.u:,,v'y ,i;,,'. o "/� A/ �;lAll {r tj... byr"�il,;v� ,�, "��{� �,„vf�,,:��"� G���',�,,,, ,^� A�✓�,�}'1 � /� 0 � �°,IVY-, SW rv(',r �r„� I' �^mv� �"E4�4Cr, aN;( �„�i� ;�. a�s,{ ,�;, w,.,,:8 rrJy�,1rv,.r r��li�n%;2✓wu �yt "�°„ �; p "a ? !" �{,,,,�ln,,pf �✓`,;.�6 ,�''�' .fir; a/ sr,f-, � H M�� ,,rl.�rR/F��;;,;a. /;'�� au rvur '„ ' rr/ ✓, ',r.� f s 1`a �t I�' t )Y'' %"" fl�+a ass � ;Iw'• Aikrn h"'%' ,F,r r`(/' a�', �u7 ��o t�"r""Y1 ✓r // � 1�%'�` /t���"�. ✓ Iva� SI 7/�"C',''ANvXwlmw„mvv �J y w,q r / �{'s.ifAJrr7"9f 5i��ff�'i^r'O """�„"? rr✓rt%`', ,. � ?;.»2 w" '�II � ,„"� 1�� `h 7/ rr I)„��' �.. v� / 2 sdi � 1�7A jyiymror + n '�'i)�''�)1'A'.: � vv`{ /, s. > '°,�` "✓ �pj s S �;' /F " v / 1 i it:.�✓rr �/ � rs f lP i v 'pf� iu( "Yt� / flg;ad f ( ' � ,.., 1 s,r ,✓r� s✓�. 1Gi/ t/✓ /r:r �I IS �� �i 1 / 4 �,(r � f '.�iSr. ,. 1� 'a w« (uWs�r {F, ,sf'H,,9il( .4 rod ,s ;,, ),x ,wm" to S ,Y ! `, r�/yrr✓ tir� r�, ,'' ,1 ms.,f �« v r- .: ✓ ro v r ..p/vw^b ;?✓J" u',u� AF J,/ ;r/�s. f ' saeir,n➢«raaroYJ;wr'%dhwAfc= j7Nrs lit m;+n'ruVs armur✓nm�� 1Y6yryl „r '.. 9`i�i si-, yltiii✓✓ir✓%/r r t 9 /f -.✓�� rfr: N ,�/ � �7,f Il _ o il�Fv {7 ,7i� // ,!'.,,Yvf, a✓ � r✓a, rr�awucr�rvmaW�^PPIA'�^ �`( ��S,� i�t /'1��1f 1/ � /yi // J✓u '/�r1 L. '(��f�lftt a�N(r N✓+;, r ✓ � / //; 1 P Ilf�j`:f l//( ✓a /r✓./I Is �; >r v�j /" riy f a ti %; s wnwnuaY,'@�rvuas✓ eArlYry4ilN uty iiNll lmyw �r�����klh 7(r(llfdll(iir � ,,,:- l i /✓i/b���/�f /v�'//�1;,/7 ny;;,l �I;v` ,: ;+y;wl�," � AI"/✓,�`,�a) s(� !}. ,sor +a)a .. a r I/ ( I i i r l/ 1/ k rf/�lw%r ri i;/r ,bl v..,-" 'y '�'� / ✓ s! . „,„ ti,,.. ✓JJ%rrr"1 ��ci7�J�>l���i✓��fF�..a�rr l�/I�A3�i%J r/f✓,dr/r/✓!+%i"///r�J/ )�J r(i�(��sa//j Ili{�'�; r tA�s„�� � �I',�,' {s"� f�,..Y�. a''��H%✓rlbri rf/i/f�llti%�%✓//d%�r / 1�i Jr✓//i/���a���/%A%IrJ�a ly)�a��/J� (;�r'✓f�"$f n �J "hn ,r / ,.;- a 1!�f�v,roro //r / /f A r v�/rr l/✓/,✓7i/!/iG��/A'I/ /// J'-F/1 f J �� �r Ifrs S P I /��,.. ,�,a,,.�, ,,,� ,,. ,, P;(sr Ir fir/ ?fl / �/j / lr/y ✓// +l i � �.�fr✓r/Jl rG J/r,u f ,,, / �^ks fi✓ s1`�i+,.�`*. "f f� �, „f ; �i�l ysly,'/iS /y / //i �l � s r�i1 ✓ riFb %�+ S r✓ -'m: r/ ,, Al(f)l r V /r i / / /✓,/ ryr1 ///l� rr, / ��� � f�+. t r / /{��jj /!// /✓// ,✓ / : >h I rp r I r .. �9 J l /7 a h ss f ,,, r �'?v�r�t�(Srt L/� r , r//J ; / r / 11 '�/✓�' a�� ,� lt;�/ /i i l r/ / ��U !` ( i( � f f�j f� f��l it ai d1 r f6� r /r y °�F`h✓r!, b { /7Gv ^✓ ,l Ulm r v � � I�,��, �� Day,J„� h/? / 1 � tl�f✓� 11 r a n 1aN �� � ( t✓l�'`{' (�u�a /�,/'>t>f✓ e �� j'3 "a/% ✓ �,IF 1.� ° f�ll'er�ru H �P J ��. l3 V V�� it�1�l ry dr i J� ��� ��ry ��� „f'i skt? �4�r fs r rlr,� ✓�l yr i fir r l t� i r -, i r � ("`'^ � � ;s M! ����'/ �ffl�,�" f �� Gnu /� r � t/r �i � r�V��r yy�� � � �(ik�'%tr1���rff q rr� ������ s Jf�N/�rffr,' i r3s ��„r 1 �j/ it � (f s�����l���i��k'�� !I�( r%��`+���W�°l� "�! �" 2"� d) oy>k ?��Iro��6a1�� � s d r u' ���„ s�J� e 1��'�'Il� IPP� `aJ/ ,�1�Jn y�l�wvr 1�r 1`���S�y ,y,� � �� f ' I � (��J'y"��,'r+�������r��'�' >ty`/�����rr�yi�'� `rd/�y ct ��� �,,, �' '�"e��t't�� � -„ rr r��ir� i'`L4�r w r r ��� i F��"�� 1l��Q �«„crrr�la l ib � �,� ! r i � r f ,� ,�� `" " r v r �r i ,, �� i ��{9� r ,®, 0 � � CJ a �� � � � �� ��� '"� �. �. � ��� ��� � ��,� ��/ �1 � i/�,, �� �� 11 � �l �. , . , � ''1 � �i�i��f/�,��� I� � �/"i����� '� r t� � %� t � j� �� �� / � i �/r �� �f�iy J � � �� � ,� /�j�, , l � 1 � �r� ��/ III �l' I � / �` ' i o � � �, r r � J�;f, � � ;. � �� �f � �'J � � a � � � ll r � � � � � � r� � „. � i � r '" r��. � �, . �� i �1 �r� f 4� � ,�� ;i��, U� i ' d�!�G r��.�IV�tlI i �, � �"� r i �., a i ,. o i i r � � � ° �� 4�� r � � �, i �` � � � /� r m iiu� �� � a� i1ltf � V�i�u m�saar �: r�;V����1 i��`�9"��� i ��r �i w I' i f�ur ����i i I r W �r ���1 �ih r p � � i %� V ril� f r / 4 � ir, ��� y a irk ���� �� A�yl���� �r f ��// � >%���9i//� i �1� �,a� 1� ��r'�������r � � � ���� � r�/1��� o �' ! rig ii/i r �✓iJ�/�7 f� %r%J���1✓%�� l;�j� r//�����/i���il r%������� i� � r . Ifr�� r 1f + J�)I /�yj /ir,f rr /� r rr�r�� / i!�rU �'f��elf����fD�w����'�H����b� �tl r � ��? .,��. y �/rr���/r�p r �, �����`l��'7�������lf� � ri �rro�' V I� II, ` � ,t I�I Ili%fry' ii'�D��ii� r r�� r '^fir 4, wda j�rb/r�; "��e s �y�dv" �...._. � N� li(k 1 � m y� L � �. 14 � � - 1 y b I �F W5 �,„ � � ��PoW rc�" r �, �.� r) i �r�%�� i1��/� rrl Pm �?8✓i / �� �i�, � "�rrjr�p /fir, rr'r*wllrll� rod / r c �G?, ,.w �..Ih'r+ I irl>,I rrrr�r'J� 1���r ��p;,°�'1;f1'F���4��wlw���'f!�!/I!'N'7'�r�R��N'+v7+ri,��Y��(fl�r.. 9 )��r�,t/���YI �rl;�y��/✓r�/;,Uj"'�I��l�w' y � I °r n rr, 1 file:/lA:\MV('-Ol6F. PCP 4/27/05 ��i"����I '��I off¢��f�����' � ��������, �����������IY�W'W 1i�9�'' - � ",t� N ,� �� ;��,� '':r �;< ' �` � J � 1 � ��m t, i i i u �1. i � � r�i,�, � �� �, a. - � ,,,, � ,"'. - ,. '� ,.. ,�r i+ f � �v � �� `�� 1 i r i � t` Il,.: .I' ,I 'p��gyp`�'��YI� ! „�� "� ur a �II �� 1 i i � � � }� tip; iu { �N i �i i� � i � �� r � y 1J ,�/ ,� � � ,, ";l �� �� � i ,.,�. ' v ��� i, � Y Y. w el i ,.,� a ,yyr r�pii/l/yl0�r, r/t'ht 61i,� n i ap ✓�' �r r�v�}� �6u� 1 1,�^ r,i tlii ��1�i (i/f)r�r'�r�r�ja1� i�l�/�fl��l/l i Jd1' e�?" �1'r �� rtY�(�il/�tlr �Jrrr a r to r r i GJ.., c I �C � I�� ��Y, r "'N`"'" �� i ,fib i rlr,/��� , �'�� �� �f W4,�,m � Y�('Ili� ��"",",e Y n� - �� � �G�"' r a ��� ����� �� 1�� ��� � iu �, ��� � ,i C i�gyp! 'tl' i �I om � � ��� �� � m;V ��r�.� l�r r�� .� r- �� ' I' � r '" 4 r„�� � �� ,� v �� wed � � �;� ,, � i "rat � ��u� Y �, � � � °° �N�yVh ' ����1' .I i �' � �i� �� � y i� Dui 9� >1 ''`+ I Fr; ��� �, � d1 i�, o � Y , �/� �" �r(r/'� r /, �� , � � 7� ��j � � �i d i i/�j�f����, r �i �� ir�� �j�{J� �� � i Igo it� r /, r li� � � /�t%�/�� 1 i�i i ,� (r �,,�y;,/,, ) ire � Y� r � �. �',r i �� l i r G /- l �,,. (� � /i N ����� � �r ������ �/ rl/11���/� r /�i � � �'i�f� � �'���/�''� � �,;r ����,.� F i ��, i i ��i d�� 1 ,,. %�����f � � , 1 �� ,,,�ar t;,� �� . , �,,�r'� r� �,�� ,� ,,;j , i r ,t r �,,, r t � L �, �� i��� ,,��r�/l��n���rj�r r�,, v�„ i , r , � � �„�o �r �- .. l rr i o r -� e i,r;,,�e �c.�,..1,�i m�`lti4„�/� t/,�f�'�a�,j��i��l�%�1 f� ,� � F �. "" � e �; y'; �4,1 s ; m � ,�a � ,,N µ� Y r� iy � ,� <�� f �� i � �� fief"�r!(9µ,1ri � ���i �y�l'��✓ I�rfv'fl�u�l"S�rl r�ii ✓�h:��firr4,C���r�yr r � r r n f t t t � ii`i¢ ^� Nj I; J I� a�%l✓��� r,14� �.,yjryfr rrr li r1iN r/pti r �r6-I�r c�4r�� f�IJr r p! B d�/1 �'/' "� �Y�r�aJrly��� f�Yl�r�jl3lC':. GrG' S'i s (� 1 i r r 1r ✓7 rr (u !rJli 'y r�✓l r-.r rr �° f+i l ✓ ��;�,�r!t i,�,� 1��a. i:. IP; f✓f;Y'!:6�1 Wlrrrr� X� �Fi��ir�Jrr1� r r ryrvf i�Fr�'�h��irf r�i A/��lr"+4'�fr''ad MF,�%!.�'a re w` J`er j�1�,, `� r ur�+wga f/f r✓y�ra✓virr E�r±�rr � 1��JJavt/r*l�u��7���i�� ���r✓r ;`'!!<i��'l� r r 6 f, �ry �7,. °��o.,,'�";�l'r "xr�r �!x r'^ rw�Yf �%✓",+ (y�;l ��?ln�l�'�p;lr(�,. 1, v�� ,� �y j2eet, r'yMr�✓/I/wa {JN�ir7 i�`�! �'1��r���r�1 p f��� rr;rll�e , f � � „a1 �', r� �vl✓3✓%� � /frf� v w�, �r�jil ��'vi ��✓�a� � r� r u r t u,-� t�y��J r V��, iI 1°J✓wi� r� Co-��rri r���i� + ➢� �fk(r✓rrr r r ) r' V pf N� rt'� p ArY vv1 r y�e tour((d rP��Zvi ' I�i�P✓ �rrr� � F� ��� bi ✓>;r�'�i�II ball i e ✓ "� CyP � t��+r9rv` � li I�' ) n r ,9+✓'' i � b� �f�5r �� f�d✓r i � � �� �'"A�k�� vp. 4' r 1 7 r i folc,//A:\MVCR'-01 fib'.JPG 4/27/05 g ����pp --- I �s�� i.. �; +"" u P„i � d �,��� P � I � i � ,- � � q, �� r �i 'k > , � o.,, �i( ����... .. m i � Y. �v� � . ,: s i r' ;, r $ �f d W �1 �' I r21, i � IN Y�tY tti A� �fm,i J v a m i 9/er v/du /t yi °lr rd sw r� 1 i ri✓ �`i 1�. J� � Yv �E�§�` �' �U M �r 1��/ /�^k� f� j`fji kr� e� rf / � f r I f M11 /t r /y,:� rf f1 r�r �rc Nm���,�,f� e,ap ✓ v< !� 1, r ��Jib y,of rlif, %l,r �` � � !dr g� Jy �'���°, r 7I1 m n'U,'�?r4� r�;:i �,ro, r uw.'- r 'k ( � ,i � A � � (, 0 tPONit F /r/ d ,,:r i any �;J 7 ✓�/ ry �, fi z4N; / /1 �,a, 1 ^A'llfi �i uf�Y �f Pe,'� yrf r'� ri �ti / / � � � ^' NAP°' 'kg 6 oil r?��� c r�tr tl{7ir i Ir JW:f+x/Vf/rf� ,r f 1 o fw;..r�"as „rs I/n t/: �/ 'i'r Koss RN,:1)��✓// f/J . r�lilti 1/ ,�:; f rp rr�na ,���, r/ // a ,�J��rw,ldi7�lr1Lt./h/r��,ayhf�.f !rk�u{.r�<�J��r.in;'�tl F�,Y.ldirrrrifiiil!efra�tkt �`6?)� rJ proti„ y.. a` tt(y 77,;.p ✓, �Iu;, aw � w 1„ i tf ��ri /'�✓lf �^! /Al/�"riY�'l i r r, // ,�� ' ' h, �,s a w;, " w mew Is �u" N S':J i���✓Yr��.;/ � li n��%'r/ ��i1� /n `�� I /,i,,., /�i;r1��Y � ,�Po:,�r'�";��4 ��,%. ��l�lt /, m� �T y^'� i,rr tt�o '�J'fi��wn` �✓f f,�m�ot�� �dw oif -s prWr,ik + -:. frx 3 "� (�fwW `�/I'�r� ✓"-0,;,um.,vrf , a r d,�,rr rff�f .:�( V i fin, ra m r.r, :I�� ;4QdY ,/I ,rJ li.,,�l/k!` rfioiSS lyre;pV""T '.'�' �' !" �/:?'�" ,w, iw,✓ ✓i ,< .' i{I ' r. 7!1 a mm �vi! " t�l art );. `//1 .;,m' ` msunww, hwb°r alll�r`I iJ� /QL,rg y er{, rr�a�/ � r, i 1Y� / / (� //l �r'i ✓,, � � � mh,?��� fir, ,/,ref; 1 m a "-f „�,," '��,, r, �t:: Gi� ";� % e `. ;�i, %�,r ' �:'ta i i i�,� i r(�fiv���t��rlf��;U ✓/a/yil�l''/j/f%t%/�/r";g �, /,,,„ �,;! �, ;;� ;", �'� �„. � �✓�'`.. r'S i i, y i� r 1(� f ;'.,� P l«•u Y r, dl %/„ r r%r�/fj ��ii n✓,. q�4 ",„ ,w".;: wi s1�m 'rru %�� r ✓u��l^",,.r f J«"� „rma+�. r rr1 i�(' i / �i� �„� � �,, � a + tG+ J i � /fi, r "�'��,; �, �i��� da���mmwm» awmu� / �``/, re;,�"� f "-p� w�U I���P ? �M� ��m „� p�iiY � 07��"" i!!Y r�i �a �� ✓ '"r, ��1�r�„„ r�rr� � ,mwm��lu�r ��aa�n aar �rd1Y,��...df „y r, r :'I /, ,. i/I � ,{i� 1 ter����F�. /rr � l!1 ��� wm�r,rar�muro�lb/o nw'-Nur fl r UAJ,J-�. '6m,�p✓"'��'�D �o 'Yi lVl�r?i/!!/�!i��✓ 9/r✓/ s/� //P 7 ii�/ PP: /a ,^7l rt� Jr .,..,,,,, rr I✓�� l 1/r/��f/ �� {�f i 7 �i '' /f /t iy 1 1 +f rv" r �, �t�/fart r/mi7 i r ,jt //rilvr/i f. �✓? a l/. / r"/ /I a� �ld��r�� ( r/r � '✓�� l� r/r/r / i t/7, "✓/ � (f�ty Pi 'l �, ., rr .%✓�� i�J�fJ `'.rl w�,itin mta,✓ f / ff 41 �.�1/! /r�b lf�r � � 6 m��, � anrodii/ ll y!/ ! v f 9` �,1�'�'�'r)r jl rq ( f✓ FY>�/1;1)SS ;,'/ �, ,,, ,x ', ! / rlt r�,ri l/i r ,; At�'1�'<"� �ir�'� / J✓ /„ -� i° ' it)t" F,JJi` (,�/ .�yn .y„ sl/r✓ f�.i,.l n ?� ✓ at �J iy.. %' '2t r t " /r? N l t 1,f saw, � ka�c nftl frif�>I a l��n � .ri,,,;;-,! /11+j+ � ie + :,; C""• Rk, s r t"""," ✓+�I�U"+ (p/� �i J, i� �Ii�ff+i+ �1�'1�� f ��f/ff���%1dy>FA 7i�i/� d s)+o b + t r� / rA f p���'� y yl / +1� nsrd/ �� �✓i�/a n C5 i i 1d i t, i d �J� �_, ,,,,,., o '�,,. _ ��;. y �� ;;���. �� „��;, G " ` � � r I � / � iml✓//, �'ail' � ;,i ` A��� �i � �� ��; � � �N� �, h � �Pr�' ,i� i�" p�--ti/j �k," d�� oiK i� "M�, ��. �''�'^,ro^ti�r�d�6f ��Ui �j , o r, i itd�� � m i��� �� :r �f� rt ���� �� � t/,, 1, ''�Af t �IH� �d 1�^�x+�� �f�6 � �����T i����/ � �pk / �m�rrw�iwe&tr�+ymU�" � 'f �°l�, ���� �'���'y�r��i� ��dfNN�PMO /ol�i//�' i ��'� �,� �u!�rp�'�i ii i, N � i„ i ,,,,� NI ������ ��"' �'� �" '�Islp'�giPW��f�f g�V�� �;°� , � N�I�Iilk �+q �� � ti vA� le �� ,�/ � ,� � � � � ��Ur�)�� d it� � ®/i � 1 eJ,i�i�w,��li3 � a pf Nn I � �° Grx r-R ����l���� �fr,!/rr,:� fr9�t r f � �f U Nl�jr��i/f�///If �If`y,,,t�� '�( �f"; '�w✓ �r, /i� 1 //afar l� /��t��ry'lr/i j� 11 F�!� �r/ry� tl�/✓11/Ji.;/�%lid� � I /�d d1� "'�rAr rwl� fj�r`/� i��` ,?'� ' r °,�7 �illY+��/awl! ��tt. :: ry��i / !> !) 0 � a r 1 f f/u lol�r >/a r!o/rilx j�/i C'� ri fu rr�yfl � f i � f �aN fl4��fr��`r91�/r�"l/"flii;r%�. /i l �r � y� ! �J, 1 ' lhr� �'� �� ,rY � � rr'�%;'r!� rn �� 'd'%Jf" i/ ,'��7�1 w f /sl/ , r�la „✓lA G r� ' r6/� �!I� ��r� r ,� , Ofr , , �1` � i I � �� ��� 1t� i r ��� �� r ���lrly �/'p'�h lr�/O 1�r,��jr " " Iff D�� � i � �r rr 1I1jJ'/Ivp)/ �� rN rr/ tii I d )• ��5�{r(,r, J 1� i �'r �! �� � 4r �o �, f 1 �f r J 1 'tr �� p.i;, �9', ri GrK'h/�, � i {a7! 0 �r� y„ ;� ^s l '%, � � �l, 11tt r, d III �,JI��' ��1�,M IY f'" r�. 1 ��IY f i � � /r'� � ` �% �� / Jay 6 V�I r$ a„ I k „U +� li i� III yll � 9 _ pI, "� ^-.. �, �(=-,-± i 44 V c! 99b99b «e r- II� ! a r... ,.. ,r..., r ,Iia1W f r!r'°/rv�.rr r J��r��'�61V���ra 1 frr} rr'Aa71m���a��Ysfjrr'�r+���v ,,,,,,lrrvr✓"�frJlPr'u r rro !y/ Y.,��;�7i'�'u>.. r r r a fi e.//A:\MV('.-OI6F.:IPG 4/27/05 w / k { isr"` G. N�� '✓'r✓� 4� /i rt t s✓ � E ��" �x>7ir -�' r 1 P; r�.�, ' e hr i' ✓��Ii� rx/>✓ i a P'"Yw s h r tf r r Jr C " � rrx P�P�r�1� 3 d Pxr a ✓ 1� P�„y� r poi Ni '�d � � ,p ol ��rl Y � Pr�a l� ✓ rs�v ,�� �; "; i� BR' �' r 1 s��° n �'ff� r'�r� ✓ r �MIM ,"�w Xgr S» x, ', / r �i r5 WW1 ru} R fn q �lrr >r rr Y r xr 5 N i W03 ✓i; ➢ A e��m'w/!rlp c PP'r rsslnrr C'x l6 ✓ �jf4� P,r � xx/kKEr s,/ul�'/ �i�i�✓rfi� rr/ ir3 i�lq .j r ri( er P �i ss w' "sv w r k� r lr�lr,✓ JI/�ik., rw �u Po, ,,� i✓f6r �sr � � h � ✓x+ � 1 1y V r r� x `" fu r �' ' RYA i rir✓ r �r/ r 1 '"""o � rexw '�" i1y�✓+ ✓ �tl'+ � , ,o,v�. „n�lr ro, Y is rf✓/P� '! `i H�'%s! �s w r x� r+ "y, iw w�(�'/1���) x �' x�r,r/ yy���t/�n 11 ail r ;a� r i n > 6 � ✓,A- r'ala u�ya r ' o � i� r m� 4 � 7�rA✓iC t °+xum" �«u&r T, 01°3�1�%f�.,� i six ss � a ✓r � '"� a / ✓ r � P, Tu �!� f� i ✓ f nDu.rh `"w"" .,>✓w,W1�"nib ty P rN r ,rriirxx'���7�� ���v>rmir`r�%r✓�rr��'s��lr� �Ja'h��' 1�� �j � ��il!����' �� ror�rr��rotxw'a✓�n ` mr/�✓ " //J�I'7 7�f rf/I A�l/ ✓'r�+� s r!/Ir P h/ ;r�� �/ fi� 'y�y r M("�� r v '�'�ir'ew,t bP;rn,Nw�; ins ✓ern✓1i((/ al/l��llr�i. i y f , ' l iP�� dr r '� � s�r�����r !( s r f'l1�vP��p�ij ✓��(1�� jh)�F s ✓s rI>ai'! / rl a% �lJ'�A � x M �a� �x�'/�ivrl✓( �G/l,fr���r�n Y i i r°i�rA"Pxl /r l 4,I,,j��� � ✓V� R � �� �/9„G✓rr✓ r✓�, /r�f� 'i9n x✓i suw � r� r r��& P y �, y ✓ ��r//�j r nl i /r>Gjy.r r f i r✓ ri✓' ��� �` r �r, '� ✓ � r r� lrj�a� �wl,,,✓�,�,rrt „x,ur,,.. i,r ,r;,r+ i ,.... �f 7��>�'��%l Ss �(���r� as ���P n�1�✓ — , ��ri i y {,au( �rr it� d✓%�IJiw Ntrl{ sr yet yy 4,r if YAL to ✓ r,r(✓i rj/ rr r/ er r k sr i r i"u�i(f 6 � d ✓ i r ✓r�V I 1 !Priv�r✓r�'�/l /I ,ri r 7Y ii V;Gii" r ro, `✓r r �fr lr � 1. (1/�i/r r r i r fa r7tr� 1+ i r 1 VIA °'�✓ /S �s r >r�g i� lr � k �rPr�I✓ll � N r 6 �Ffr f '�l n�//r✓i/J N r ) j�� 4 r r l m✓l/ / x '✓ ks ry 8r�Ary�r A/a r s tf x " �✓ /rr q uiv✓ir lrr prZ4""mm [, r TOY r± 2(, /� t Jd r a � %��✓ /' r b, 'P !P m I I "1 P( �j y t s 4 s°. t'1 ✓ l �r�%l/ rt/ ✓rt ✓01Pk Fl t P� r ,rJ✓rr s si �tl1 s (l1/%///yr rr /f � ,Ga yPs a '�'s�i 1k f i ut u 8 ,r sa tr' r` tFr 11s ""� y / J r'tt/ ✓�{�Y PMr� /rr f P r ✓ fx r �G' l >; rr)j 'lri✓!rt✓ r✓ r �j�J���i ' uY r ! rl l� i r auf�sx�rnl/%jr Y f N �r nor ( l � l f lye/Sr $1,=1�fYr ra�b � �ry,hrdl�l fr�t� isy;,i � ll ,(r��/�✓3I� r3 �l�/�I� /i�rPfxKa��;✓r�f�' �'�qY r r Ifr�.I-���� r��li�uIloilo �1 rr � � r�.iA�✓,ar,w� �,,,,,,.,4ir, .7. xf„�b >+Vr Prn �� a', .� ' l;�Y�'c�us, �� li� � � �, „,� ,fir �)'�` � �'� '�� "�°° ��� � �' r���i� �� � �.' C�lD u m ; , ��� 4 r� ��, �"` � y, fir,, �� �q', „, �M � � �u �� �� �G g n3 �`�I�i��i i9 i r „°� W �r��� ii�, i �' u, � (4 � � I k !!Y NO o� ��^� I� 1 0 yl Y�.., ry�� �. ��� �:i r v � ��f �� � r f4d !vk�rtt7u � �'1�W// 01 � r, r r 7 ��rf (d ��ti i u�,;, � ��,�,i r r i lr °I��,��� � � ��� � ����r� rl1 �rl� J 'f/� a i ' 1 1 r � � 1,�, / � y-� (il I,!%���f r � ��iJ i ��i 1, �� r ( i,� �, f �l ��� / � j il��gy�f�� r�%/� , � �i *�8� �i!�G� �r //�U,r�„� �y ��� ��� d�� �/, � � / J � t 4 p D �� ,, � /rf N%Wf�lt�/ IOJS ���/ li Ilr/ � � r r�Drr%�F„ �msa�rr '��� lr'?� ID�I/� � l/ i i � s N 0 1���� �(�1r i� �i��r'���� w 1 r%�/✓r/r � �fl � �, m � ✓, ,�7 �/NAB, ���, �,1j, - .i�' f�� P �,� U�%i �d�;;. �J.�.. �j Rtf�,(i�- �. �� x r� ; , , �� ;s� �-- �... ��; � 4 V.I.W / /„/,/ // i///i// /i/i ///// �i/� i rf ///,,,,i ///✓ % r/ I Oi � .VI I I III r/�/ / �ii�, r� „////a//i/�r, r, /;,,%�� , ,ei/✓1r /�i/�/ /ii% /i///1/// I r✓G/ �' f i Ip i i 2D05 li, Southold Town Board of Trustees 100045 160 &4fta NO 65tv- qOq2 or l I� JcickvvLnj@) Vertmcn - nd- ti � ECG � � � vAy 13 20% Southold Town Board of Trustees TOWN OF SOUTHOLD EROSION MANAGEMENT PLAN November 1995 Revised January 1996 Prepared for: Town of Southold Prepared by: Allee King Rosen &Fleming, Inc. Moffatt&Nichol, Engineers The Saratoga Associates Revised by: NYS Department of Stale, Divison of Coastal Resources Town of Southold SOUTHOLD EROSION MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i CUTIVE SUMMARY S-1 CHAPTER 1. COASTAL PROCESSES AND SHORELINE EVOLUTION I-1 A. COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY I-1 B. COASTAL PROCESSES 14 Winch I4 Waves 1-5 Water Levels 1-7 Astronomical Tides 1-7 Storm Surges 1-8 Sea Level Rise 1-9 Currents I-10 Sediment Characteristics and.Supply 1-10 Storms 1-11 Human Activity and Land Use 1-13 Introduction 1-13 Hardened Structures I-15 Soft Engineering Solutions I-21 Land Use 1-22 Flood-Prone Areas 1-22 C. SUMMARYI-22 CHAPTER U. INVENTORY OF SOUTHOLD BY REACH U-1 A. LONG ISLAND SOUND SIDE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD II-1 B. REACH 1: TOWN LINE TO DUCK POND POINT II-1 C. REACH 2: DUCK POND POINT TO HORTON POINT II-2 D. REACH 3: HORTON POINT TO ROCKY POINT II-2 E. REACH 4: ROCKY POINT TO ORIENT POINT II-2 F. REACH 5: ORIENT POINT TO YOUNGS POINT(GREENPORT) II-3 G. REACH 6: FANNING POINT TO FOUNDERS LANDING I1-4 H.H. REACH 1: FOUNDERS LANDING TO INDIAN NECK 114 REACH 8: INDIAN NECK TO DOWNS CREEK 11 �) J. REACH 9: DOWNS CREEK TO THE TOWN LINE II-6 K. REACH 10: FISHERS ISLAND. ` H-7 CHAPTER M. COMMON MANAGEMENT UNITS III-1 A. INTRODUCTION B. LONG ISLAND SOUND COAST III-1 Jetty Areas III-1 Ares of Low Blufh and Pores M-2 Areas of High Bluffs M-2 C. PECONC BAY SIDE OF SOUTHOLD !11-3 Creek Mouths III-3 posed Shores M otected Shores EU-4 -4 ood-Prone Areas CHAPTER IV. PROPOSED EROSION MANAGEMENT POLICIES IV-1 A. PREAMBLE W-1 B. POLICY STANDARDS IV-3 Standard Setting Priorities for Erosion Control Structures and Reflecting State laws IV-3 Standard on Natural Protective Features IV-5 Standard to Protect Public and Public Trust Lands N-5 Standard on Management of Navigation Structures IV-6 Standard Expenditure of Public Funds for Flooding and Erosion Control IV-6 Standard on Sea Level Rise IV-7 CHAPTER V. POST-STORM RECOVERY POLICIES V-1 A. POST-STORM RECOVERY V-1 Introduction V-1 Post-Storm Recovery Goals by Common Management Unit V-1 Long Island Sound Side V-1 Jetty Areas V-1 Low Bluffs and Dunes V-2 Areas of High Bluffs V-2 Peconic Bay Side V-3 Emergency Permits V-3 CHAPTER VI. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS VI-1 A. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS VI-1 Studies VI-1 Capital Projects VI-1 Long-Term Coordination VI-2 Government Agencies V1-2 Private Foundations'' V1-2 GLOSSARY G-1 APPENDIX A: LONG ISLAND SOUND EROSION MANAGEMENT POLICY A-1 SOUTHOLI RMOSION MAN 4XMENT PLAN 11ST OF TABLW. Pan Number 1-1 song Island Extreme Wind Volt'o4y Record 1-6 1-2 Southold Area Fetch Distances 1-7 I-3 Southold Tidal Ranges 1-8 I4 Historical Storms Affecting the New York Coast I-12 I-5 Summary of the Volumes of the Sand Removed From the Area West of Jetties of the Mattituck Inlet: 1960-1975 I-14 I-6 Summary of Town of Southold Dredging Projects I-15 SOUTHOLD EROSION MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST OF FIGURES Preceeding Pam Num Chapter I W Typical Bluff-Backed Beach Profile I-2 } 'Iypical SFA and Tombolo Formations I-4 1.3 Storm-Irked Profile Erosion Schematic 1-6 14 Wave Helot Estimates I-6 I.1 Wave Period Estimates I-6 I-6 High Tide Frequency--New London,Connecticut I-10 Chapter 11 11-1 Southold Reaches II-2 II-2 Geographic Names 11-2 u-3 Deduced Direction of Littoral Drift 11-2 H 4 Natural Shoreline Features II-2 I1-5 Environmental Sensitivity 11-2 11-6 Structural Shoreline Protection 1I-2 11-7 Land Use H-2 11-8 Mattituck Inlet II-2 Chapter III III-1 Common Management Units 11I-2 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following report was initially prepared by Mr. Phillip C. Sears of Allee, King, Rosen, and Fleming, Inc., Environmental and Planning Consultants, 117 East 29th St., New York, NY 10016 in November 1995, under contract to the Town of Southold. The Town of Southold received an Environmental Protection Fund Grant from the New York State, Department of State to prepare an initial Local Erosion Management Plan. The report was revised in January 1996 by the New York State Department of State, Division of Coastal Resources,and the Town of Southold,to incorporate additional information and enhance the final plan. Report copies are available from the Town of Southold. This report is the synthesis of input and support from a large number of people. Ruth Oliva,Town Deputy Supervisor,has spent long hours chairing meetings with elected officials,agency personnel,and local citizens. Ruth has been the main force behind producing this report and has been very supportive throughout the process. Town employees Valarie Scopaz,Town Planner,and Jim McMahon,Community Development Director, have provided valuable resources in developing the information base. They have collected information from numerous sources,scouted out reports and other data,and guided us on field trips. Steve Ridler, Fred Anders, and John Novak of New York State Department of State have provided technical guidance throughout our work and have provided many insights on statewide policy concerns. The Local Waterfront Advisory Committee has given their insight into local concerns. A number of Southold residents have given of their time and shared their knowledge with us. Many have submitted reports,photographs,and written records of their observations and comments on the effects of coastal processes in Southold. Their help supplied the local knowledge that is vital to this type of analysis. They include Donald Stanton,Reach 2;Whitney Booth,Reaches 2 and 3 (Horton Point);David S.Corwin, Reach 3; Louis Emmanuele,Reach 4; William W.Wetmore,Jr.,Reach 6(Conkling Point); Judith Phiney, Reach 7 (Town and Jockey Creeks); Ronnie Wacker, Reach 8 (Nassau Point); Joe MacKay, Reach 8; Joe Gold, Reach 8; Harry P. Taylor, Reach 9 (Deep Hole and Downs Creeks); and Norman Wamback, Rick Curcio, and Eugene Bozzo, Reach 9(James Creek). We thank each of them for their help. i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CAUSES OF EROSION The Long Island Sound Shoreline The primary cause of erosion on Southold's Long Island Sound side is littoral drift caused by wave action. When waves break on Southold's shore at an angle,water moves in the direction of the wave angle, taking sand with it in a natural ongoing process called littoral drift. In Southold,the predominate direction of littoral drift is eastward,but major storms--which can generate waves higher than 6 feet --often move the sand from east to west. Generally,annual cycles of beach building and erosion take place. Overlong periods of low wind and wave action,when the sand moves slowly west to east,a gently sloping beach builds up. During large winter storms,sand moves quickly from east to west and off-shore. These storms can remove sand and leave behind a stone and cobble beach. As long as the bluffs remain in a natural condition, beaches heal themselves over the summer and Southold's shoreline erodes slowly over time. Points form around the areas with large rocks and cemented bluff sands. Areas with low bluffs and clayey soils become embayments. Although Southold's Long Island Sound shoreline is eroding slowly, over the short-term it is dynamically stable. However,jetties to keep inlets open and groins and bulkheads to keep bluffs from eroding have, in places, taken the system out of equilibrium. Because of the bluffs, coastal flooding is localized along this shoreline, Very high tides rise to the bluff toe,but houses are not flooded. In certain low-Iying areas, such as the east side of Mattituck Inlet, localized flooding does occur. The Peconic Bays Shoreline Causes of erosion on Southold's Peconic Bays are complex. Littoral drift dominates in areas exposed to waves. Going from west to east,bays become smaller, and therefore bay waves are smaller. Shoreline on either side of James Creek is fully exposed to waves from Great Peconic Bay, where waves can theoretically reach a height of almost 5 feet. Robins Island affords some protection to Cutchogue Harbor and the west side of Nassau Point,but the east side of Nassau Point is exposed to Little Peconic and Hog Neck Bays. Southold Bay and its waves are smaller. At the far east end of Southold,Hallock Bay is almost totally enclosed. However,the Peconic shore,unlike the Long Island Sound side,has few high bluffs. Therefore, when a storm causes erosion,for an equivalent wave conditions,shoreline retreat is greater and recovery is slower. In addition, flooding is common along the shore. To protect these low flat shores,over the years property owners have built many groins to hold beaches and bulkheads to raise ground level. S-1 Currents are the second cause of erosion on the Peconie shores. Baymen report eddies in many bays, indicating that water flows constantly in one direction,no matter whether the tide is flooding or ebbing. These currents contribute to formation of elongated features,such as Nassau Point. Compared with the two inlets on the Long Island Sound side of Southold,at least 25 inlets,depending pa how they are counted,are found on the Peeonic side. Tidal currents flowing through these inlets move anAdeposit sand,both inside and outside of the inlet's mouth. Under natural conditions,each inlet maintains a show channel and forms shoals around its mouth. However,these inlets are dredged for boat navigation. o WmAting deeper cha=wU have chan&go_ the cpwrents,which leads tp different erosion palk=. The ygteraon of waves,oflkore currents,tidal flows through inlets,and human construction leads to a series of conglex erosion and depositfop systeths that change soggily and yearly in response to weather. CONDITION OF SOUTHOLD'S SHORELINES The Long Island Sound Shoreline This shoreline has two inlets, both protected by jetties — Mattituck Inlet and Goldsmith Inlet. Mattituck Inlet is heavily used by recreational and commercial boaters. It is a maritime center of statewide significance whose uses are an important aspect of Southold's character. Shoreline west of the inlet(updrift side)has generally accreeted seaward as a result of the 'ethes,but shoreline east of the jetties has severely eroded. It has eroded close to the jetties,and the low luffs and dunes cannot provide sufficient sand to resupply the shoreline,resulting in a prominent shoreline offset. Goldsmith Inlet is not navigable and is not used by boats. A single jetty stabilizes inlet location. The inlet is actually an outlet to a coastal pond, and water flow.is unidirectional toward the Sound. It is periodically dredged by the Town and sand is used for off-site construction purposes: It is unclear what role dredging plays,if any,in keeping the inlet open. However,review of historical maps and photos back to the 1870's shows the inlet open at each date examined. Like Mattituck Inlet, the west side (updrift) has accumulated sand while the east side has eroded,resulting in a prominent shoreline offset. During the past five years, shoreline open to the northeast has been heavily eroded by a series of storms,some of which had characteristics approaching the 100-year storm. Over the previous 50 years,the same areas eroded at a much slower rate., The rate of erosion.during the past five years seems to be anomalously high(this is su rted by a study conducted in Nissequogue). The level of shore protection construction is evidence of a long-term lower rate of erosion. Only a few.thousand feet of bulkhead and less than 100 groins have been built over the 39 miles of Southold's Long Island Sound shoreline. Long-tern shoreline erosion is slow,because thefiluffs have been able to resupply some of the sand lost to the system. Long-term shoreline erosion averages Iess than 1 foot per year based on independent studies by Davies et al, 1971, and the Department of Environmental Conservation for the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act. Exceptions occur east of Mattituck Inlet and east of Goldsmiths Inlet(2.5+ft/yr erosion). S-2 The Peconic Bays Shoreline The Peconic shores have been subjected to many erosion control structures to prevent landward migration. Over its 136 miles of tidally influenced shoreline,more than a thousand groins have been built. Groins are prominent along the 35+miles of sandy shoreline. Where houses have been constructed,about SQ.pWcpt of the shoreline is bulkheaded. Most of the more than 25 inlets are protected by jetties. In 27 sopLqk VqW,the Town has undertaken almost 150 dredging projects since the 1960's. Suffolk County has cot at least five creeks yearly since the 1950's. This heavy investment has maintained the shoreline,and feW,#*W,4pises have been lost to erosion. However,several areas still flood regularly,leading to property damtago. ,Aim level of investment will continue4p be necessary in the future to prevent loss of property and minimize damage. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTIONS The Long Island Sound Shoreline The Board of Trustees should closely examine each permit application for shore protection to determine if the proposed structure is necessary. A proposed shore protection structure's potential effects on neighboring property during the next few years and the long-term must be analyzed. Will the structure cause downdrift erosion? Will it reduce the supply of sand to public beaches and underwater lands and private properties over time? These kinds of questions must be answered before granting a permit. The same requirements should apply in a post-storm situation when a property owner applies to rebuild a structure. Only those properties that are in imminent danger should qualify for a permit. Several zoning mechanisms should be used to reduce potential damages to new buildings. For new lots, a shoreline setback should be instituted. The New York State Coastal,Erosion Hazard Areas Act provides a minimum 25 ft setback from the bluff edge,however, this may not be adequate for all areas of Southold. Further study is needed to establish a variable setback distance from reach to reach based on rate of erosion. However, a 150-foot setback including a 50-foot natural vegetation buffer,measured from the high waterline or the bluff toe,could be a reasonable starting point. Setback creation requires an assessment of lot sizes to determine impact on public and private property. The Peconic Bays Shoreline The beach and nearshore morphology is highly dependent on human activity,including dredging and a multitude of shore protection structures. Radical change from current shore protection practice might lead to loss of public and private property, and some of these losses could occur quickly. Therefore, permit review does not need to be as detailed as for permits required on the Long Island Sound side. However,in areas where structures do not dominate, such as Hallock Bay, shore protection structures should be discouraged,and avoidance measures encouraged. Likewise,in the aftermath of a severe coastal storm,when broad areas of coastal structures are destroyed, there may be opportunity for natural shoreline restoration. � Use of dredged materials is very important to the health of this shoreline. Unfortunately, current SUy y n practices do not recognize this. Decisions about where and how the dredged materials are used are not d 1 subject to rigorous review. Dredged materials should be used to build beaches,dunes,and other types of J natural protective features. Currently,these materials are often just piled out of the zone of interaction with coastal processes,and, in one observed case, used for filling in wetlands. Instead,this material should be placed on eroding beaches below the mean high water line. Concerned government agencies--the Board of Trustees,Suffolk County DPW,and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State -- should meet to generally review placement options given regulatory concerns,erosion trends,and available scientific information. Thereafter, S-3 the Trustees, Suffolk County DPW, and the Department of Environmental Conservation should meet regularly to jointly decide where and how the dredged material is placed. Decisions must be reviewed annually in light of weather and level of erosion over the past winter season. Dredged material must be viewed as a valuable resource which cannot be squandered without detrimental consequences to beaches. Townwide Actions Southold should include shore protection structures in its building code. The type and size of the structure and building materials used to construct it can be restricted by the building code. Existing groins vary widely in height, length, and spacing. Casual observation suggests some are effective in trapping enough sand to maintain a modest beach, while bypassing some sand to downdrift beaches. However, some groins are so high and long that they trap all sand,and bypass none to downdrift beaches,effectively causing erosion. Others are totally ineffective, either because of design flaws or lack of maintenance, and thus serve only to reduce public uses and aesthetic quality of the shore. A Townwide building code could prevent new problems and rectify some existing ones in post-storm situations. The building code should set the top elevation and the downward slope of groins in order to retain sufficient sand to protect property while not completely blocking flow to downdrift properties. In addition, the length of individual groins and spacing between them should be regulated. These are two interrelated factors. Development and enforcement of a shore protection building code would bring order and reason to the current variety of shoreline structures, some of which are in conflict with each another. FF Coastal processes can be confusing to people who are not used to living by the sea. Many newcomers some long-time residents) do not understand erosion and its causes. Meetings that the Townofhold has held are a meaningful beginning to the process of educating the public, but they must be connued. Informative booklets and pamphlets— such as those published by the East End Economic and Environmental Institute,Inc. --are additional important tools. The public must be made aware of dangers in siting a house on the water's edge. S-4 CHAPTER I. COASTAL PROCESSES AND SHORELINE EVOLUTION This chapter summarizes and is an introduction to coastal processes and their interaction with Southold's shoreline. The intent of this chapter is to present an overview of the coastal processes affecting Southold. Chapter II contains the detailed,reach-by-reach description of Southold. As an introduction to the physical processes governing the evolution of the coastal environment and their complexity,the following is from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'Shore Protection Manual(1984): ....The beach and nearshore zone of a coast is the region where the forces of the sea react against the land. The physical system within this region is composed primarily of the motion of the sea,which supplies energy to the system,and the shore,which absorbs this energy. Because the shoreline is the intersection of the air, land, and water, the physical interactions which occur in this region are unique, very complex, and difficult to fully understand. As a consequence, a large part of the understanding of the beach and nearshore physical system is simply descriptive in nature. A general discussion describing the physical coast with emphasis on the Southold region is presented below. Included are the evolution of Long Island, the forces that act on the shore, and its reaction to these forces. The chapter is divided into three sections: 1)Coastal Geomorphology--development of Long Island and existing coastal landforms;2) Coastal Processes-- forces affecting shoreline change; and 3) Southold Coastal Conditions --response to normal and storm-induced conditions along the project shoreline (e.g., flooding and beach and bluff erosion). A glossary of pertinent coastal engineering and coastal geology- related terms is included for further reference. Primary references used throughout this document include: o Governor's Coastal Erosion Task Force,Final Report,Volume II,Long-Term Strategy(GTFD 1994); o Shore Protection Manual,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE 1984); o North Shore of Long Island, Suffolk County, New York, Beach Erosion Control and Interim Hurricane Study (Survey) (USACE 1969); and o Erosion of the North Shore of Long Island by Davies, Axelrod, and O'Connor(Davies et al., 1973). A. COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY The marine coastline of the Town of Southold includes the shorelines along the northern shore of Long Island from the western Town boundary(Mattituck Hills)to Orient Point; the southern coastal areas fronting Gardiners Bay,Orient Harbor, Shelter Island Sound,Hog Neck Bay,the Peconics(Little Peconic and Great Peconic Bays),and Flanders Bay;and Fishers Island in Block Island Sound. Southold's shorefront features include beaches, bluffs, dunes, wetlands, and barrier landforms. Topographic character and sediment composition of the area determine the manner in which these landforms interact with the marine environment, thus affecting coastal erosion and flooding. This section summarizes the development of the Long Island coastal complex, including the evolution of the shoreline and its landforms to the current configuration. To fully understand the physical environment and its dynamic character, its development must be examined historically. The following paragraphs, from GTFII(1994), discuss the area's geologic history. .... Glacial advance during the Pleistocene epoch generally ended at the approximate centerline of what is now Long Island(Fuller 1914). Seaward of the glaciers,extensive outwash plains of sand and gravel were deposited on top of pre-existing sediments and the gently seaward sloping Atlantic Coastal Plain. 1-1 Glacial termination along an east-west front resulted in the present east-west orientation of the south shore. Outwash glaciation resulted in sand deposition on the adjacent continental shelf. ....gently seaward sloping rocks of the Atlantic Coastal Plain are buried beneath more recent semi-consolidated and unconsolidated sediment. Pleistocene sediment deposited over the last 2 million years was greatly modified during the last glacial episode. Surficial sediment of Long Island is composed of a variety of loosely consolidated glacial material deposited primarily as moraine or outwash. Further modification by rising seas over the past 15,000 years has resulted in the present geomorphic landforms. About 20,000 years ago, the final period of glaciation, known as the Wisconsian, glaciers stopped extending southward and started to retreat. This was not a smooth, one-way process,but involved several advances and retreats. Along Southold's Long Island Sound shore,a ridge of glacial materials--comprising clay, sand, cobbles,and boulders--was deposited. This landform is called a recessional moraine, and the Harbor Hill recessional moraine forms the bluffs of the current shoreline. This recessional moraine contains highly variable sediments that cause the changes in beach character along Southold's Long Island Sound shoreline. Coastal areas are typically described both in profile and plan. A schematic beach profile is depicted in Figure I-I (refer to the glossary for definitions of specific terms). This profile is valid for almost all of the Long Island Sound side of Southold. On the Peconic Bay side,it is valid without the bluff for shoreline away from the creek mouths. Specific landforms common along the Southold coastal region include beaches, dunes,bluffs,spits,tombolos,inlets,and tidal and non-tidal wetlands. These landforms are defined in the glossary included at the end of this report section,and are summarized below. o Beaches. Along the seashore and acted on by waves, tides, and currents, the zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low water line to the place where there is a marked change in material or physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. Figure 1-1 depicts the interaction of the sea with a typical beach profile backed by bluffs. Beaches are found along the whole length of Southold's Long Island Sound shore. o Dunes. Ridges or mounds of loose,unconsolidated sand,that back the beach,providing added protection against wave attack and flooding during storm events. Dunes are found adjacent to Mattituck and Goldsmith inlets and at Horton Lane Beach. o Bluffs. A high steep bank or cliff. Deposited during glacial movement, these coastal landforms are highly susceptible to erosion and collapse because of their steep seaward slope. Bluffs line much of Southold's Long Island Sound shore and the east side of Little Hog Neck. o Spits. Formed when the dominant waves and currents carry sediment into an elongated subaerial depositional feature,extending away from a headland. Generally oriented parallel to the shoreline, with sediments transported along the trunk of the spit to its end in deeper water,thus permitting the spit to grow longer. Spits grow in a variety of shapes depending on local bathymetry,sediment supply,tidal conditions,and wave climate. Spit growth often forms shoreline features,such as cuspate bars and baymouth barriers. These are commonly found on the Peconic Bay side of Southold. Typical examples are the mouths of Town and Mill Creeks, as well as the elongation of Nassau Point. o Inlets. A short narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of water with a large parent body of water. Inlets are highly dynamic with natural tendencies toward movement and closure, and subsequent openings of more efficient inlets. They are often stabilized for navigation requirements. The Peconic Bay shore of Southold has many inlets, while only Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets exist on Southold's Long Island Sound shore. 1-2 o Tidal and non-tidal wetlands. Tidal and non-tidal wetlands are low-lying areas subject to frequent inundation by tidal flows or storm tides, or merely having a relatively high water content. These areas are established in locations with Iittle wave energy,allowing vegetation to establish itself away from destructive wave energy. Along Long Beach Bay, for instance, the protected shorelines have allowed the establishment of extensive wetland areas. Shorelines fronting Long Island Sound are characterized by nearly continuous bluffs composed of loosely consolidated glacial outwash (primarily sand) and moraine material, which is a mix of clay, silt, cobble,and boulder. The glacials expanded from the north,carrying this mixture of sediments with it. When the climate warmed,the advance of the glacier slowed,then stopped with back-and-forth shudders. During this process, the morainal materials were deposited in a long ridge shape along the face of the glacier. As the glacier retreated with the warming climate, sand was deposited in outwash plains. This stopping and retreating formed what later became Southold's bluffs,dunes,and beaches. Material eroded from the bluffs enter the littoral system, contributing to beaches of varying width,slope,and sediment character. Beaches fronting Southold consist of sediments ranging from sand to cobble,with widths ranging from 25 to 100 feet. Portions of the coast are backed by dunes (e.g., east of Goldsmith's Inlet) and tidal wetlands, while some locations represent low-lying coastal barriers (e.g.,Truman Beach). Shorelines fronting the Peconics are irregular and indented by numerous inlets and bays. Coastal areas east of Shelter Island fronted by Gardiners Bay are exposed to a moderate wave climate,while those west of Shelter Island and along Long Beach Bay have minimal wave energy. The wave energy becomes greater in Little Peconic Bay and greater still in Great Peconic. However, the fetches(length of open water where wind waves can form) are longer in Gardiners Bay than the Peconics. Beaches are generally narrow and sandy and predominate along the eastern shoreline,with the exception of the wetland areas along Long Beach Bay. Bluffs are relatively low and infrequent along the Peconics. Shorelines backed by dunes are limited and specific to Orient Point State Park, which is a spit formation. Tidal wetlands predominate along the western low-energy shorelines,which are the result of the presence of Shelter Island. Numerous barrier spits and shoals exist along the entire bayfront region. B. COASTAL PROCESSES Shoreline configuration is constantly changing as a result of varying hydrodynamic (water motion, water level, and other forces) and sediment processes. The evolution of a shoreline can be discussed both in the across-the-beach profile and along the beach,which is often called longshore. This evolution occurs during both normal low wave conditions and storms. During the storms, the more spectacular changes occur, but the normal weather conditions act over longer periods of time and are important in understanding beach evolution. The movement of a beach in response to waves is referred to as littoral transport, defined as the alongshore movement of sediments in the nearshore zone by waves and currents. Transport direction is mostly determined by wave steepness, sediment characteristics, and beach slope. Longshore transport of sediments results from the initiation of sediment motion by incoming waves and continued movement due to longshore currents. The magnitude and direction of longshore transport is dictated by the angle of wave approach to the shoreline, sediment characteristics and supply, and available wave energy. Direction and magnitude of longshore sediment transport is highly variable from day to day. Differences in longshore transport result in either accretion or erosion of the shoreline, and are responsible for many of the current erosion hazards along the project coast. Interruption of this longshore movement -- e.g. headlands, inlets, and shore protection structures--can result in significant impacts on shoreline position. At Mattituck Inlet, for example, jetty construction and channel dredging to reduce shoaling of the inlet channel resulted in erosion on the east as the sediment supply was interrupted. The across-the-beach profile (Figure 1-I) continually adjusts to dissipate the incoming wave energy. Beach response during normal conditions is subtle,as wave energy is easily dissipated by the beach's natural protective features. The beach will accrete sand from the littoral transport and become wider and higher. At the end of a summer,a beach will normally have stored a large volume of sand. During storm conditions, however, the coast responds to increased amounts of wave energy, often leading to the loss of significant I-3 quantities of beach, dune, and/or bluff material. Figure I-2 illustrates a beach response to wave attache during a storm. The foreshore is eroded and the backshore is often lost. During large storms, the dune system or bluffs are also eroded. The beach slopes become flatter. Some of the eroded sand is deposited in an offshore bar, and much can be lost offshore. These losses are sometimes (but not always) temporary, except in the case of bluff erosion,which is a permanent change to the coastal configuration. Winds Winds over coastal regions result in coastal changes through three primary mechanisms: 1) wind- generated waves,2)wind-induced storm surges,and 3)aeolian(wind-induced) sediment transport. Generation of wind waves depends on the fetch(the distance over water that the wind blows without interruption) and wind conditions (duration and speed). During storm events when extreme wind speeds persist, water elevations at coastal sites may increase as water piles up against the coastline. This effect is a component of storm surge, which often causes flooding and extreme wave attack damages. Aeolian sediment transport is a primary mechanism responsible for either the growth or deflation of coastal dunes. Strong winds (generally exceeding 15 miles per hour) must be present to cause significant sediment movement by aeolian transport. The magnitude of aeolian transport is highly dependent on the presence of vegetation and/or moisture,both of which reduce the movement of sediment. A wide beach is also necessary for dune formation. Dunes are found in the vicinity of Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets,but the Town does not have the large dune systems that are found on Long Island's Atlantic shore. Wind data for long periods of record are available from observations at the Brookhaven National Laboratory atUpton,the Suffolk County Department ofPublic Works and Highways at Westhampton Beach, and the U.S.Weather Bureau at La Guardia Airport for New York City. Short-term data are also available from the U.S. Weather Bureau at Calverton Airport. Average wind conditions for the northeast, southeast, northwest, and southwest quadrants were estimated from the records at the four wind stations. With minor exceptions for the station located at La Guardia, the wind direction distribution for Long Island can be summarized as northeast, 20 percent; southeast, 17 percent; northwest, 30 percent; and southwest, 33 percent. (Wind directions refer to the direction from which the wind is blowing.) Winds from the northern quadrant dominate during the winter, and winds from the southern quadrant dominate during the summer. The wind velocity and storm duration during the winter tend to be higher than during the summer. In the summer, the percentage of calm conditions is over 10 percent,while calm conditions drop to under 3 percent during the winter. These values summarize wind conditions in the Long Island vicinity, but may not be directly applicable to Southold because of their distance(La Guardia Airport)and different topographic settings(Upton and Westhampton). Because wind data are not available for coastal areas along the north shore of Long Island,these data must be considered representative. In addition to long-term wind records, wind observations during storm events are important for evaluating coastal changes. Data obtained during storms were available for several locations, including Montauk Point,Block Island,and La Guardia Airport. Table I-1 contains the pertinent maximum recorded wind velocities for some major storm events. The fastest mile and 5-minute average data are typically used to conduct wave estimates. The most applicable information for Southold are records from nearby open- coast weather stations. Block Island and Montauk Point data,therefore, are suggested for use at Southold; La Guardia wind data are used to augment the records. Waves Waves are created by wind blowing across the water with energy transferred to the water surface. This energy transfer creates perturbations in the water surface commonly referred to as wind waves (see Figure 1-3 for a definition of wave characteristics). The waves then travel across water until reaching land, where they expend their remaining energy on the shore. Waves generated by local winds blowing on shore 14 typically reach the shore as steep(i.e.,wave length to wave height ratio is small)erosive waves called seas. Waves generated at great distances(hundreds to thousands of miles)prior to reaching the'shore will decay into long low waves referred to as swell. The height, length, and period of wind waves at a coastal site are determined by the fetch, wind characteristics, decay distance, and water depth. In general, increases in fetch, wind speed, and duration result in larger wind waves. Water depth,if shallow enough compared with the wave height and period,will affect wave characteristics,with wave breaking beginning when the wave height is roughly 80 percent of the water depth. Waves generated by wind are characterized by many combinations of height, period, and direction. This combination of waves is referred to as the wave spectrum, which is often characterized by representative wave parameters(wave height and period). Wave conditions at any given I-S Table I-1 LONG ISLAND EXTREME WIND VELOCITY RECORDS velocity Type of LoCation Date (mph) Record Block Island 21 September 1938 82 5-minute average Block Island 21 September 1938 91 Gust Eastern End of Long Island 21 September 1938 96 US Weather Bureau wind pattern Block Island 14 September 1944 88 Fastest mile Block Island 14 September 1944 100+ Gust La Guardia Airport 25 November 1950 94 Gust Block Island 6-7 November 1953 95 Fastest mile Block Island 6-7 November 1953 98 Gust Block Island 31 August 1954 105 Fastest mile Block Island 31 August 1954 135 Gust Montauk Point 12 September 1960 105 5-minute average Montauk Point 12 September 1960 120 Gust Montauk Point 6-8 March 1962 68 Gust location over a period of time can be described through use of a wave spectrum,where characteristic wave conditions are referred to as the wave climate. Wave data for the north shore of Long Island have never been rigorously collected. Waves that affect the shore are generated by local winds, as Long Island and Block Island stop ocean swells from entering Long Island Sound(Davies et al., 1973). Given the orientation of the Southold Long Island Sound shoreline, winds from the northern quadrant and the west are primarily responsible for wind waves along the coast. In the Peconics, the fetch is limited compared with the Long Island Sound side;but waves large enough to cause erosion can occur except within the creeks. Fishers Island is somewhat exposed to ocean wave conditions from the southeast;however,waves traveling from the ocean are affected by Montauk Point and Block Island. In general, the wave climate at shorelines along Long Island Sound (Fishers Island) are moderate, whereas shorelines along the Peconics and the majority of Gardiners Bay are less energetic. USACE (1969) summarized fetch distances for the Long Island Sound coast, that were augmented with approximations for the Peconics and Fishers Island. Estimates for these locations are for the maximum single fetch distance rather than the average distances used in wave calculations. The fetch distance for Fishers Island corresponds to the breadth of Block Island Sound,and excludes the narrow opening to the open ocean. These fetch distances are summarized in Table I-2. Wave heights and periods for shallow water waves (waves interacting with local bathymetry) were hindcast using techniques given in the Shore Protection Manual(1994). Information used for these computations included water depths of 50(no symbol)and 100 feet(with symbols),fetch distances from 10 to 70 miles,and wind speeds from 10 to 120 mph. The results are shown in Figures I-4 and I-5. While these results are not applicable to any particular location along the project shoreline,they are representative of the relationships between various wave generation parameters. I-6 Table I-2 SOUTHOLD AREA FETCH DISTANCES Fetch Distance (miles) maximum Fetch Location Northwest Northeast Southwest Southeast miles Wildwood 27 30 - - 30 Mattituck Inlet 50 20 - - 50 Hashamomuck Beach 49 14 - - 49 Orient Point 17 11 - - 17 Fishers Island" - - - 20 20 East Shelter Island - 45 - - 45 Little Peconic - 6 - 6 Great Peconic - 10 - - 10 To the Race that restricts short period wind waves but not swells Water Levels Elevation of the water surface can be considered as a long-term average dependent on the volume of water contained in glacial form or as a short-term change in water elevations as a result of astronomical tides, storm impacts,and precipitation and ice melt(for rivers and small bays). The fluctuations resulting from the combined effects of astronomical tides and storm surges,and the effect of sea level rise on global ocean levels are of primary importance for this report. Astronomical Tides Tides are created by the gravitational forces exerted by the moon and,to a lesser extent,the sun. These forces of attraction--coupled with the fact that the sun,moon,and earth are always in motion relative to one another-- cause oceans to be set in motion. These tidal motions are very long period waves,and result in the periodic rise and fall of water levels along the coast. The phasing of high and low tides is variable and important to the level of wave attack along the shoreline. High tides in conjunction with strong onshore winds,for example,cause increased shoreline erosion as large waves break closer to shore in deeper water, thus exerting greater forces on the shoreline. Tides in bong Island Sound are semi-diurnal(occurring twice a day),and the height increases from east to west due to the narrowing of the Sound,as the area of the Sound lessens and the volume of water remains unchanged. Tidal ranges for points within Southold are shown in Table I-3. Tides are given as spring and mean tide for each location. The mean tide is the average tidal range, and the spring tide is the tide that occurs at or near the time of the new or full moon,which rises the highest and falls the lowest from mean sea level. I-7 Table I-3 SOtTr'HOLD TIDAL RANGES Tidal Range Location Mean Spriu Mattituck inlet 5.0 5.8 Horton Point 4.0 4.6 Truman Beach 3.4 3.9 Orient Point 2.5 3.0 Southold 2.3 2.7 New Suffolk 2.6 3.1 Storm Surges Hurricanes and tropical storms are large wind fields,driven by central low pressures and temperature gradients. These storms cause the water elevation at the shoreline to rise and flood the land. Several factors are involved: wind stress,wave setup,barometric pressure reduction,and the Coriolis force. In response to the earth's rotation, the Coriolis force causes water currents to deflect to the right in the northern hemisphere. These factors have caused increases in water elevations in excess of 13 feet above normal in Long Island Sound. Wind stress and barometric tide are of primary importance to the magnitude of storm surge. Height of the wind stress depends on wind speed and direction,fetch,bathymetry,and nearshore slope. Basically,the wind drives the water into the shore faster than it can return to open water. Either the water piles up until the wind reduces in force,or the water reaches such height that gravity forces it to return to open water. The barometric tide is the increase in water surface elevation within the storm's low-pressure system. The higher barometric pressure outside of the storm forces water in toward the lower barometric pressure at the center of the storm. A Coriolis water level rise occurs when the storm forces currents to flow along the shoreline. This component of storm surge occurs in Long Island Sound,but is not particularly large. However,it can also reduce the storm surge when the current direction causes the Coriolis force to be directed toward Connecticut. The final component is the wave set-up,which occurs in the surf zone when wave momentum transfers from the waves to the water column. This component is important for large storm waves where wave set-up may be as much as 20 percent of the breaking wave height. Factors that eventually determine the magnitude of the storm surge are the stage of the astronomical tide (storm surge is superimposed on top of the tide level),storm intensity, forward storm speed,and angle of storm track to the shoreline. Shoreline configuration is also important in determining surge elevations,much as shoreline configuration affects astronomical tides. This effect is simply the funneling of water that occurs when there is a constriction between two land masses. This occurs in Long Island Sound, causing water levels in the western portion of the Sound to exceed those in the eastern section. Increased fetch distances for wind setup also contribute to this effect. Storm surge frequency relationships,available for many locations,are either compiled and estimated from historical data or obtained through predictive techniques. These frequency relationships describe the annual probability of occurrence for any particular water level event. The highest tidal height ever observed was 13.3 feet above Mean Sea Level(MSL)at Willets Point during the hurricane on September 21, 1938. At Port Jefferson Harbor during the hurricane of August 31, 1954, a water surface elevation of 9.45 feet above MSL was recorded. No extreme water level predictions have been prepared for the Town of Southold, but extreme water level predictions for London,Connecticut are considered to be representative for the Long Island Sound shore of Southold. This is shown in Figure 1-6. The highest predicted water level is 14 feet above MSL,close to the physical maximum that can occur. The more commonly used 100-year flood level is 10.7 feet above MSL. Although this is called the 100-year flood,it is a statistical measure,and that water I-8 level has never been measured in Southold. Additionally,if it does occur,water could rise to this level more than once in a given year. Having this storm surge once does not mean that it will not occur for another 100 years. Sea Level Rise Sea level rise can be separated into two categories: 1)eustatic rise(change in ocean elevation)and 2) relative rise(change in ocean level relative to adjacent land). Relative rise includes changes in both ocean and land levels, thus including eustatic sea level changes. Causes of sea level rise include changes in sea floor spreading, ocean and land area changes, tectonic plate movement changes, thermal effects, ocean sedimentation,glacial characteristics,hydro-isostasy,sediment isostasy and compactiordsubsidence,ocean surface topography and temperature/salinity effects,changes in the geoid,geological faulting,and climatic effects (GTFII 1994). Scientific evidence suggests that water levels during the peak of the ice age were at least 450 feet lower than they are now,because of water contained in glaciers. As the glaciers melted,sea levels rose about 0.3 inches per year. Along the New York coastal region, the relative sea level rise over the last 100 years (accounting for land rebound and sediment accumulation)is estimated to have been from 0.04 to 0.14 inches per year. Historical sea level rise rates are anticipated to continue,but there is much uncertainty about the possibility of an increase. The effect of excess fossil fuel emissions,which leads to global warming,would be to accelerate glacial melting. Past estimates have been for sea level increases from 2 to 7 feet in the next century;more recently,these estimates have been revised to less than 2 feet. Further research is required to refine these estimates; thus,use of non-historical sea level rise rates is highly subjective. Despite the difficulties associated with predicting sea level rise, especially accelerated rates, it is an important factor in determining future erosion patterns. As sea levels increase,low-lying areas become more subject to flooding; magnitude of wave attack on previously protected shoreline locations increases; and wetland areas could become inundated,exposing current inland locations. These conditions are important in the Southold region for several reasons. First,the bases of bluffs are particularly susceptible to sea level increases, as current protective beaches would be rendered ineffective in protecting against wave attack. Once bluffs are exposed to more direct wave attack,bluff recession would proceed at a relatively rapid rate. Therefore, the rate of bluff erosion and shoreward migration along Southold's Long Island Sound shore is likely to increase in the future. In addition,development in low-lying areas along the Town shoreline,such as Fishermans Beach, would be subject to increased flooding and landward movement or destruction of coastal beach and dune systems. Finally, current protective measures -- e.g. bulkheads, revetments, and groins--would be destroyed or at least rendered less effective,and current Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map boundaries would be affected. Currents Nearshore currents play an important role in the evolution of coastal environments. Currents are driven by four mechanisms: 1) spatial differences in water surface elevations, 2) wind, 3) angled wave approach to the shoreline, and 4)river discharge. Significant currents can be generated by tides at inlets to bays or lagoons or at entrances to harbors. Currents at these constricted entrances flow inland when the tide is rising (flood tide), and flow outward as the tide falls (ebb tide). USACE (1969) reports that maximum currents along the north shore of Long Island typically range from 0.5 to 3.5 knots during floodtide and 0.6 to 4.3 knots on the ebbtide. Average currents along Southold were reported as 1)Terry Point—2.7 knots(flood) and 3.2 knots(ebb); 2)Mulford Point-- 1.9 knots(flood)and 2.3 knots(ebb); and 3)Plum Gut--3.5 knots (flood) and 4.3 knots(ebb). High river discharges or strong winds can alter these velocities, which can be seen in Long Island Sound when strong winds from the west slow the ebb tide and allow the flood tide to bring additional water and subsequent extreme water surface elevations into the Sound. Currents are created as wind blows over the water's surface,and stress on the surface initiates movement in the direction of the wind. When the surface current reaches a barrier, such as a coast, water piles up against the land. This piling up of water,which is called wind setup and is a component of storm surge, can create significant increases in water elevation when it occurs during storms. 1-9 Another important mechanism in the nearshore region is the generation of alongshore currents caused by waves approaching the shoreline at an angle. This results in a gradient in nearshore surface elevations and induced currents,which tend to dominate during calm periods. Tidal current velocities rapidly decrease as the shoreline is approached,and therefore,any littoral movement is usually the result of wave action. This holds true for Long Island Sound shorelines east of Port Jefferson,whereas the western areas are subject to increased tidal ranges, which cause higher tidal current velocities. Sediment Characteristics and Supply Shoreline condition, in general, is affected by the amount of sediment entering and leaving an area. Sediment supply is a major factor in determining whether a coastal region is eroding, accreting, or stable. Along the Southold coastal front, the primary sediment source is the glacial bluffs. Sediments on most beaches range from fine sands to cobbles, with occasional large boulders. Wave erosion of these bluffs -- along with the impacts of surface drainage, rainfall, ground water seepage, and vegetative cover, and subsequent bluff failure-- introduces large amounts of sediment to the littoral environment. This material is then transported alongshore to other shoreline reaches at a rate referred to as the longshore sediment transport. The direction of longshore transport can often be deduced from the study of existing landform. As sediment is transported'in the nearshore and beach, human structures can interrupt this flow. Sediment is deposited on the updrift side, and the.downdrift side suffers a loss of sediment. Sand can also be lost offshore into deeper water because of these human structures. On the Long Island Sound shore of Southold, the predominant direction of longshore transport is toward the east. The jetties at Mattituck and Goldsmith Inlets interrupt this flow, leading to accretion on the west side of the inlets and erosion on the east side. Along the rest of the Long Island Sound shoreline,the headlands and points interrupt the flow during low wave periods,forming cells between the points. During storms,longshore transport occurs around the points, primarily from west to east. This storm movement is thought to be the dominant force in determining the direction of longshore transport on Southold's Long Island Sound shoreline. On the Peconic Bay shoreline, the direction of longshore transport varies greatly. The orientation of the shoreline differs by up to 180°. Therefore, one storm causes longshore transport in two or more different directions on the Peconic Bay shore. Additionally,the many inlets,with and without jetties,interrupt the longshore transport. The Peconic Bay shore has many small cells for longshore transport,and cannot be described in general as the Long Island Sound shore can. The volume of sediment transported is an important parameter,and its analysis requires a large amount of data. The problem needs to be studied in all three dimensions to determine how many cubic yards of sediment are contained in a foot of beach. Several seasons are needed over which to obtain these data beach profiles. The profiles can be supplemented with aerial photographs to determine changes in form,but the photographs do not show elevation changes. Without collecting and analyzing these data, only the most general estimates of sediment volume and change in the longshore transport can be made. Storms 7 Shoreline changes result from both day-today coastal processes and storm-induced coastal processes. It is not certain which of these change mechanisms is most important over the long term;however,it is clear that both play an important role in coastal conditions. While shoreline changes under normal conditions are nearly imperceptible,those that take place during a storm event are often distinct. As discussed earlier, storm winds typically generate high, steep waves in conjunction with the storm surge. Increasing water levels expose higher portions of the beach to wave attack,and allow large waves to pass over the nearshore without breaking. At the point where the breaking occurs,which is often close to shore,the remaining surf zone is insufficient to dissipate the increased wave energy. This excess energy then causes erosion of the beach,berm,dune,or bluff. The eroded material is carried offshore in large quantities and is deposited in a bar formation that grows to the point where the large storm waves break farther I-10 March 3, 1931 Extratropical -- November 17, 1935 Extratropical -- November 25, 1950 Extratropical -- November 6, 1953 Extratropical -- March 6, 1962 Extratropical -- February 6, 1978 Extratropical -- March 28, 1984 Extratropical -- October 30, 1991 Extratropical -- December 11, 1992 Extratropical -- rNortheasters are similar to hurricanes in that damage to coastal areas occurs from erosion and flooding mming from high winds, large waves, and increased water levels. Although wave heights and storm ges from extratropical stones are less severe than from hurricanes, erosion and flooding can equal or eed hurricane-induced levels. Increased stun duration is the primary factor that causes large coastalmages during northeasters. Because they last days rather than hours,northeasters persist over numerous tidal cycles, continually attacking coastal areas with several peak water elevations. In addition,continued strong winds can trap much of the ebb tidal flow within Long Island Sound, allowing flooding tides to augment existing high water and cause extreme water elevations. Damage from hurricanes and northeasters is highly dependent on storm intensity and duration. However,the location of a storm relative to Long Island's north shore is another major factor. Storm location is linked to storm characteristics that determine where, relative to the storm movement, the most severe conditions exist. Tropical cyclones are characterized as small fast-moving storms consisting of a counter- clockwise spiral about the center(the"eye")of the storm. This forward speed increases the apparent wind speed. Winds to the right of the eye are most severe and are parallel to and reinforced by the forward storm speed. Therefore, since tropical storms travel in a general northerly direction, south-facing coastlines are usually subject to the greatest hurricane forces. North-facing coastlines,however,are somewhat protected from the strongest storm impacts. Similarly,extratropical storms are characterized by a counter-clockwise spiral directed toward a central low pressure center. Wind direction and velocity at a given coastal location depend on the relative location of the storm track. The course of a northeaster to the east of the Sound is the most important factor for the north shore of Long Island, where winds blow initially from the northeast. Wind direction changes with storm movement to north-northwest winds as the storm passes, and produces large wave heights and wind setup along the north shore. Northeasters,with winds from the east occurring through numerous tidal cycles, have historically had the greatest effect on the Long Island Sound coastal region because of their long duration. Human Activity and Land Use Introduction Construction of shoreline structures and dredging operations are a major factor affecting coastal erosion and flooding. Engineered structures—e.g. groins,jetties,bulkheads,breakwaters,and seawalls--can halt, slow, or exacerbate coastal erosion. Structures introduced to the coastal environment to alleviate one problem often cause more severe problems,because the structures may have multiple influences on coastal processes. Other efforts, including beach nourishment and dredged material placement,can be undertaken to augment the coastal system by introducing additional littoral materials to the coastal system without adversely affecting other locations. As beach erosion and accretion,inlet opening and closing,bluff erosion, bay and wetland environmental changes, and other changes to the coastal regime are natural and ongoing processes,any alteration to the natural system will affect its dynamic stability. To show the amount of effort and money expended to maintain an engineered approach, Table I-S presents the dredging that has been performed at Mattituck Inlet. Much of the dredged sand was removed and used by the town. Human intervention in the coastal environment -- for the prevention of flooding and erosion, reduction of inlet 1-12 shoaling, or land development -- is a short-term attempt to engineer a solution to a problematic coastal !, condition. These interventions are often poorly engineered and fail to accommodate the dynamic nature of �( the coastal environment. I-13 Table I-5 SUM31ARY OF THE VOLWdRS OF THE SAND REMOVED FROM THE AREA NEST OF JETTIES OF THE MATTITVCK INLETs 1960-1975 Yards Year Removed 1975 3,965 1974 364 1973 1,356 1972 9,502 1971 8,532 1970 7,208 1969 6,482 1968 15,914 1967 24,914 1966 25, 808 1965 26,534 1964 20,032 1963 36,098 1962 14,734 1961 17,694 1960 23,214 TOTAL 244,351 Sources New York Sea Grant. Construction of either hardened coastal structures(e.g.bulkheads,groins,jetties,or seawalls)or soft methods(beach nourishment,vegetation,or dune building)are attempts to stabilize beaches,bluffs,inlets, or barrier landforms. Placement of hardened structures requires periodic maintenance and mitigation,and often results in significant negative impacts. These can include downdrift erosion and loss of sediment offshore. Navigational needs also Iead to large disturbance of natural systems. Table I-6 lists the number of projects and dredging volume performed out by the Town of Southold in Goldsmith Inlet and on the Peconic Bay side. Soft structures--which have less impact on the natural system--may require frequent maintenance and could provide less protection against the problem in question. These soft solutions to erosion may not be feasible for individuals,as large construction may be required for proper performance. Although feasible and practical engineering of the coastal environment is possible, construction must consider the range of impacts resulting from such solutions. As discussed below, placement of dredged materials on adjacent beaches is an important soft engineering approach in Southold. Hardened Structures Bulkheads,revetments,and seawalls are common along the coast ofNew York,especially the northern shorelines of Long Island. The function of these shore-parallel structures is to retard erosion of the upland while sacrificing the beach and nearshore areas. The potential for negative impacts froin these structures is apparent at many locations. However,placement at sites with adequate sediment supplies can mitigate these impacts. The jetties at Mattituck Inlet have caused severe erosion on the east side,which has lessened as sediment has either bypassed the inlet or was transported from further east and deposited behind the east 1-14 jetty. To illustrate possible negative impacts,a shore parallel structure placed at a location that experiences chronic long-term erosion is analyzed here. The structure essentially removes the upland sediments from the coastal regime,thereby pinning the shoreline to a given location. Under natural conditions,the upland MMtt ovide the sediment necessary to maintain a protective beach,but would result in permanent loss of tap . The structure pins the shoreline position but does not alleviate the erosional condition. Nature often finds an alternative sediment source,which results in accelerated erosion of the beach directly in front o(and ad J*ccnt to the structure. Following or prior to the loss of protective beach, beach nourishment is ttecasWy.pA a mit�ption effort. Upuld the situation not be mitigated,the beach might totally disappear, rCs tRsdirect wove attacks on ft stootuTe. This condition oftener to structural failure and severe eros on'of the up]sM that can even excW#at which would have occurreAhad no protective measures been constructed. Table g-6 t;UMARY OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DRXDGxNG PRO,]ZCTII Cubic Types of Water Dates Yards Method of Soil Dependent Reach Project Name Dredged Dredged Dieylaeement Facilities 1 Mattituck Creeks 1955 1,595,4 3 marinas and 00 park district boat slips and ramp 1 Long creek 1967 13,000 Upland site of Matt-A-Mar (part of Mattituck Creek and Marina is at Mattituck Creek) Long Creek intersection 2 Goldsmith Inlet° 1977 4,000 Beach nourishment None 1980 3,700 1982 6,000 1985 2,640 1987 4,800 Subtotal 16,340 2 North Sea 1992 12,980 5 Gull Pond 1959 177,200 Beach nourishment Town beach, 1960 28,500 between Bull Pond and docking and 1970 29,000 Sterling Basin boat ramps 1979 23,300 1983 1,000 Subtotal 259,000 5 Sterling Basins 1959 163,900 Formerly used wetlands 4 marinas and 1963 129,200 by cemetery, now use a sailing club 1976 12,000 back side of inlet for 1992 4,490 beach nourishment Subtotal 305,590 6 Mill Creek 1963 66,300 Upland on island to the 3 marinas 1968 2,700 west 1975 6,000 1979 4,000 1981 4,500 Subtotal 83,500 7 Town Creek/Harbor' 1959 23,200 Beach nourishment to Marina near 1959 93,400 the west mouth of creek 1976 91000 and town ramp on bay Subtotal 125,600 7 Jockey Creek 1959 23,200 Beach nourishment to Marina 1959 93,400 the west 1976 9,000 I-15 Table I-6 (Continued) SUMMARY OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DREDGING PROJECTS tic Types of Water Dates Yards Method of Soil Dependent Pmiect Name Dredged Dre_dge Displacement FFAcilitiss Subtotal 125,600 3 Goose Creek° 1959 46,700 Formerly upland by Raw# 1967 75,200 Wiew Avenue, now 1*48 11,100 1004ch nourishment t976 6.000 Subtotal 439,000 7 Cedar Beach 1979 12,400 Be4ph nourishment to Marine 4980 4,900 thA West Technology }gal $0700 Dept. of 1982 4,700 Suffolk County 1983 4,700 Community 1984 1.,l00 College7Corey 1985 1,440 Creekm1963-64 1986 2,880 1967 1987 1,,920 1972 Subtotal 35,540 1981 1983 1984 1986 1987345,600 23, 900 7,600 10,200 800 3, 500 18,600 5.040Formerly upland and now beach nourishmentRam p Subtotal 315,240 7 Richmond. Creek 1959 123,000 Beach nourishment on None 1964 82,800 both sides of inlet 1967 25,100 1972 5,500 1983 15,300 1995 20.000 Upland disposal adjacent to creek Subtotal 271,700 8 Broadwater Cove' 1966 434,400 Formerly upland on 2 Marina 1976 11,000 sites, now beach 1982 1_ 0,200 nourishment to the west of inlet Subtotal 455,600 I-16 Table I-6 (Continued) SPRY OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DREDGING PROJECTS Cubic Types of water Dates Yards Method of Soil Dependent Reach Project Name Dredged Dredged. DisiRlacement Facilities 8 Little Creek° 1967 51,000 Beach nourishment on Ramp/Moorings 1968 3,700 both sides of inlet 1975 5,000 1976 40,000 1978 4,000 1979 5,000 1980 2,400 1981 2,400 1981 5,500 1982 7,000 1983 2,400 1983 2,300 1984 2,400 1984 6,000 1985 3,120 1986 5,760 1987 8,400 1991 4,000 1992 4,740 1993 51000 Subtotal 170,120 8 Mud Creek' 1966 434,400 Formerly upland on 2 None 1976 11,000 sites, no beach 1982 10,200 nourishment to the west 1987 6,600 of inlet 1992 2, 910 Subtotal 465,110 8 East Creek' 1966 434,400 Formerly upland on 2 None 1976 11,000 sites, now beach 1982 10,200 nourishment to the west of inlet Subtotal 455,600 8 Wickham Creek 1966 48,300 Beach nourishment to Marina 1972 10,000 the west 1979 3,600 1981 1,700 1982 2,200 1983 1,900 1984 1,400 1985 1,440 1986 2,640 1987 2,640 1992 1,500 Subtotal 77,320 8 Schoolhouse Creek 1976 12,000 Beach nourishment Marina I-17 Table I-6 (Continued) SMIMARY OF 'TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DREDGING PROJECTS Cubic Types of Water Dates Yards Method of Soil Dependent Reach Protect Name Dredged Dredged Displacement Facilities 8 New Suffolk 1977 4,000 Beach nourishment on Boat ramp 1979 1,500 town beach to the south 1980 1, 000 1981 2,000 1902 3,300 1982 1,000 1984 1,800 1984 2,500 198E 1,250 1987 1,500 1993 2.�000 Subtotal 21,850 8 West Creekb 1966 92,500 Beach nourishment on Ramp 1976 9,000 both sides of inlet 1982 2, 800 Subtotal 101, 800 9 Halls Creek' 1979 17,400 Beach nourishment to None 1980 4,200 the east Subtotal 21,600 9 Deep Hole Creek 1964-65 243,500 Beach nourishment on None 1972 21,100 both sides of inlet 1975 4,000 1976 14, 000 1980 5, 000 1980 10,000 1982 8,800 1983 6,300 1987 7,680 1991 4,600 1993 10,600 Subtotal 335,580 9 James Creek 1964-65 272,500 Formerly upland to the 2 marinas 1979 3,000 east, now beach 1980 6,700 nourishment on both 1983 9,400 sides of inlet 1985 5,250 1986 1,570 Subtotal 298,420 9 Brushs Creek 1966 86,400 Beach nourishment on Marina 1975 7,500 both sides of inlet 1979 5,000 1980 1,900 1981 5,800 1983 1,500 1984 4,800 1985 6,750 1986 3,000 1991 3,000 1992 1,530 Subtotal 127,180 I-18 Table I-6 (Continued) SUMMARY OF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DREDGING PROJECTS Cubic Types of Water Dates Yards Method of. Soil Dependent Reach Project Name Dredged Dredge Displacement Facilities 10 West Harbor 1971 43,100 Dumped at sea (Fishers Island, channel connecting to federal project) Wtznneweta Lagoon 1991 2,700 1993 11000 Subtotal 46,800 TOTA& 5,875,4 70 I-I 9 Notes: ' Broadwater Cove, Mud Creek, and East Creek were dredged as one project in 1966, 1976, and 1982. M T#t##alk County Department of Health Services has determined that dredging pq it% Wat was necessary in 1965 to protect the public health. 0 ,ftvicey Creek and Town Creek/Harbor were dredged as one project in 1959 and 1976, d Mwituck Creek and Sterling Basin are federally authorized projects. Sourcess Analysis of Dredging and Spoil Disposal Activity Conducted by Suffolk County, County of Suffolk, New York, Historical Perspective and a Look to the put:ure, Su€%olk County Planning Department, October 1985; Annual Environmental Report, Office of the Suffolk County Executive, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1994. Breakwaters are hard structures ghat are offshore and parallel to the shoreline and that act to reduce the wave energy behind the breakwater before it reaches the coast. By re*ucing the wave energy,breakwaters allow littoral materials to deposit,which leads to ate formation of a protective beach. Accumulation of beach material behind the breakwater reduces the littoral material available for other shoreline reaches unless beach nourishment or other mitigation measures are undertaken. The very large rocks that can be found on Southold's beaches or just offshore serve as breakwaters on a very small scale. Accretion occurs just behind them. Shore-connected and perpendicular structures,called groins,are used along many shorelines. These structures intercept littoral material,which results in the accumulation of a beach updrift of the groin. Downdrift of the groin, however, the littoral material is reduced, which often leads to erosion. As with other coastal structures, beach nourishment can mitigate this impact. One mitigation method is a series of groins,with beach nourishment filling in the groin compartments. Since the groin compartments are at capacity, longshore sediments can bypass to downdrift beaches, thus minimizing negative impacts on the littoral supply. However, the groins must not be constructed in such a way that the sand is transported offshore and lost from the littoral system. This distance offshore is related to the width of the surf zone under normal conditions, which-- in an area like both sides of Southold--can strictly limit the allowable groin length. The groins on the Peconic Bay shore of Southold provide illustrations of every type of groin field imaginable. Stone, concrete, steel, and wood have all been used as construction materials. The length,height,and spacing of the groins have varied from very short, low,and closely spaced,to a single high groin sticking out into the middle of the bay. These groin fields are described in the next chapter,where their effectiveness is[partially]assessed. However,each set of groins would have to be individually studied to accurately estimate their usefulness and their effect on neighbors. Jetties are another shore-perpendicular structure used to stabilize inlet positions and reduce channel shoaling. Littoral material is intercepted by jetties in a manner similar to groins. However, the negative effects of jetties on the downdrift shorelines relative to natural inlets and frequent channel dredging are of greater magnitude. Jetty- stabilized inlets intercept a great deal of sand,and a series of jetties increases this effect,decreasing the volume of sand traveling in the downdrift direction. Inlet stabilization also appears to deposit Iarger volumes of sediments in ebb and flood tidal shoals compared with natural inlets. In natural inlets,sand is distributed along the ocean and bay shorelines as the inlet migrates alongshore,which reduces the volume of material trapped by the inlet. Natural inlets allow more material to bypass to downdrift sections;therefore,whether jetties are present or maintenance dredging alone is used,inlet maintenance leads to downdrift sand deficits. Many jetties have been built at the mouths of the inlets on the Peconic Bay shore. These jetties are described in the next chapter, where some assessment of their effectiveness is given. However, each inlet needs to be individually studied to accurately estimate its effects. Soft Engineering Solutions Soft structures are often preferable to hardened structures, and represent an attempt to work with the natural system by augmenting its natural defenses. Soft engineering solutions include beach nourishment (placement of beach sediments to create a larger protective beach and dune system),beach shaping,sand fencing(to help the dune- building process), and vegetation (to stabilize existing dunes or trap additional wind-blown sand). These soft engineering solutions are often combined very successfully with hard engineering solutions. Beach nourishment is accomplished by delivering sand to the beach or dune from either an offshore or upland site. This is a temporary 1-20 solution to erosion and flooding problems, since the placed material is sacrificial and only offsets existing erosion problems. Although this method requires frequent maintenance,it has few detrimental environmental consequences. Large-scale beach nourishment is often augmented with coastal structures,when there is severe long-term erosion (greater than 3 feet per year, typically). Beach nourishment is usually less expensive than hardened structures; however,should insufficient material sources be unavailable or projects be undertaken by local interests, costs may increase. Beach nourishment is an effective mitigation technique,whether or not combined with coastal structures or inlet dredging and stabilization. At inlets,bypassing of materials from either updrift beaches or channel dredging operations to downdrifl beaches is an effective and feasible solution to reducing downdrift erosion. Beach nourishment -- combined with breakwaters, bulkheads, or groins -- often improves the effectiveness of these structures by introducing additional material to the littoral system. Placement of sand or dredged materials on a beach requires a permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC),who have been hesitant to issue these permits. DEC is concerned about the loss pf productive wetlands if the materials are not placed carefully. In the past,they have required upland placement of the materials. As discussed in Chapter VI,"Implementation Options,'the Town needs to have ongoing coordination with DEC and Suffolk County to determine the best location to*cc dredged materials. A long-term relationship with DEC could allay their concerns about loss of wetlands allow the dredged materials to be returned to the coastal system. Beach scraping augments dune profiles and beach berm widths to provide additional recreational beaches and protection against flooding. The technique consists of removing sand from the nearshore and scraping it up on either the berm or dune. It has been questioned whether beach scraping is an effective means of preventing erosion. Although increasing the volume of the dune profile is a practical way to create additional flood protection, the steepening of the beach face may actually increase erosion and loss of beach material during storms. Beach scraping has also been described as an effective tool for dune building that,when properly conducted,leads to no significant negative impacts. However, it introduces no additional beach material to the system, and its effectiveness in providing protection in eroding areas is therefore limited. Sand fencing and establishment of vegetation are other techniques used to provide additional flood protection by increasing dune volumes. These attempts at dune restoration use wind-driven sediment transport to capture necessary sediments. This approach seems to have been successful at New Suffolk. Since this is an environmentally sound and low-cost effort, many communities undertake dune restoration projects. Increased dune volume protects upland areas from flooding during storm events and reduces beach erosion by acting as reservoirs of additional beach material. Because of frequent erosion of the dune during storm events,the success of dune building projects depends on continued effort and vigilance. A soft engineering solution that is often in conjunction with jetties is sand bypassing. As sand accumulates on the updrift side of the jetty, it is periodically dredged or mined and then placed on the downdrift side of the jetty. Sand bypassing prevents erosion on the downdrift side and large accumulation of sand on the updrift side. The littoral system, if the bypassing is done correctly, stays in equilibrium. Land Use Human activity brings additional forces into the coastal area that often cause erosion. At its simplest,dunes that store sand are stabilized by shallow-rooted vegetation. People walking across the dunes break the root systems, weakening the plants and leading to their destruction. Without the vegetation,the dune is easily eroded and the sand is lost to the beach system. A public beach draws a large number of people who require parking and amenities,such as changing rooms and food supply. These requirements mandate that the shoreline must be managed and not allowed to vary greatly in its width or position. This management can range from restricting times of year when the beach is open to constructing large-scale, hard structures, including groins and breakwaters. Beach nourishment using sand from other areas is an intermediate approach that is often used. Unless large buffer distance is available, residential use creates the same situation. If the shoreline erodes, improvements on a lot, such as houses, become endangered. Some type of shoreline stabilization is demanded to protect homes. Because home owners usually have limited financial resources, stabilization projects taken on by individuals tend to be small. Public use includes roadways,which have public investment and are needed for public 1-21 safety and emergency services. Therefore, large,heavy structures are built to protect the road. These often disrupt the beach system and lead to further erosion which leads to further construction. Commercial activities, such as motels and restaurants,make similar demands and their approach tends to be an intermediate one,between private residential uses and public facilities. Boating,with its need for vertical bulkheads and deep water next to the shore,also affects erosion. In Southold, the marinas'private moorings are in inlets where erosion is not a major concern. However,inlets naturally shoal, close,and change position,none of which are acceptable to boaters and marina owners. Boating leads to the demand for dredging,which has been discussed above. Flood-Prone Areas The danger from large storms is not limited to erosion from wave action; flooding from elevated water levels damages properties,some far inland, As discussed earlier, the maximum water level expected in the Long Island Sound shore of Southold is about 14 feet above MSL,and the IOt year flood level is about 10.7 feet. These levels are lower on the Peconic Bay side. Because of the bluffs,most of the inhabited areas of the Long Island Sound shore are above these elevations. The four exceptions are the mouth of Mattituck Inlet,Goldsmith Inlet to Kenneys Road Beach, Hashamomuck Beach, and Truman Beach. On the Peconic Bay side, much of the shoreline and inlets is subject to flooding. There are fewer areas above flood elevations than areas that are subject to flooding. With the exception of Little Hog Neck, almost all of the shoreline is just about or slightly more than 10 feet above MSL. While most houses do not flood regularly,such areas as Fishermans Beach and Marratooka Point flood several times a year. C. SUMMARY This report describes the evolution of existing coastal landforms and the specific processes that govern the continuouslandforinchanges. Where explanations were necessary,the processes were presented in cause-and-effect relationships--e.g.the relationship between wind and waves and erosion ofbeaches. The section provides a concise frame of beach and water interactions and the physical problems that apply to Southold, as well as the reasons for problem areas. In summary, the primary concerns within the Southold area include long-term and storm-induced beach/dune and bluff erosion, and the flooding and erosion of low-Iying areas associated with storm events. ✓TCapproaches Beaches are composed of loosely compacted sediments,usually sand orgravel. The beach profile shape depends he incident wave energy and sediment size. Beaches are dynamic; most change annually due to varying wave CWates. During the summer months, relatively long-period waves of low height persist, causing the subaerial ove-water)beach to be at its maximum width. As winter approaches,waves become steeper and tend to move erial to an offshore bar that reduces wave energy on the beach face. This offshore movement reduces the aerial beach width,yet represents an equilibrium with the winter storm climate. The cycle is repetitive,as summer with the onshore movement of beach material from the offshore bar. A noteworthy feature of this cycle he change in beach composition from season to season as the finer beach material is more readily transported, ch causes a sandy summertime beach to be primarily cobble during winter months. During storm events, especially on open coasts,this cycle is amplified as larger waves erode the beach face and carry more sediment to an offshore bar. With the attendant increased water levels,waves attack and erode dunes and bluffs, and deposit material offshore. The growing bar in turn reduces the magnitude of wave attack ort the beach face, dunes, and bluffs, thus providing a natural defense system. After the storm, the normal wave climate moves material onshore to the beach and re-establishes the normal seasonal profile. Problems occur when eroded bluff and dune materials are not returned to their pre-storm locations,but only reach elevations of maximum wave uprush on the subaerial beach. During severe storms, beach material is moved beyond the point of sediment motion under normal conditions, which effectively removes the material from the nearshore coastal environment. Dune and bluff erosion occur through these processes, requiring human intervention to mitigate the losses. Glacial bluffs are a prominent feature along the long Island Sound shoreline; understanding the processes that cause bluff recession is critical. These bluffs, which can approach 100 feet, are composed of unconsolidated 1-22 sediment--principalIy cobbles,sand,clay,and,on the top of the bluff,loam. In certain areas,primarily Pettys Cove, the bluff is composed of clay alone.. Roughly 75 percent of these bluffs are vegetated(stable),while the remainder are uncovered and actively eroding(Tanski, 1980). Some bluff areas are estimated to erode at rates as high as 6 feet per year. Erosional sections are mostly storm related and are caused by undercutting of the bluff by waves or tidal currents. Groundwater seepage,overland runoff,vegetation density,and bluff.geometry and composition are other factors that affect bluff erosion. Once bluff erosion is initiated, the bluff steepens beyond a stable value,which is subsequently followed by slope failure and marked recession. Although bluff erosion is complex and difficult to predict,it is easily monitored and readily stabilized through engineered means. These stabilization efforts,however, often fail to recognize the importance of maintaining the bluffs as a component in the littoral environment. In addition, they are expensive to construct and maintain. Bluff erosion is particularly noteworthy along the Southold shorelines,where a high percentage of the total coast is fronted by glacial bluffs. Erosion processes are different from beach and dune erosion because bluffs serve as the major reservoir of sediment along the shoreline. As beaches are inundated and move landward, bluff material is introduced to the littoral environment. This material is then transported alongshore or offshore,resulting in further erosion of the bluff. The continuous process is a natural equilibrium in which the bluff sacrifices a volume of material to the beach to prevent further beach erosion. Unfortunately, bluff erosion (unlike dunes) is permanent, which leads to efforts to stabilize bluff faces against further erosion. The flooding of low-lying areas that results from overtopping of beaches, dunes, and coastal structures occurs along the Peconic Bay shoreline. Although the water elevations can be higher on the Long Island Sound side of Southold than on the Peconic side, more damage usually results on the Peconic side. This is caused by the low elevation of the land on the Peconic Bays. More of the Long Island Sound side is above flood elevations,except for the area immediately around the two inlets and Hashamomuck Beach. Flooding alone causes a significant amount of damage to coastal communities, but also results in the loss of beach material as flood waters carry large volumes of sediments to backshore areas. This problem is particularly severe on barrier beaches and islands,and represents the natural tendency for these systems to move onshore. The continued alongshore movement of sand that is dependent on wave direction and height is superimposed on cross-shore movement of sand on the beach.Gradients in this alongshore movement erode or accrete beaches. Long- term erosion up to 2 feet per year and annual accretion rates of nearly 2 feet have been estimated along the Long island Sound shoreline in Southold (Davies et al., 1973). In general,the shoreline is erosive with sparse accretional shoreline sections. Significant problems occur when littoral material is intercepted by coastal structures or inlets-- e.g., at Goldsmith's and Mattituck Inlets. At Mattituck Inlet, for example, annual updrift shoreline changes reflect roughly 3 feet per year of accretion, and downdrift erosion rates exceed I foot per year. Erosion rates of 6 to 10 feet horizontally have been reported at Goldsmiths Inlet. Downdrift erosion is a particular problem of stabilized inlets and groins and results in steep narrow beaches that are unable to provide necessary storm protection. I-23 C. REACH 2: DUCK POND POINT TO HORTON POINT The bluff is 40 to 60 feet high east of Duck Pond Point for about 7,500 feet. About 2,000 feet of vabous bulkheads have been built along the stretch. The bluff them drops to about 20 to 40 feet high, and tllm inland just west of Goldsmith Inlet. The stretch of shoreline known as Kennys Beach is probably a boymouth barrier landform which formed during the Holocene across the embayment between Duck Pond Point and Horton Point headlands. A single jetty was built at Goldsmith Inlet in 1964 by New York State and Suffolk County. It was part of a Suffolk County plan for a marina in the pond, but the marina was never built and the inlet is not navigable. In fact,it is not a true inlet where tidal flow in two directions can be observed,but rather an outlet from the pond directly to the Sound. Although it has been suggested it would probably close except that the Town dredges it yearly for the sand, examination of historical maps and photos suggests it remained open prior to jetty construction. Furthermore,.given Goldsmith's pond appears to be slightly higher than the Sound,the head difference should be sufficient to maintain the outlet. The shoreline west of the jetties has accreted sand to the jetty tip. It is unknown if sand is now bypassing to the downdrift shoreline or if it is deflected offshore by the jetty. The shoreline to the east does not receive sufficient sand and is eroding, despite construction of several groins and bulkheads. The problem is most severe between the Inlet and Kennys Beach, where oversized groins further disrupt the littoral drift and may cause the sand to be lost offshore. The low dunes in this reach do not store sufficient sand to compensate for the accelerated erosion. The easternmost stretch has not experienced much erosion;according to long-time residents,it has actually accreted sand. Horton Point protrudes far enough into Long Island Sound to provide protection from most storms. The angle of Horton Point makes waves diffract around it,weakening their energy before they break on the neighboring shoreline. D. REACH 3: HORTON POINT TO ROCKY POINT Conditions along Reach 3 are variable. While portions of the shoreline are dynamically stable,others remain unstable,causing damage to several houses. At Horton Point,the bluff is high,and the shoreline has smoothed out over the past 60 years. Although some erosion has occurred, there has been no property damage. After about 4,500 feet,there are protective shoreline structures even though the high bluff continues for about another 3,000 feet. Various types of structure and building materials have been used in this 3,000- foot length of shoreline west of Town Beach,but observation suggests they have either been ineffectual or increased erosion. Town Beach has been eroding;to the east,the shoreline has experienced severe erosion. The December 1994 storm led to condemnation of two houses,and County Road 48 is threatened in several areas. Erosion may have been aggravated by the groin on the west. About 7,000 feet east of Town Beach, the bluffs reemerge and the shoreline is generally stable through Inlet Point. Because Inlet Pond sits between the bluffs and Long Island Sound,exceptionally high tides can result in water overwashing the beach at Inlet Point. From Horton Point to Inlet Point,the predominate drift direction is from west to east. The bluffs are very steep from Inlet Point to Rocky Point,and the beaches are generally stable and very rocky. E. REACH 4: ROCKY POINT TO ORIENT POINT The first 4,000 feet of Reach 4 extends almost due east-west and has a steep bluff. This very rocky area has been fairly stable. Bluffs give way to a smooth embayment that includes Truman Beach; East Marion Orient Park--an area that has eroded over the years--is to the east. From Terry Point to Mulford Point,the shoreline is rocky and backed by a steep bluff.The area from Mulford Point to Orient Point,known as Pettys Bight,has recently experienced severe erosion. Although no erosion problems were reported for 30 to 40 years,the five major storms in the 1990's have caused large-scale erosion. The area around Orient Point also narrowed during these storms. F. REACH 5: ORIENT POINT TO YOUNGS POINT(GREENPORT) H-2 Like all of the Bay side shoreline,Reach 5 has a wide range of erosion potential and causes. Orient Point is fully open to Gardiners Bay and experiences waves similar to those on the Long Island Sound shoreline. The beach is all stone and cobbles,with three rock groins between the Orient Point ferry slips and Orient Point. Orient and Long Beaches,west of the ferries,are also fully exposed to Gardiners Bay. They form a long spit extending west-southwest. The roadway was damaged on several occasions during storms, aid breached during the December 14, 1994 storm,and now lies in pieces under water. The roadway has OW been rebuilt north of its old location. The beach is a mixture of rock and sand, except at the public bathing areas,where it is all sand. There are about 10 groins in various state of repair along the beach,where pre4orninate direction of littoral drift is from east to west. Long Beach Point is reported to change its orientation from season to season. The spit protects Long Beach Bay,which is lined with intertidal marshes. Long Beach Bay is not exposed to wave-generated erosion, but some tidal currents have affected the shoreline. A channel was dredged and.lben lined with bricks to give access around Peters Neck and Browns Point. Although it has changed the circulation pattern, it does not seem to have caused erosion. Orient Harbor is an open bay,protected by Long Beach on the southeast and Shelter Island on the southwest from waves of Gardiners Bay. Between the end of King Street and Peters Neck Point,there are almost 20 groins along the beach,where the predominate direction of littoral drift is south. Predominate drift direction changes to the north near King Street. A number of groins,bulkheads,and the Orient Yacht Club pier Iine the shoreline up to the tidal marshes at the head of Orient Bay; the shoreline is then armored with stone to protect the road. Land is less than 1,000 feet wide in this area. At Dam Pond,there are only two thin strands of land,Truman Beach and Main Road. Shoreline from-Dam Pond to Spring Pond is lined with more than 20 groins and many bulkheads; predominate direction of littoral drift is from northeast to southwest. The mouth of Spring Pond is kept open by a pair of jetties. Shoreline from Gull Pond to Cleaves Point contains many erosion-control structures. Gull Pond Inlet was first dredged in 1959, when 177,200 cubic yards of sand were removed. It is dredged about every 10 years; about 20,000 to 25,000 cubic yards of sand are removed. It's position is stabilized by jetties. Overall, Orient Harbor is heavily protected by structures. Although Orient Harbor is only a little wider than 2 miles,wave action is sufficient to be the main cause of erosion and beach movement. Tidal currents are important in shaping shoreline around Peters Neck and Long Beach Points. The stretch of coast from Cleaves Point past Gull Pond to Youngs Point is well protected by Shelter Island and does not experience high wave action. However,the shoreline is heavily protected with structures of various types. Direction of sand movement seems to be from east to west,but can be highly variable. At the mouth of Gull Inlet,tidal currents result in the formation of shoals,both inside and just outside the inlet. These shoals act as a sink for sand,removing it from the beach system. 11-3 G. REACH 6: FANNING POINT TO FOUNDERS LANDING Pipes Cove spans Fanning Point to Conkling Point. Tucked behind Shelter Island,the cove is about 5,000 feet wide. The two sides of the cove are protected by structures, and the head is the mouth of two creeks,Moores Drain and drainage for Arshamonaque. There are tidal wetlands at the mouth of the creeks and freshwater wetlands farther inland. The beaches have been fairly stable,overwashing during storms but buiWing back fairly rapidly. The highly developed land along the east side of Conkling Point is protected by bulkheads for its whole length,and almost 20 groins have been built along this shoreline. Because of the bulkheads and limited wave fetch, movement of sand is predominantly controlled by currents, although storms move sand depending on the wind direction. The general direction of drift is north on the north half of the shoreline and south on the south half. Conkling Point itself has been accreting sand and has expanded southwest. The west side of Conkling Point, facing Brick Cove, is also heavily bulkheaded with more than 15 groins. At the northwest end,the shoreline turns toward an east-west orientation. There are basins near the turn, which were initially dredged in 1959 (163,900 cubic yards) and re-dredged in 1963 (129,200 cubic yards). They are protected by stone and metal jetties. Just west of these basins,Mill Creek—the entrance to Hashamomuck Pond and currently the entrance to the Port of Egypt marina--has been dredged regularly since 1963. The old entrance on the west side of the marina at Budds Pond has been closed off, and the channel through the offshore bar in front of Port of Egypt is maintained by dredging. This area is open to waves from the south across Southold Bay,which has a 10,000 foot fetch,allowing for waves as high as 3 or 4 feet. Storm waves and tidal currents at the inlets have led to erosion,but structures and dredging have been the major forces in shaping the current shoreline. At Budds Pond,the shoreline has a north-south orientation. Predominate direction of littoral drift is south, and the shore is open to waves from the east. These waves can reach 3 to 4 feet in height. The shoreline is heavily bulkheaded with almost 20 groins,and Biexedon Creek mouth is protected by two large jetties. H. REACH 7: FOUNDERS LANDING TO INDIAN NECK The confluence of Town and Jockey Creeks at Harpers Point has complex tidal currents and is exposed to waves from the east. The mouth of the creeks has been dredged for many years, further complicating the situation. A barrier spit has protected the mouth since at least 1870,with the channel on the east end. The spit is connected to the shore just north of Goose Creek,which is part of the tidal complex. Several groins were constructed at the east end of the spit to prevent sand from depositing in the channel and to hold the spit in place. The groins have deteriorated over time and have not been replaced. In the past, erosion of the spit was mitigated by placement of dredged material from the channel,however,lack of sand placement in the past decade has left the spit in a severely eroded condition. As the spit erodes, Harpers Point is exposed to increasing wave action. A channel into Jockey Creek has been dredged immediately along the lee side of the spit,and when waves overtop the shoal,sand is carried landward into the channel. As this sand is removed by dredging it is disposed off-site thus preventing self maintenance of the spit through natural processes. Shape of the shoreline is controlled to a large degree by dredging and tidal currents,but east winds, which cause westward traveling waves,contribute to erosion of the area. The north shore of Great Hog Neck is open to waves from a north and northeast storm. The shoreline is heavily bulkheaded. Small boat basins have been dredged into Great Hog Neck. The predominant direction of littoral drift appears to be to the east. According to baymen,tidal currents run east during both the flood and ebb. This could be caused by a tidal gyre setting up in Southold Bay. Tidal currents appear to be causing elongation of Paradise Point. Between Paradise and Cedar Beach Points,Cedar Beach is open to waves across Shelter Island Sound. The shoreline is bulkheaded and has about 20 groins protecting it. The shoreline appears to be eroding due to wave action. However,some accretion is occurring around Cedar Beach Point,and tidal currents at Cedar Beach Creek form shoals around its mouth. The south shore of Great Hog Neck is open to waves from the II-4 south across Little Peconic Bay, a distance of 30,000 feet. Although winds from the south typically blow in the summer and are usually low speed,occasionally a storm can cause high winds from the south. The shoreline is bulkheaded and has more than 40 groins,especially towards the east end of this stretch. Corey Creek ends the south side of Great Hog Neck,and Richmond Creek is at the head of Hog Neck Bay. These form the apex of the bay, which is open to waves traveling towards the northwest. Similar to waves that affect Cedar Beach, these are normally small,but storms can generate erosion-causing waves. Corey Creek was first dredged in 1963-1964 (345,600 cubic yards) and has been maintenance dredged regularly since. Richmond Creek was first dredged in 1959(123,000 cubic yards)and is regularly dredged. Dredged materials have been used for various purposes and placed in different locations. In January 1995, about 20,000 cubic yards was dredged and mounded on the beach at Emerson Park. The dredged material was bnlldozed into surrounding vegetated areas to smooth it out. Bars at the creek mouths overwash during storms, but normally rebuild quickly. Tidal currents form shoals inside and outside of the creek mouths. nelging, storm waves, and tidal currents are the major forces shaping the shoreline. ,r.. REACH 8: INDIAN NECK TO DOWNS CREEK ot, ?' 0 The shoreline curves around Indian Neck to a north/south orientation along __Little Hog Neck. This curve is interrupted by one inlet at Little Creek that is dredged yearly. Shoreline from the public beach south to Nassau Point is bulkheaded along its whole length with many groins. This shoreline is backed by a very steep bluff that quickly rises to more than 50 feet. This bluff has eroded in places from groundwater seeps that are not associated with coastal erosion. Fetch across Hog Neck Bay to Jesup Neck is about 20,000 feet, and waves come directly from the east. Direction of littoral drift is very sensitive to wave direction and can reverse many times during a year. According to baymen,the tidal current along this shoreline always sets towards the south. Nassau Point seems to be elongating in response to littoral drift and the tidal current. The west side of Little Hog Neck is punctuated by two natural inlets for Hog Creek and one dredged basin. The shoreline is not as steep and high as the east side. South of the Hog Creek inlets, the land rises to about 20 feet. From the inlets north,the land is low lying. The shore is open to waves from the southwest, but Robins Island provides shelter. The coast is protected by a number of bulkheads and groins. Meadow Beach, which is a Nature Conservancy preserve, is a small blunt spit enhanced by placement of dredged materials. The small boat channel between Meadow Beach and Little Hog Neck was dredged, but has generally maintained its depth without additional dredging. According to local residents, Meadow Beach has not eroded for at least the past thirty years. North of Meadow Beach spit, an inlet serves as the mouth of three creeks, East Creek, Mud Creek, and Baywater/Broadwater Coves. This inlet was first dredged in 1966 (434,000 cubic yards) and now is maintenance dredged every one to two years. The beach on the west side lengthens to the east and into the channel, requiring dredging. The channel used to run in front of Fishermans Beach,but now runs straight out from the inlet. A large shoal,not attached to the shoreline,has formed on the west side of the channel, and a smaller shoal,attached to Fishermans Beach, is forming. Beaches on either side of the inlet regularly over-wash and houses flood. Observation suggests the beaches have eroded back about 20 feet in the past 20 years. Fleets Neck shoreline is exposed to waves traveling west/northwest from little Peconic Bay. It is bulkheaded, and the beach is primarily fashioned from placement of dredged materials. Bluffs behind the beach rise to about 50 feet. Wickham Creek was first dredged in 1966 (48,300 cubic yards) and is now dredged regularly. Between Wickham Creek and Schoolhouse Creek, the shoreline is partially bulkheaded with heavier bulkheading towards Wickham Creek. This shoreline is open to waves coming from the east across Cutchoque Harbor. Schoolhouse Creek is dredged occasionally. Sand accretes in the vicinity of New Suffolk Marina and Robbins Island ferry slip,which is dredged yearly. The groin for the New Suffolk point was recently rebuilt,and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has installed a sand trapping system. Town Beach is open to waves from the south coming across Great Peconic Bay, a distance of about II-5 I 37,000 feet. According to local residents, however, the beach has not eroded, but has been stable. The shoreline is backed by a low bluff. Based on the spit at Kimogener Point,littoral drift is generally from east to west. West Creek was dredged in 1966(92,500 cubic yards)and is dredged regularly. At least since the 1950's,the shoreline from West Creek to Downs Creek has been eroding except when dredged materials have bm Idowd on k, Several deteriorating groins are located along this beach. J. REACH 9: DOWNS CREEK TO THE TOWN LM The reach is fully open to Great Peconic Bay,and the shorciine is shaped by two large embayments or bights(gentle concave curve between two points). The first bi&N is between Kimogener and Marratooka points, a distance of about 6,000 feet,and the second between N(arratooka and Brushs Points, a distance of about 16,000 feet. Based on an open water fetch of 32,500 feet across Great Peconic Bay,a hurricane force wind(75 miles per hour)can generate waves up to 4 to 5 feet high. This wave height is limited because the bay is only 20 to 25 feet deep. Shallow water retards wave growth. Downs Creek is not regularly dredged and shoals form at its mouth. Placement of dredged materials from Halls and Deep Hole Creeks provide sand,that is shifted by wave and current action. Since the 1950's, six groins have been built between Downs and Halls Creeks. Bulkheading started in the 1920's, and the shoreline is now heavily bulkheaded. Halls Creek was first privately dredged in the 1920's. In 1965, deep channels were dredged from Halls and Deep Hole Creeks(243,000 cubic yards)to a joint channel about ''/s- mile offshore. The channels are maintenance dredged regularly with the sand placed on the beaches. The spit in front of Deep Hole Creek is accreting towards the east,indicating a west to east general littoral drift. Between the two creeks, two deteriorated groins do not prevent erosion of the shoreline. Shoreline between Deep Hole and James Creeks is heavily bulkheaded with many groins. Predominate direction of littoral drift is west to east. The mouth of James Creek is protected by jetties,with the west jetty built in the 1940's. When the channel was first dredged in the 1940's,a layer of cohesive peat and clay acted as a jetty on the east side of the channel to a certain extent. This layer has been eroded, and a shoal formed in the channel,about 300 feet into the creek. During the 1950's when no eastern jetty existed, the eastern shore eroded back about 1,000 feet. In 1964 two jetties were built on the east side to stabilize the channel and shoreline. As a result, the western shoreline at the mouth of lames Creek extends about 1,000 feet bayward,more than the eastern shoreline. The channel is dredged about every three years, and dredged material is normally placed on the eastern shoreline. The western jetty is usually filled with sand. Between James and Brushs Creeks,the shoreline is heavily bulkheaded with about 70 groins. Brushs Creek was first dredged in 1966(86,400 cubic yards)and is maintenance dredged regularly. The dredged material is placed on either side of the inlet depending on erosion. Shoreline between Brushs Creek and the town line is heavily bulkheaded and has about 10 groins. K. REACH 10: FISHERS ISLAND Because of its location,land use patterns,and geology,erosion at Fishers Island is very different from the rest of Southold. The island is mostly elevated and rocky,having been part of the Harbor Hill recessional moraine. Very few erosion protective structures have been built along the shoreline, although in a few locations unusual methods have been tried,such as insitu cementing of beach cobbles. The south side of the island is exposed to Block Island Sound,although the narrow opening at the Race acts as a constriction on the wave energy striking the island. The bluffs have been eroded and adjacent beaches reflect the composition of the glacial material after wave action winnows out the finer particles. The beaches are made up mostly of cobble to boulder size material(approximately 3 inches or larger in size),with a veneer of sand covering coarser materials during summer months. This situation has minimized ongoing erosion. The houses have been built on the bluffs and set back from the edge. Erosion of the bluff is a problem on the Navy property. Likewise, bluff erosion is a problem in other locations where houses have been sited too close to the edge and/or surface drainage has accelerated bluff erosion. For most of the south side of the island erosion is not a problem. 11-6 The north side of Fishers Island faces Connecticut, approximately 2%:miles across Fishers Island Sound. This side experiences much lower wave energy and high elevations so that houses are not endangered by erosion. However,several houses in West Harbor have been built in a low-lying area,and home owners have built groins for protection. These structures appear to have had some success. II-7 CHAPTER III. COMMON MANAGEMENT UNITS A. INTRODUCTION Although the Town of Southold's shoreline is highly variable because various coastal processes are shaping different glacial landforms,certain commonalities emerge. Natural common elements relate to wave exposure, proximity to tidal inlets, bluff height and stability, and flooding. Human elements include land use, lot size and shape, marine-related activity supported in the area, and already constructed erosion measures. When these factors are combined, they form common management units where certain coastal processes are dominant, and certain erosion protection policies are most applicable. Figure III-1 presents the common management units. On the Peconic Bay shoreline,these units overlap, and joint policies need to be considered. On both shorelines,particularly on the Peconic Bay side of Southold,the boundaries are not definitive,and further study is required to precisely characterize the unit and define its boundaries. B. LONG ISLAND SOUND COAST Three common management units make up the Long Island Sound coast of Southold;these are: areas directly affected by jetties,areas of low bluffs and dunes,and areas of high bluffs. These features are shown in Figure II-3 and II-4. Jetty Areas Jetties at Mattituck and Goldsmiths Inlets dominate coastal processes and responses in the area. Although it does not affect coastal processes,the fact that Mattituck Inlet is navigable is an important policy consideration. Mattituck Inlet supports a strong,thriving maritime community dependent on navigating the inlet. Goldsmiths Inlet is not navigable and does not support any type of human activity. From field observations and map studies, direct effects of Mattituck Inlet are felt at least 1 mile west and 3/<of a mile east. On the west, sand has been trapped by the jetty, and the shoreline has built seaward. The west jetty appears close to completely full, and sand is being lost, either offshore or into the channel. As long as the jetty is functioning, the west side of Mattituck Inlet will be protected from erosion. However, sand that would help erosion on the east side of the jetty is being lost into the channel and offshore. The east side of the jetty has experienced severe erosion and loss of dunes. As discussed in Chapter I,these dunes act as sand "banks;" during severe storms; sand is excavated by waves and deposited on the beach to help it recover. However, dunes east of the jetty are now much reduced in size and far landward of the beach. They may no longer act as"banks." The two jetties and channel intercept the flow of littoral drift and hold sand on the west side of the inlet. The major factor limiting the extent of downdrift erosion is the presence of Oregon Hills,which act as a large sand source feeding beaches further downdrift(east). Maps do not indicate a large degree of erosion of Oregon Hills. The beach between the east j etty and Oregon Hills has eroded because of the lack of sand. Some sand has been added to the beach,both by natural by-passing and human activity. Maps show that the beach has responded by flattening its slope. This means that added sand has not moved the normal high water line further seaward,but the added sand is being redeposited offshore, creating a shallow beach. This process will not rebuild dunes until sand in the shadow of the jetty is exposed to air where wind can blow sand landward. The single jetty at Goldsmiths Inlet does not have an updrift (west) effect as large as at Mattituck because it is shorter. Updrift influence is evident for about '/, mile. Downdrift (east) effects are more apparent because of the low elevation of the land. Unlike the high bluffs of Oregon Hills, Horton Lane Beach and the adjacent upland is low lying,typical of a barrier landform. The effects of Goldsmiths Inlet jetty is observable for more than I%x miles downdrift. Horton Lane Beach regularly erodes and requires III-1 replenishment. Erosion protection policies are discussed in the next chapter,but the major factor in applying them in vicinity of the jetties is downdrifZ erosion. Methods should be applied wherever possible to have sand bypass the jetties. Bypassing has the double advantage of preventing sand from being lost offshore and supplying it immediately to an area prone to erosion. Areas of Low Bluffs and Dunes Areas of low bluffs and dunes include Horton Lane Beach(discussed above),Hashamomuck Beach, and Pettys Bight. These areas are characterized by lack of high bluffs. High bluffs on the Long Island shore of Southold tend to be more than 40 feet high,while low bluffs are typically less than 20 feet high. Some dunes may be found behind the beach. In Pettys Bight,the bluff is generally less than 20 feet high. To a certain degree, these areas also coincide with small building lots. These lots tend to be narrow and deep, allowing houses to be set back from erosion danger. Dunes around the inlets and near Hashamomuck Beach are the only place on Southold's Long Island Sound coast where flooding occurs landward of the shoreline. Excluding jetties at the two inlets, few shore protection structures are found on Southold's Long Island Sound coast,but they are found along these areas. Each structure has been built to protect a single lot or small area, and no overall plan has been developed. Along low bluffs and dunes, structures should only be allowed when a house on a beach is in danger, and no other alternative will save the house. One alternative to be considered entails moving the house. The policy recommendations in the next chapter for set backs and native seaside vegetative plantings are especially applicable in these areas. Areas of High Bluffs High bluffs constitute much of Southold's Long Island Sound coast. The bluffs are from 40 feet to nearly 100 feet high and consist of unconsolidated sediment. The sediment ranges from clay to sand and gravel to huge boulders. These bluffs are the source of sand and gravel that form Southold's beaches. They are very important in determining the shoreline erosion rate. Few erosion protection structures are found in areas of high bluffs. Lack of structures has allowed the shoreline to erode very slowly. If hard structures are built in these areas,this dynamic would change. The hard structures would cause an overall increase in the rate of erosion as the shoreline tries to come into equilibrium with the loss of sand source. Presence of clay lenses within a bluff can be a problem. The only area with large clay lenses is Pettys Bight (a low bluff area),but some are also found in high bluffs. Clay layers can accelerate bluff erosion. Clay tends to be impervious to water,and water migrates along its upper surface. If a large source of water, such as a septic system for a restaurant,is located above the clay,water will flow out to the bluff face. This creates a wet area where internal water pressure can be greater than friction holding sediment together. When this happens, the sediment slips causing a bluff slump. C. PECONIC BAY SIDE OF SOUTHOLD Coastal dynamics of the Peconic Bay side of Southold are more varied than the Long Island Sound side. As described more fully in Chapter H, many inlets, marshes, varying wave exposures, and opposing tidal currents characterize the shoreline. Generally four common management units emerge: creek mouths; wave exposed shorelines;wave protected shorelines;and flood prone areas. Certain locations may have two of these characteristics, and therefore policy decisions will involve weighing management objectives. An example is Fishermans Beach,which floods regularly and is at the outlet of three creeks. 11I-2 Creek Mouths Creek mouths act as a funnel for tidal currents,speeding water flow and carrying sediment in and out of the creeks. When the current reaches wider areas inside and outside of the mouth,the current slows down and sediment is deposited. These deposits form shoals around the creek. Almost all of the creeks are used for navigation, and the shoals need to be dredged to provide sufficient navigation depth. Use of dredged materials is the key management objective in these areas. This dredged sand is a valuable resources that needs to be used wisely to prevent erosion and to build beaches. The most beneficial use of sand varies from inlet to inlet,and will vary at the same inlet indifferent years. Each decision concerning where to place sand will depend on the history of storms that most recently affected the inlet. Within this management unit,the length of jetties to stabilize the inlets is important. At James Creek, the west jetty is 200 feet long while the east jetty is 50 feet long. This length has stabilized an offset inlet with the west side seaward of the east side. The east side erodes and requires periodic beach fill while the west side has trapped sand. When jetties are proposed or reconstructed,careful thought about relative length and placement is required. Exposed Shores The Peconic Bay Side of Southold has several shores exposed to waves coming across Great Peconic r log Neck Bay,and Gardiners Bay. For the most part,these shorelines have been heavily protected with eads and groins(see Figure II-6). The low lying nature of some shoreline and easily eroded sediment bluffs led to early use of erosion protection structures. Because so much of these shores have been ted by erosion-control structures,the few remaining unprotected lots are eroding. Therefore, it would y difficult to refuse permission to one homeowner to protect property when all the surrounding houses bulkheads. However, standard designs can be developed that will minimize effects on updrift and drift properties. Groins are particularly common and should be thought of as groin fields, not as dual groins. As an example, an eight-groin field had been installed and worked well. When a ninth -- longer and 2 feet higher than the existing groins--was installed, erosion ensued and the groin field no longer functioned properly. When a groin field is designed as a whole, specific lengths,heights, angles, and spacing can be developed so that all groins act as a unit and provide the most benefit to all property owners. Protected Shores Protected shores include Hallock Bay, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point, and parts of Southold Bay and Cutchoque Harbor. These areas are also heavily protected with bulkheads and some groins. Flooding has led to most of the bulkhead construction. A bulkhead with backfill allows a house to be raised above the flood plain. In these areas,granting of permits should not be automatic,especially for groins. Wave action is the major cause of erosion, but groins can exacerbate wave effects. Therefore, the use of non-structural measures should be analyzed first. In many cases,beach filling can solve or at least ameliorate the problem. To accomplish this, cooperation among neighbors and with DEC will be required. People most affected would have to jointly allow beach filling across all of their properties. If one neighbor objected and did not allow new sand to be placed on their property,beach filling may not function as well as it could. In addition EC and the Corps.of Engineers will need to allow the beach filling project. Long-term coordination among the Town, DEC, and Suffolk County is required so that dredged material is reintroduced into the littoral system and used to ameliorate erosion problems. If non-structural solutions are not feasible, a structural solution to problems should be considered provided it is clearly defined how the structure will mitigate the problem and what its potential impacts are. The problem that the structure would solve should be clearly defined. I N� Flood-Prone Areas III-3 Many areas on the Peconic Bay side of Southold are flood-prone. The problem with flooding is not the physical process itself, which is an inconvenience, but the damage to houseshouses anith property. ro bulkheads.. With traditional method of preventing damage has been to protect property and backfill behind the bulkheads,this approach raises the ground out of the floodplain. Another method used in other areas,and recommended by the National Flood insurance Program(NFIP),consists of building the house on piles with the 1 st floor above flood level. When a flood occurs,the water goes under the house but does not damage it. Installing breakaway walls below flood level is an important component. Limiting the number of stories in a house could satisfy building appearance concerns. While this method would not work for existing houses already protected by bulkheads (unless those bulkheads are not sufficient to prevent damage from the 100 year flood),it would work for new houses. It is recommended that all property owners in areas subject to flooding purchase NFIP flood insurance and that Southold participate in the Community Rating System to reduce homeowner premiums. 1114 CHAPTER IV. PROPOSED EROSION MANAGEMENT POLICIES A. PREAMBLE Southold's shoreline is more than 26 linear miles long,and when the embayments,inlets,and spits are included, the coast stretches to approximately 175 miles. This diverse shoreline attracts a wide variety of human and natural activities. Almost 1,000 acres of protected tidal wetlands and more than 1,400 acres of shellfish beds are encompassed in this coastal area. Miles of beaches and shore parkland attract visitors and residents. Homes and summer houses line the shore. Marine businesses, including fishing, shell fishing, transportation,recreational boating,and construction, are vital to the economic well being of Southold and its residents. To stabilize and protect these shores for personal and public uses,myriad structures have been built over a period spanning many years. These include groins,jetties,bulkheads, and revetments. To improve navigation for both business and pleasure, channels have been dredged through the inlets, and dredged materials used to make new land. Each construction project took place with a view to achieving its own goals, whether protection of one landowner's beach and upland property or the creation of a navigable channel for a particular marina. These projects were often undertaken without regard to overall effects on coastal processes. Dredging and building of jetties at Mattituck Inlet have served the marina businesses and boaters well, but have led to loss of beach east of the inlet. In other instances, shore protection structures have protected one property owner,but have damaged neighbors'properties. One of the main purposes of the coastal erosion policies is to ensure that consequences of building an erosion control structure are understood before construction. Erosion control structures often contribute to erosion both on- and off-site due to poor design and siting. Increased erosion,aesthetic impairments,loss of public recreational resources,loss of habitats,and water quality degradation can result from poorly placed or designed erosion control structures. Cumulative impact of a number of individual structures can be even more damaging. Therefore,the purpose and function of erosion control structures must be defined,and the consequences and potential impacts,both on-and off- site, need to be analyzed,before permission is granted for building a structure. As discussed earlier,the number and type of erosion control structures differ greatly between long Island Sound and Peconic Bay shores. On the Long Island Sound shore, few structures have been built and bluffs back almost all of its length,preventing flooding. The Peconic Bay coast has been hardened by many structures,and long lengths of it are low in elevation and prone to flooding. Therefore,proposals for erosion control structures on these two shores of Southold need to be evaluated separately. The Long Island Sound shoreline generally has few structures and houses are well above flooding elevation. Hard engineering solutions should be minimized whenever feasible, and where erosion has recently become a problem, such as Pettys Bight, a soft solution should be encouraged. Soft solutions include setbacks from the top of bluff orhigh-water-line,relocation of existing structures whenever possible, creation of natural vegetative buffers,and beach restoration. However,in certain situations,combined hard and soft solutions may be required where houses or public properties are in imminent danger and soft solutions cannot be applied. In areas of high public use, such as Horton Lane Beach, beach filling should be used to maintain recreation values. If erosion threatens property downdrift of the two sets of jetties,sand bypassing or off-shore mining of sand should be considered to nourish downdrift beaches. With existing heavy construction along the Peconic Bay shore, rebuilding existing structuresJ building of new structures will be required into the foreseeable future. Unprotected properties adjace hard structures could erode and be subjected to damaging floods. However,permits should not be gra automatically. Before granting a permit,sound engineering analysis of the effects of the individual stru within the surrounding structures, such as whole groin fields, is necessary. Soft solutions, such as udredged materials for beach fill,should be the preferred approach and always included as an alternative.soft solutions'inability to achieve acceptable erosion mitigation goals must be demonstrated before gra IV-1 permission for the structure. Very often,a combined solution will work best. For example,under the right ` circumstances installation of a carefully designed groin field using dredged materials to fill between groins could provide a very satisfactory solution that functions well for a number of years. For both shores of Southold,whole reach or length of similar processes'analyses should be required. Consideration must go beyond a single structure or a single piece of property, and the effect updrift and downdrift on properties should be evaluated. Because such an evaluation covers multiple pieces of property, the burden of the study cannot fall onto an individual property owner; it is the responsibility of organized groups of property owners and the Town and the Board of Trustees. As discussed in Chapter V,removing and rebuilding whole groin fields should be considered. This approach would go beyond ameliorating a single person's problem. Further,by considering whole shoTchne reaches at a time,an entire community's problem could be addressed. Appendix A contains text of Policy 5 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion from the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Plan. Proposed Policy 5 of Southold's Local Waterfront Revitalization Plan follows the same format. The following section discusses each policy standard specifically for Southold and how to apply each standard. These standards address Southold's specific conditions including erosion hazards,flood prone areas,and existing site conditions. The application cites existing regulations and recommends changes in regulations to meet standards in the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Plan,where applicable, for the Town of Southold. N-2 B. POLICY STANDARDS Standard Setting Priorities for Erosion Control Structures and Reflecting State Laws. 5.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards by using the following management measures which are presented in order of priority: A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have an reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. Use vegetative measures to Increase protective capacities of natural pprotective features at every opportunity. C. Enhance existing natural protective features and processes and use non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing erosion. D. Use hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where: 1. Avoidance of the hazard is not appropriate because a structure is: functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters; located in an area of extensive public investment; or reinforces the role of Maritime Centers or Areas for Concentrated Development. 2. Vegetative approaches to controlling erosion are not effective. 3. Enhancement of natural protective features would not prove practical In providing erosion protection. 4. Construction of a hard structure is the only practical design consideration and is essential to protecting the principal use. 5. The proposed hard structural erosion protection measures are: a. limited to the minimum scale necessary b. based on sound engineering practices 6. Practical vegetative methods have been included in the project design and implementation. 7. Adequate mitigation is provided and maintained to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or to natural coastal processes and natural resources and, if undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs. The purpose of these standards is to establish a hierarchy of approaches to erosion protection and to incorporate New York State laws and regulations into local codes. The Town of Southold has already incorporated requirements of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (Chapter 37 of the Town Code) and the Floodplain Management Acts(Chapter 46 of the Town Code)into its local codes. These amendments allow no permanent structures in the coastal hazard area where housing would be destroyed and lives endangered by wave action and high water levels. These areas are located primarily along the low bluffs and dunes on Southold's Long Island Sound coast. Flood plain management requires that habitable space be located above the 100 year floodplain. On the Peconic side it is recommended that the code specifically include building on piles rather than using bulkheads. For the property owner, raising the building rather than the ground would be less expensive. A bulkhead that could affect nearby neighbors would not be required. The hierarchy to erosion control measures given above has not been officially adopted, and it is recommended that it be included in the application requirements for a waterfront construction permit. Each applicant would have to demonstrate why the structure(building)cannot be located or relocated outside of a flooding or erosion area;why vegetative or other non-structural measures would not protect the applicant's structure; why natural protective features are not sufficient protection,before a permit could be granted for a groin or bulkhead. These measures should be included in both the Board of Trustees by-laws and in the Town of Southold Building Code. As discussed in Chapter III,using this hierarchy is particularly important on Southold's Long Island Sound high bluff areas and needs to be seriously considered everywhere. IV-3 Standard on Natural Protective Features 5.2 Preserve and restore natural protective features. Specifically,Section 100-239.4 of the Town Code should be amended so that the set back be 150 feet from the top of bluff or mean high water,whichever is more landward,on the Long Island Sound side. The same distance should be used on the Peconic Bay side where the shore has not been bulkheaded. Additionally,vegetation that retains soils cannot be removed beyond 75 feet from the top of bluff or mean high water, whichever is more landward. The only exceptions include accessory structures for changing clothing,of less than 100 square feet that could be located between the 75-foot vegetative buffer and the 150- foot setback. Many of the residences and buildings on the Peconic Bay side of Southold are subject of water damage and flooding. The Town's building code recognizes these dangers and has incorporated the applicable standards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Uniform Building Code. These standards need to be vigorously enforced. As discussed above,the use of pile supported structures, rather than building bulkheads,could limit structural damage without the drawbacks of bulkheads. In addition, the amount of debris that can break loose during a storm needs to be limited. The Town Code should have a requirement for recovering and cleaning up debris after a storm. This includes walkways, docks, piers, and other structures that were dislodged during the storm. These materials could cause further damage to other buildings, especially if a second storm closely follows the first. The requirement would include posting a bond when the structure is built. Marinas and other water-dependent users tend to locate in the protected creeks on the Peconic Bay side and in the two inlets on the Long Island Sound side of Southold. On the Long Island Sound side, three sites are zoned resort/residential and one site zoned MR. The ME site is no longer used and an undermined ramp remains from a fishing station. On the Peconic Bay side, Orient Point is zoned MR for the ferries. Areas zoned as marinas are located in Orient Harbor,Cleves Point,Mills Creek area(2),Town Creek, and New Suffolk. Four areas zoned resort/residential are also found on the Peconic Bay side. Fishers Island contains two MII zones, and the rest of its shoreline is zoned residential. The marine-zoned areas should allow only water-dependent uses, such as marinas, fishing stations, and boat repair yards. The areas zoned resort/residential should be encouraged to develop as commercial ventures with public access. Non-water- dependent uses in these zones,such as restaurants,should be sited to allow the maximum possible use of the waterfront by the water-dependent uses. Siting the non-water-dependent uses near the road and sharing parking with the water-dependent uses will help accomplish the maximization of water-dependent uses. Residential use prevents public access,and many resort type uses,such as conference centers and restaurants, provide water-enhanced experiences for the users. B. Manage stabilized inlets to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes. All inlets in Southold need improved management. In particular,sand trapped in the inlets should be sWgvd a valuable resource vital to the long-term health of adjacent coastal systems. Accordingly,every @rt dm*W be made to ensure that dredged materials are placed on adjacent beaches in the zone of active sapd movement. At those inlets stabilized by jetties,sand bypassing should be considered to restore natural longshore sand transport and natural beach conditions. Sand bypassing could be as simple as routine dredging and placetnent of sand on downdrift beaches,or shortening of existing jetties,to more complex floating or fixed bypassing plants working routinely at the inlet. The need for bypassing is particularly evident on Long Island Sound inlets. Standard on Expenditure of Public Funds for Flooding and Erosion Control 5.5 Expend public funds for management or control of flooding or erosion only in areas of the coast which will result in proportionate public benefit. A. Give priority in expenditure of public funds to actions which protect public health and safety,mitigate past flooding and erosion caused by previous human intervention,protect areas of intensive development, and protect substantial public investment (land, infrastructure, facilities). B. Expenditure of public funds for flooding or erosion control projects: 1. is limited to those circumstances where public benefits exceed public costs 2, is prohibited for the exclusive purpose of flooding or erosion protection for private development,with the exception of work done by an erosion control district. C. Factors to be used in determining public benefit attributable to the proposed flood or erosion control measure include: 1.economic benefits derived from protection of public infrastructure and investment and protection of water-dependent commerce,or 2. protection of significant natural resources and maintenance or restoration of coastal processes,or 3. integrity of natural protective features,or 4. extent of public infrastructure investment,or 5. extent of existing or potential public use. Although most property threatened by erosion is privately owned,protection of that property can be in the public's interest under some circumstances. Loss of private property could signal loss of lands in the public trust below MHW. However, public benefits must be carefully weighed when considering expenditure of public funds. At Mattituck Inlet the federal government is making large expenditures to protect navigation for fishing and commercial fleets, as well as for some recreational boating. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has made detailed benefit cost analyses and has found that benefits outweigh costs. However,use of dredged materials and cost of installing a sand bypass system need to be investigated. A sand bypass system could speed beach recovery on the east side of the inlet,leading to more public use of the area with its tourist benefits. A sand bypass system would also reduce the cost of dredging because sand would no longer move around the end of the jetty and deposit in the channel; it would be bypassed and deposited on the beach. Goldsmiths Inlet is not navigable and does not provide the benefits that Mattituck Inlet provides. The analyses for Goldsmiths should give careful consideration to jetty removal. While jetty removal could reduce downdrift erosion,it could cause erosion of the accretion fillet on the west side of the jetty. These issues would need to be addressed. On the Peconic Bay side,the same analyses should be done for dredged materials from creek mouths. Suffolk County bears the cost of this dredging,and the greatest public benefit should be derived from that expenditure. The analyses to date have focused on navigational aspects,and erosion and erosion protection benefits have not been fully included. On exposed areas,the cost of developing the approach to groin field N-6 design would bring public benefits. Existing erosion problems could be ameliorated,and future problems minimized. When required, groin fields covering whole lengths of shoreline could be laid out and their height, length, and spacing specified. Areas between groins would have to be filled, and the source of material identified. Groin field development projects should be combined with dredging projects. The dredged materials could be placed between groins,providing the benefits of both soft and hard solutions. By specifying placement of sand between groins, DEC should be more amenable and not require upland disposal. This approach would benefit all owners sharing a given part of the shoreline,not just one property owner. Standard on Sea Level Rise 5.6 Consider sea level rise In the siting and de4p of projects involving substantial public expenditure. Given the potential for accelerated sea level rise in U future,and the significant consequences which could result from a rise in sea level, wise coastal managemait requires that sea level rise be at least considered in the planning of projects requiring substantial public funding, N-7 CHAPTER V. POST-STORM RECOVERY POLICIES �. POST-STORM RECOVERY l troduction A common tendency after a damaging storm is to return to the same condition as before the storm, whether or not that situation was desirable. Instead,post-storm rebuilding should be aimed at preventing and minimizing future erosion and flooding. The approach will vary by type of damage inflicted by the storm and by the goals of each common management unit. In addition, the permitting procedures may constrain or delay certain rebuilding actions. This chapter discusses the approach to be taken in each of the common management units, and how existing permitting procedures may be used to achieve unit goals. Post-Storm Recovery Goals by Common Management Unit Long Island Sound Side On Southold's Long Island Sound coast, the major cause of damage during a storm is wave action leading to bluff erosion and dune loss. A storm could also seriously damage jetties at Mattituck and Goldsmiths Inlets. Inundation of large inland areas does not typically occur. Jetty Areas At Mattituck, a storm could flank the jetties, causing the inlet to migrate out of its present channel. In this case,the flanked area should be filled so the protected channel is returned. A migrating channel could lead to erosion of property and inlet instability. A storm could seriously damage or destroy the jetties. If Mattituck Inlet jetties are destroyed, they should be rebuilt. The economic hardship on businesses in Mattituck Inlet would be unbearable, and they would either relocate or close. In either case, Southold would lose jobs from its economic base and part of its maritime tradition. Therefore, rebuilding of the jetties to protect the inlet and its uses should be done quickly. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers has studied different solutions for the stabilization of Mattituck Inlet and has found that maintaining the channel by dredging and rebuilding the existing jetties provide the best solution. However,careful consideration should be given to new jetty dimensions which would permit greater bypassing while still maintaining the navigation channel. For Goldsmiths Inlet,the decision is different. The original purpose of the jetties --a public park -- is no longer envisioned,and the jetty is causing erosion along Horton Lane Beach,which is heavily used by the public. Serious consideration should be given to removal of the jetty if it is destroyed or damaged during a storm. Effects on adjacent beaches need to be analyzed prior to making this decision. The final situation around the jetties is severe erosion of downdrift beaches and loss of dunes. In both areas,the beach should be refilled with sand,from the updrift side ofthe jetties. These beaches are valuable and heavily used by the public. At Mattituck Inlet,beach erosion could cause a breach,and the inlet would migrate outside of the current channel. The new channel would probably not be navigable by fishing boats and could cause additional erosion. Low Bluffs and Dunes During large storms,waves erode bluffs at their toe,which leads to slumping. Slumping brings new sediment to the beaches. Damage is normally loss of bluff,which can include encroachment into a yard area. This excludes those cases where the principal residences are endangered, as is discussed below under V-1 Emergency Procedures. In dune areas, flooding often occurs during the storm, eroding dunes and causing water damage to personal property. The management objective in low bluffs and dunes common management areas is to protect public resources by reducing the number of hard erosion protection structures and encouraging soft approaches, such as vegetative cover. However, since existing structures that are either grandfathered or permitted can be rebuilt as-of-right some erosion protective structures will undoubtedly be rebuilt almost immediately. The Town and Board ofTrustees'focus should notbe on rebuilding everything immediately,including erosion protection structures,but on how the current damage to homes can be corrected while minimizing future damage. Applications for new structures should be carefully reviewed rather than granted quickly. Effects of new structures on surrounding properties must be shown by the applicant. If a permit is granted, conditions should include meeting setback requirements for the principal structure and full width of native vegetation planting. Construction work,ifpermitted,would have to include meeting these requirements prior to completion. In many cases,a homeowner will have funds from flood insurance to pay for reconstruction and moving a house beyond the setback limit. Therefore, requiring the homeowner to meet these requirements would not cause a financial hardship, as long as the property has flood insurance. As part of rebuilding,the Buildings Department needs to examine the condition of each house and its likelihood of being damaged again in the next storm before issuing its permit. If a house could be damaged in the next storm, the owner should be required to rebuild it so that damage would not occur again. This could include moving the house further away from the shoreline on a new foundation. In a dune area,raising the house above the flood area could be appropriate. Areas of High Bluffs The toe of high bluffs is eroded during a storm resulting in a bluff slump because of lack of support. Slumping of high bluffs supplies large volumes of sand and gravel to beaches. Each linear foot of a 50-foot- high bluff supplies about 2 cubic yards of sediment for each landward foot of erosion. Bluffs are of great importance in maintaining beaches and protecting areas of low bluffs and dunes,which are more susceptible to landward erosion. The management objective of this common management unit is to minimize building of groins and erosion protection structures to the extent possible, without causing loss of dwellings. Therefore, the post-storm recovery approach should be the same as during the normal permitting process; the overwhelming need for an erosion protection structure must be demonstrated by the applicant before a permit is issued. For rebuilding damaged structures or building new erosion control structures, the Board should consider storm intensity that would likely cause more damage. In Florida, a homeowner receives a permit only if a storm with a return period of 15 years or less caused damage. Emotional appeals of property owners who feel their lands are in danger can be persuasive,but the overall public needs of the shoreline must be considered first. Measures, such as planting vegetation along the shoreline,must be analyzed first, and the permit for erosion protection will be issued only when such methods are shown to be infeasible. Peconic Bay Side On the Peconic Bay side of Southold, much of the shoreline is heavily protected, the focus of post- storm recovery policy application is reach long. analysis, rather than on individual structures. If a whole length of similar shoreline is considered as one,solutions that protect all property owners can be developed and implemented. Aggregate cost for protecting a whole length of shoreline will probably be less than the sum totals that individual property owners would pay. The Town should consider setting up special taxing districts to pay for the study,design,and construction of shore protection. However,this could be prove to be administratively burdensome. Alternatively,homeowners could consider setting up theirown special fund similar to a homeowners' association. While the Town and Board of Trustees do not have direct power to cause a group of properties to act in concert,the post-storm review process can lend itself to this approach. If a group of neighbors submitted a joint application, effects of proposed structures on neighbors would already have been demonstrated, whereas if a single property owner submits an application, effects of the proposed structure on neighbors V-2 would still need to be demonstrated. Using this group approach would help achieve the management objectives in all common management units on the Peconic Say shoreline, except for flood-prone areas. These areas have an additional goal of preventing further flood damage. Therefore,the Buildings Department should not issue permits unless flood- proofing can be demonstrated. As discussed above,raising the building on piles rather than raising the land behind a bulkhead may be a preferable approach. Emergency Permits The above recommendations apply when a structure is not in imminent danger of collapse or significant structural damage. Certain storms will cause damage that must be repaired under emergency conditions. Homes and principal residences must sometimes be immediately repaired or they will collapse or become permanently damaged. This can be caused by falling trees,trucks striking the house,and coastal erosion. An emergency situation for a house or principal residence is often defined as when 25 percent of the Boor area is close to collapse or permanent structural damage as certified by a professional engineer or licensed architect. This is a situation that is handled by the Buildings Department, and they have proper procedures in place. Shore protection structures can generally be mended temporarily while a decision on the type and extent of the final restoration is being made. The heavy construction materials and type of structural supports make this delay possible. According to existing state regulations, an existing erosion protection structure that is properly permitted or grandfathered can be repaired without a permit. However, many groin fields, especially on the Peconic Bay shoreline, are not truly functioning structures. Therefore, if erosion control structures are being emergency repaired,the building inspector or an independent should inspect the site and certify that it was a functioning structure. If the structure was not functional,the work should be halted. As discussed in Chapter VI,"Implementation Options,"an inventory of functioning structures should be mapped and photographed in the future. Trying to determine if a structure was functioning after having been damaged is likely to lead to disputes. This inventory would address that issue. The only true emergency situation that would require a discretionary permit is when the sole public access to a group of houses is about to be destroyed or when a vital public utility,such as water or electricity, is about to be severed. Then, the only ways to protect the sole access or utility from the next storm would be to move it or build an erosion control structure. In cases such as this, the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) lists the action as exempt, and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(DEC)has emergency procedures for permitting under its regulations. The Corps of Engineers has similar procedures. Therefore,an emergency permit should only be issued for protection of sole access ways and vital utilities, and existing regulatory emergency procedures should be used. V-3 CHAPTER VI. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS A. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS Studies Because of the breadth and variety of Southold's shoreline,recommendations contained in this report are general in nature. To fully implement these recommendations,detailed study of each reach and common management unit is recommended. An important task that can be done almost immediately is to develop an inventory of erosion protection structures. It will be important in implementation of this post-storm recovery policy. In addition, this data base can be used to determine effects of structures on coastal erosion. Functioning coastal erosion structures that are damaged in a storm can be repaired without a permit. As part of the post-storm recovery approach, restrictions on rebuilding erosion control structures have been recommended. These data could refine the design of existing shore protection so that they protect structures and do not cause erosion elsewhere. At the current time,no inventory of functioning structures exists,and disputes could arise i f post- storm judgements are made on the functionality of structures. This inventory should include maps, photographs, and videotapes. The jetties at Mattituck Inlet have caused downdrift erosion and have threatened dunes between the inlet and Oregon Hills. However,commercial and recreational uses in Mattituck Inlet are an essential part of the character and economic life of Southold, and the jetties are helpful in maintaining navigation. Sand bypassing could address erosion problems and reduce the expense of channel dredging. A study of the feasibility and cost of sand bypassing is recommended. In Chapter V, "Post-Storm Recovery Policies," rebuilding the jetty at Goldsmiths Inlet if it were damaged in a storm was discussed. The jetty has led to erosion at heavily used public beaches. The effect of removing the jetty should be considered prior to a damaging storm, forcing a decision without sufficient study. Capital Projects Without the studies discussed above, no capital projects can be recommended at this time. Prior to committing to capital development, public benefits need to be more firmly established and costs estimated in detail. Southold could implement several demonstration projects with its own resources, These include a natural vegetation nursery to determine which plantings do well and provide the best erosion protection.. The Town could erect sand fencing,such as the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is doing at New Suffolk, on public dune areas. VI-1 Long-Term Coordination Government Agencies Coordination with the state level of government will benefit the Town of Southold. First, current coordination with the Division of Coastal Resources and Waterfront Revitalization in the Department of State should be continued. This division has been providing important guidance and funding to Southold for development and protection of the coastal area. This relationship should continue. Second, long-term coordination is needed with Suffolk County and DEC for the use and placement Faand edged materials. Thousands of cubic yards of sand are dredged every year on the Peconic Bay shore, Southold has had little, if any, input into placement of sand. Dredged material is a very importantrce that can address erosion problems in creek mouths and along exposed shoreline. A committeeprising the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, and DEC should be set up to review the upcoming dredging projects and decide where to place sand. These decisions will have to made yearly because erosion patterns change based on direction and severity of storms. This committee could be the most important tool available to Southold for alleviating its erosion problems along the Peconic Bay shores. The final part is internal to the Town of Southold. One aspect is the Building and Zoning Codes. The Building Code specifies flood protection and structural requirements. These requirements can be strengthened, especially in flood-prone management units. The Zoning Code can provide for setbacks and soil-retaining plants. The second important area is enforcement of the codes. The Building Inspector should become familiar with coastal erosion and methods of minimizing erosion. With its long coastal expanse,this area of expertise is as important as knowledge of structural systems in the Town of Southold. Private Foundations Parts of Southold's shoreline are in public ownership and other parts,such as Meadow Beach PreserN e are held by the Trust for Public Lands (Trust), a private organization that holds and protects ecologically valuable land. Those areas of shoreline in public ownership must be kept for use of Town residents and visitors. The Town should work with the Trust to preserve valuable natural lands, such as marshes and wetlands. The Trust will often set up trades where a developer will deed a valuable natural site to them in return for another site that would be easier to develop. This private sector entity can raise funds to protect natural protective features and ecologically significant sites, where the Town could not. By working with the Trust,the Town would have an instrument to direct development and protect sites on a smaller scale than can normally be achieved through zoning or other regulation. VI-2 I i COASTAL ENGINEERING GLOSSARY COASTAL ENGINEERING GLOSSARY (FROM SHORE PROTECTION MANUAL, 1484) ACCRETION. Buildup of land on a beach either by action of the forces of nature or an act of man. AEOLIAN SANDS. Sediment of sand size or smaller that have been transported by winds. ALONGSHORE. Parallel to and near the shoreline(LONGSHORE). ARMOR UNIT. Relatively large quarrystone or concrete shape that is used for wave protection structures. ATTENUATION. The lessening of the amplitude of a wave with distance from the origin or through structural or landform interference. BACKSHORE. Zone of the shore or beach lying between the foreshore and coastline. Acted on by waves only during extreme storm events. BAR. Submerged or emerged embankment of sand,gravel, or other unconsolidated material built on the sea floor in shallow water by waves and currents. BARRIER BEACH. A bar parallel to the shore,the crest of which is above normal high water level. BARRIER LAGOON. A bay separated from the open ocean by barrier islands. BATHYMBTRY. The measurement of depths of water in oceans,seas, and lakes. BAYMOUTH BAR. A bar extending partly or entirely across the mouth of a bay. BEACH. The zone of unconsolidated material that extends landward from the low water line to the place where there is a marked change in material of physiographic form, or to the line of permanent vegetation. Consists of a FORESHORE and BACKSHORE. BEACH BERM. Nearly horizontal part of a beach or backshore formed by the deposition of material by wave action. BEACH EROSION. The removal of beach materials by wave action, tidal currents, littoral currents, or winds. BEACH FILL (NoURIsmmxT). Material placed on a beach to renourish an eroding beach, or the act of beach replenishment either naturally or artificially. BEACH PROFILE. The intersection of the ground surface with a vertical plane; may extend from the top of the dune line to a seaward limit of sand movement. BEACH scARP. An almost vertical slope along the beach caused by erosion due to wave action. BEACH WIDTH. The horizontal dimension of the beach measured normal to the shoreline. BLUFF (EscARPMENT). A high steep bank or cliff. BREAKER. A wave breaking on a shore, over a reef, etc. BREAKWATER. A structure protecting a shore area, harbor, anchorage, or basin from waves. BULKHEAD, A structure that retains or prevents sliding of the land, and protects the upland from wave G-1 action. BYPASSING, SAND. Hydraulic or mechanical movement of sand from the accreting updrift side to the eroding downdrift side of an inlet or harbor entrance. CHART (TIDAL) DATUM. The plane or level to which soundings,elevations,or tide heights are referred. COAST. A strip of land of indefinite width that extends from the shoreline inland to the first major change in terrain features. COASTLINE. Line separating the coast and the shore; more commonly,the boundary between land and water. CURRENT. A flow of water,typically generated by wave action,tidal fluctuations, or winds. CUSPATE BAR. A crescent-shaped bar uniting with the shore at each end. DECAY of wAVEs. The change waves undergo after leaving a generating area and passing through a calm or region of lighter winds. DEEP WATER. Water deep enough that waves are not affected by the ocean bottom. DEFLATION. The removal of loose material from a beach or other land surface by wind action. DEPTH. The vertical distance from a specified tidal datum to the sea floor. DIFFRACTION. The phenomenon by which energy is transmitted laterally along a wave crest. In a coastal sense, it occurs when a wave train is interrupted by a structure or seafloor elevations differences in such a way that waves are propagated into the sheltered region of the structure. DIURNAL TIDE. A period or cycle of approximately one tidal day. DOWNDRIFT. The direction of predominant movement of littoral materials. DUNES. Ridges or mounds of loose, unconsolidated material, usually sand. EMBAYMENT. An indentation into the shoreline forming an open bay. EscARPMENT. A line of cliffs or steep slopes facing in one general direction that are caused by erosion or faulting. ESTUARY. Portion of river that is affected by tides or region of a river mouth in which fresh and salt water mix. EXTRATROPICAL STORM. Storms that develop in the mid-latitudes in response to the interaction of warm and cool air masses,commonly referred to as northeasters. FETCH. The area in which seas are generated by wind having a fairly constant direction and speed. The horizontal distance(in the direction of the wind)over which a wind generates seas. FORESHORE. The part of the shore lying between the crest of the seaward berm and the ordinary low- water mark. GEOMORPHOLOGY. That branch of both physiography and geology that deals with the form of the earth, the general configuration of its surface,and the changes that take place in the evolution of landform. G-2 GRADiRNT. Rate of change with respect to winds,currents,or wave heights. GROIN. A shore protection structure built perpendicular to the shore to trap littoral material or retard erosion of the shore. HEADLAND. A high steep-faced promontory extending into the sea. HIGH TIDE (HIGH WATER). Maximum elevation reached by each rising tide. HIGHER HIGH WATER. The higher of the two high waters of any tidal day. HINDCASTING, WAvE. The use of historic synoptic wind charts to calculate characteristics of waves that occurred at some past time. HURRICANE. An intense tropical cyclone in which winds tend to spiral inward toward a core of low pressure. Maximum surface wind velocities equal or exceed 75 miles per hour for several minutes or longer at some point. INLET. A short narrow waterway connecting a bay, lagoon, or similar body of water with a large parent body of water. JETTY. On open seacoasts, a structure extending into a body of water that is designed to prevent shoaling of a channel by littoral materials. LAGOON. A shallow body of water usually connected to the sea. LITTORAL. Of or pertaining to ashore,especially of the sea. LITTORAL MATERIAL (DRIFT), The sedimentary material moved in the littoral zone under the influence of waves and currents. LITTORAL TRANSPORT. The movement of littoral drift in the littoral zone by waves and currents. LITTORAL TRANSPORT RATE. Rate of transport of sedimentary material either parallel or perpendicular to the shore. LONGSHORE CURRENT. A current moving essentially parallel to the shore, usually generated by waves breaking at an angle to the shoreline. LOW TIDE (LOW WATER). Minimum elevation reached by each falling tide. LOWER LOW WATER. The lower of the two low waters of any tidal day. MEAN SEA LEVEL. The average height of t1ft surface of the sea for A stages of the tide over a 19-year period. MEAN (HIGHER HIGH, HIGH, LOW, Lt7M1l;it L(W) WATER. Average height of the (higher high, high, low, lower low)waters over a 19-year period. MORAxNE. A ridge, mound, or irregular mass of boulders, gravel, sand, and clay, carried in or on a glacier. A deposit of such a material left on the ground by a glacier. NEARSHORE zoNE. An indefinite zone extending seaward from the shoreline weH btyond the breaker zone. G-3 NECK. A narrow strip of land connecting a peninsula with the mainland. OFFSHORE. The comparatively flat zone of variable width,extending from the breaker zone to the seaward edge of the Continental Shelf. OFFSHORE/ONSHORE CIIRRENT. A current directed offshore/onshore of the shore. POCKET BEACH. A beach, usually small, located between two littoral barriers. REVETMENT. A facing of stone,concrete, etc.,built to protect erosion by wave action or currents. SEAS. Waves caused by wind at the place and time of observation. SEAWALL. A structure separating land and water areas,typically designed to prevent erosion or other damage due to wave action. SEMIDIURNAL TIDE. A tide with two high and two low waters in a tidal day. SHALLOW WATER. Water of such depth that surface waves are noticeably affected by bottom topography. sHOAL. (N)A detached elevation of sea bottom, composed of any material except rock or coral, that may endanger surface navigation. (V)To become shallow gradually or to proceed from a greater to a lesser depth of water. SHORE. The narrow strip of land in immediate contact with the sea. SHOREFACE ONSHORE zoNz). The narrow zone seaward from the low tide SHORELINE, covered by water, over which the beach sands and gravels actively oscillate with changing wave conditions. SHORELINE. The intersection of a specified plane of water with the shore or beach (typically taken as mean high water or mean higher high water). SOIL CLASSIFICATION. An arbitrary division of a continuous scale of grain sizes. SPIT. A small point of land or a narrow shoal projecting into a body of water from the shore. STORM SURGE. A rise above normal water level on the open coast due to the action of wind stress on the water surface or atmospheric pressure differentials associated with storm events. sURF zoNx. The area of breaking waves. SWELL. Wind-generated waves that have traveled out of their generating area. TIDAL DAY. The time of the rotation of the earth with respect to the moon, or the interval between two successive upper transits of the moon over the meridian of a place, approximately 24.84 solar days. TIDAL RANGE. The difference in height between consecutive high and low waters. TIDE. The periodic rising and falling of the water that results from the gravitational attraction of the moon and sun and other astronomical bodies acting on the rotating earth. TOMBOLO. A bar or spit that connects an island to the mainland or to another island. TOPOGRAPHY. The configuration of a surface, including its relief and the positions of its streams,roads, buildings,etc. G-4 TROPICAL STORM. A tropical cyclone with maximum winds less than 75 miles per hour. UPDRIFT. The direction opposite that of the predominant movement of littoral materials. WAVE CLIMATE. The combination of waves of different heights,periods, and directions. WAVE CREST. The highest point on a wave. WAVE DIRECTION. The direction from which a wave approaches. WAVE HEIGHT. The vertical distance between a crest and the preceding trough. WAVE LENGTH. The horizontal distance between similar points on two successive waves measured perpendicular to the wave crests. WAVE PERIOD. The time for a wave crest to traverse a distance equal to one wave length. WAVE PROPAGATION. The transmission of waves through water. WAVE REFRACTION. The process by which the direction of a wave moving in shallow water is altered as the part of the wave advancing in shallower water moves more slowly, causing the wave crest to bend toward the shallower water. WAVE TRAIN. A series of waves from the same direction. WIND wAVE. Waves being formed and built up by the wind. G-5 APPENDIX A LONG ISLAND SOUND EROSION MANAGEMENT POLICY APPENDIX A: LONG ISLAND SOUND EROSION MANAGEMENT POLICY Policy 5 Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. Within the Long Island Sound coastal area, there are presently more than 8,200 buildings and other structures located in special flood hazard areas, and over 1,200 buildings and other structures seaward of the present coastal erosion hazard area boundary. In response to existing or perceived erosion and flood hazards, many landowners have constructed erosion control structures. Approximately 50 percent of the Sound shoreline has been armored with erosion control structures, and the trend is continuing. In Suffolk County, for example, only 8.96 miles of the 132.5 miles of the Sound shoreline was engineered with riprap, bulkheads, or seawalls in 1969. Today, 43.7 miles of the county's shoreline are hardened. This significant increase in the miles of hardened shoreline is not associated with water-dependent uses in Maritime Centers, but rather for uses that do not have a functional relationship to coastal waters. While some erosion control structures are necessary to protect development, there are many erosion control structures located along the Long Island Sound shore that are not necessary for erosion protection. Erosion control structures often contribute to erosion both on and off the site due to poor design and siting and lack of downdrift remediation. Increased erosion, aesthetic impairments, loss of public recreational resources, loss of habitats, and water quality degradation can result from individual hardening of the shoreline. The cumulative impact of these structures is potentially large. Before a permit is granted to allow construction of hard erosion control structures, the purpose, function, impact, and alternatives to the project need to be carefully evaluated to determine that the structures are necessary and to avoid adverse impacts. ;'Although the Long Island Sound shoreline has been heavily fortified, there are significant stretches of the coast that remain in a natural state. The natural shoreline has an inherent natural, social, and economic value that should be respected to ensure continuing benefits to the state and the region. Consequently, those portions of the Sound shoreline that are not fortified should generally remain in a natural condition to respond to coastal processes. Where feasible and appropriate, portions of the shoreline that have been hardened should be returned to a natural condition. Development and redevelopment in hazard areas needs to be managed to reduce exposure to coastal hazards. Hardening of the shoreline is to be avoided except when alternative means, such as soft engineering alternatives, beach nourishment, revegetation, offshore bar building, or inlet sand bypassing, are impractical to protect principal structures or extensive public investment (land, infrastructure, facilities). Areas of extensive public investment include City Island and the "I hrogs Neck in the Bronx, the Cross Island Parkway section of Queens, Bayville, the Asharoken tombolo, Sunken Meadow State Park, Wildwood State Park, portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development, and the ten Maritime Centers. Barrier landforms that protect significant public investment or natural resources should be maintained. Soft structural protection methods are to be used to conform with the natural coastal processes. Barrier beach landforms should be maintained by using clean, compatible dredge material, when feasible, for beach nourishment, offshore bar building, or marsh creation projects. In suitable locations and where appropriate, interpretive materials could be considered to enhance the public's understanding of natural coastal processes. This policy seeks to protect life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion hazards throughout the Long Island Sound coastal area. The policy reflects state flooding and erosion regulations and provides measures for reduction of hazards and protection of resources. 5.1 Minimize losses of human life and structures from flooding and erosion hazards by using the following management measures which are presented in order of priority: A-1 Coastal Barrier Resource Area is any one of the designated and mapped areas under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982, (P.L. 97-348), and any areas designated and mapped under the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990(P.L. 101-591), as administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and any future designations that may occur through amendments to these laws. Coastal Hazard Area is any coastal area included within the Erosion Hazard Area as designated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas Act of 1981 (Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law), and any coastal area included within a Y-zone as designated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-448) and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-234). Natural protective features are beaches, dunes, shoals, bars, spits, barrier islands, bluffs, and wetlands; and associated natural vegetation. A. Minimize potential loss and damage by locating development and structures away from flooding and erosion hazards. 1. No development is permitted in natural protective feature areas (nearshore, beaches, bluffs, primary dunes, and wetlands as defined under 6 NYCRR Part 505), except as specifically allowed under the relevant portions of 6 NYCRR Part 505.8. 2. Avoid developing new structures and uses or reconstruction of structures damaged by 50 percent or more of their value in areas which are likely to be exposed to hazards unless: a. the structure or use functionally requires a location on the coast or in coastal waters, or b. the new development would be located in an area of substantial public investment, or C. the new structure or use is necessary for shoreline development which: (1) reinforces the role of Maritime Centers and Areas for Concentrated Development in concentrating water-dependent uses and other development, and (2) would not result in impairment of natural resources 3. Locate new structures which are not functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters, are not in areas of substantial public investment, or do not reinforce the role of a Maritime Center or an Area for Concentrated Development, as far away from flooding and erosion hazards as possible. a. Locate new development away from coastal hazards associated with inlet areas. b. Avoid hazards by siting structures to maximize the distance from Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas. C. Provide sufficient lot depth to allow relocation of structures and maintenance of required setbacks over a period of thirty years. 4. Where practical, moving existing structures and development which are exposed to hazards away from the hazard is preferred over maintaining structures and development in place. Maintaining existing development and structures in hazard areas may be warranted for: a. structures which functionally require a location on the coast or in coastal waters, or b. water-dependent uses which, by the nature of the use, cannot avoid exposure to hazards, or C. sites in areas with extensive public investment, public infrastructure, or major public facilities 5. Provide public infrastructure in or near identified high velocity flood zones, structural hazard areas, or natural protective features only if the infrastructure: a. will not promote new development or expansion of existing development in: a Coastal Barrier Resource Area, except as provided in the Coastal Barrier Resource System Act; a Coastal Erosion Hazard Area; or a V-zone. A-2 i b. is designed in a manner which will not impair protective capacities of natural protective features, and C. is designed to avoid or withstand damage from flooding and erosion 6. Manage development in floodplains outside of coastal hazard areas so as to avoid adverse environmental effects and minimize the use of structural flood protection measures. Comply with the provisions of the Environmental Conservation Law, section 36, Participation in Flood Insurance Programs; 6 NYCRR Part 500; and any local flood protection program. B. Use vegetative non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing flooding and erosion based on shoreline characteristics including exposure, geometry, and sediment composition. Use vegetative measures to increase protective capacities of natural protective features at every opportunity. C. Enhance existing natural protective features and processes and use non-structural measures which have a reasonable probability of managing erosion. I. Enhance the protective capabilities of beaches by using fill, artificial nourishment, dredge disposal, or by restoring coastal processes. a. Use only clean sand or gravel with a grain size equivalent to or slightly larger than the native material at the project site. b. Design criteria for enhancing the protective capabilities of beaches should not exceed the level necessary to achieve protection from a 30-year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefit. C. Provide for sand by-passing at engineered inlets or other shore protection structures to maintain coastal processes and protective capabilities of beaches. 2. Protect and enhance existing dunes or create new dunes using fill, artificial nourishment, or entrapment of windborne sand. a. Use only clean sand with a grain size equivalent or slightly larger than native dune material. b. Design criteria for created dunes should not exceed the overtopping height defined by the 30-year storm, except where there is an overriding public benefit. C. Enhance existing or created dunes using snow fencing and dune vegetation. d. Construct and provide for use of walkovers to prevent pedestrian damage to existing and enhanced dunes. 3. Increase protective capacity of natural protective features using practical vegetative measures in association with all other enhancement efforts. D. Use hard structural erosion protection measures for control of erosion only where: 1. Avoidance of the hazard is not appropriate because a structure is: functionally dependent on a location on or in coastal waters; located in an area of extensive public investment; or reinforces the role of Maritime Centers or Areas for Concentrated Development. 2. Vegetative approaches to controlling erosion are not effective. 3. Enhancement of natural protective features would not prove practical in providing erosion protection. 4. Construction of a hard structure is the only practical design consideration and is essential to protecting the principal use. 5. The proposed hard structural erosion protection measures are: a. limited to the minimum scale necessary b. based on sound engineering practices 6. Practical vegetative methods have been included in the project design and implementation. 7. Adequate mitigation is provided and maintained to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property or to natural coastal processes and natural resources and, if undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or indirect A-3 public costs. 5.2 Preserve and restore natural protective features. A. Maximize the protective capabilities of natural protective features by: l. avoiding alteration or interference with shorelines in a natural condition 2. enhancing existing natural protective features 3. restoring the condition of impaired natural protective features wherever practical 4. using practical vegetative approaches to stabilize natural shoreline features 5. managing activities to limit damage to, or reverse damage which has diminished, the protective capacities of the natural shoreline 6. providing relevant signage or other educational or interpretive material to increase public awareness of the importance of natural protective features B. Nlinimize interference with natural coastal processes. 1. Provide for natural supply and movement of unconsolidated materials and for water and wind transport. 2. Limit intrusion of structures into coastal waters. 3. Limited interference with coastal processes may be allowed where the principal purpose of the structure is necessary to: a. simulate natural processes where existing structures have altered the coast, or b. provide necessary public benefits for flooding and erosion protection, or C. provide for the efficient operation of water-dependent uses 4. Limited interference is to be mitigated to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, and, if undertaken by a private property owner, does not incur significant direct or indirect public costs. 5.3 Protect public lands and public trust lands and use of these lands when undertaking all erosion or food control projects. A. Retain ownership of public trust lands which have become upland areas due to till or accretion resulting from erosion control projects. B. Avoid losses or likely losses of public trust lands or use of these lands, including public access along the shore, which can be reasonably attributed to or anticipated to result from erosion protection structures. C. Provide and maintain compensatory mitigation of unavoidable impacts to ensure that there is no adverse impact to adjacent property, to natural coastal processes and natural resources, or to public trust lands and their use. 5.4 Manage navigation infrastructure to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes. A. Manage navigation channels to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes. I. Design channel construction and maintenance to protect and enhance natural protective features and prevent destabilization of adjacent areas by: a. using dredging setbacks from established channel edges and designing finished slopes to ensure their stability b. locating channels away from erodible features, where feasible C. preventing adverse alteration of basin hydrology d. including by-passing methods to maintain navigability and reduce frequency of dredging 2. Use clean dredged material as beach nourishment whenever the grain size of the dredged material is suitable for that purpose . A-4 1 B. Manage stabilized inlets to limit adverse impacts on coastal processes. 1. Include sand bypassing at all engineered or stabilized inlets which interrupt littoral processes. 2. Manage flood and ebb tidal deltas to simulate natural processes. 3. Avoid extending jetties when it will increase disruption of coastal processes. 5.5 Ensure that expenditure of public funds for flooding and erosion control projects results in a public benefit. A. Give priority in expenditure of public funds to actions which protect public health and safety, mitigate past flooding and erosion caused by previous human intervention, protect areas of intensive development, and protect substantial public investment (land, infrastructure, facilities). B. Expenditure of public funds for flooding or erosion control projects: I. is limited to those circumstances where public benefits exceed public costs 2. is prohibited for the exclusive purpose of flooding or erosion protection for private development, with the exception of work done by an erosion control district C. Factors to be used in determining public benefit attributable to the proposed flood or erosion control measure include: I. economic benefits derived from protection of public infrastructure and investment and protection of water-dependent commerce,or 2. protection of significant natural resources and maintenance or restoration of coastal processes,or 3. integrity of natural protective features, or 4. extent of public infrastructure investment, or 5, extent of existing or potential public use Application of these factors indicate that public expenditure for erosion and flood control projects may be warranted in: City Island and the Throgs Neck in the Bronx, the Cross Island Parkway section of Queens, Bayville, the Asharoken tombolo, Sunken Meadow State Park, Wildwood State Park,portions of the identified Areas for Concentrated Development, and the Maritime Centers of Port Chester, Mamaroneck Harbor, New Rochelle-Echo Bay, City Island. Port Washington-Manorhaven, Glen Cove, Huntington Harbor, Northport Harbor, Port Jefferson, and Mattituck Inlet. 5.6 Consider sea level rise in the siting and design of projects Involving substantial public expenditure. A-5 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine April 20, 2004 D C E U Kennedy Lillis Schmidt & English MAY 1 3 2005 Attorneys at Law 75 Maiden Lane— Suite 402 Southold Town New York, NY 10038-4816 Board of Trustees Attn: Thomas C. Murphy Esq. Re: Groin Repairs and Beach Erosion Manago Vs Aloia and Costello Marine Contracting Corporation Cutchogue, NY -KLS&E File 4052 Gentlemen: This letter report constitutes my engineering evaluation and opinion, concerning the responsibility of the 60 ft. long Aloia beach stabilizing groin (jetty), causing "erosion" at the adjacent Manago beach property. -After inspecting the beach, reviewing available data, references, photographs and depositions - my conclusions are: 1. The constructed and maintained Aloia groin, does not cause erosion of the Manago beach property. 2. Removal of the Aloia groin would cause (a) New erosion, undermining of the Aloia property and (b) Additional erosion of the Manago beach. 3. The deteriorated and partial stone groin on the Manago property, in its present condition, provides minimal protection and does not stabilize the Manago beach. 4. The vertical timber shore bulkhead, along the Manago beach, worsens the erosion. 5. The groin repairs by Costello Marine Contracting Corporation do not cause erosion of the Manago beach front. Olko Engineering Page l Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine The basis for the above conclusions will be delineated in the following sections of this letter report, entitled: I. Individuals and Firms involved. 2. Approximate Chronology of Events 3. Basis for Manago Claim of Erosion 4. Shore Conditions 5. Eroding Beaches 6. Retention of Sand by Existing Cuoins 7. Description of Properties and Defects 8. Effect of the Aloia Groin 9. Effect of the Manago Bulkhead 10. Responsibility of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. 11. Concluding Comments 1. Individuals and Firms Involved Dr. John F. Aloia and Mrs. Elvira T. Aloia: Present Owners of the property on which the subject groin retains sand and forms the southern boundary. Dr. and Mrs. Aloia maintain the groin. They are defendants. Costello Marine Contracting Corp. Contractor who has repaired the beach protection works on the Aloia property. They are defendants. Mr. Vincent Manago and Mrs. Carol Manago Present Owners of the eroded beach, located immediately south of the Aloia property. They are the plaintiffs. 2. Approximate Chronology of Events The approximate dates of the major events, associated with the subject matter, are as follows: 1955 The 60 ft. long timber groin, on the south end of the Aloia property, was constructed by the former owner, Mr. Chute, 1960 Partial stone groin constructed on the Manago property, by the former owner, Mr. Purpura. Olko Engineering Page 2 Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine 1984 Severe storm caused damages to waterfront properties. 1984 Dr. and Mrs. Aloia purchased the property from Mr. Chute. 1995 An ice storm damaged the Aloia groin. 1995 The outermost 14 linear feet of the Alc>qft groin was repaired by Costello Marine. New timber piles and sheeting were installed I996 Mr. and Mrs. Manago purchased the property from Mr. Purpura, 1996 A new bulkhead was constructed along the Manago property. 1999 About 30 linear feet of the Aloia groin was repaired by Costello Marine, in the center, primarily by adding a second row of timber sheeting, plus a 30 ft. long 6x6 inch timber stringer cap on top. 2001 About 16 linear feet of the Aloia groin was repaired by Costello Marine, at the shore end, primarily by adding a second row of timber sheeting. 2001 The 6x6 inch timber cap, on top of the Aloia groin, was removed by Costello Marine. 3. Basis for Marino Claim of Erosion It is understood that the 16 feet of shore end repair work, performed in Year 2001 by Costello Marine, is the basis for the Manago claim of beach erosion caused by the Aloia groin. The claim appears to be that the previously deteriorated 16 linear feet of groin allowed sand to pass through and thus replenish the Manago beach. It is correct that some sand would pass through the 16 feet of previously deteriorated Aloia groin — but an insignificant quantity. As subsequently discussed, such pass through sand will continue moving southward, because the Manago stone groin is inadequate. The sand is not retained and therefore, Manago does not have a sandy beach. Olko Engineering Page 3 I Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Mango Vs Aloia& Costello Marine sre Conditions The Aloia and Manago properties are located on a bluff, overlooking the east shore of Little Hog Neck, facing Little Peconic Bay. The Bay is about 4 miles wide, with shoals, but the waters are about 25 feet deep offshore of the two properties. The following excerpt from Reference 1, Qn Page Il-5 desmibes the general conditions at the Alois and Manago properties:. The shoreline curves around Indian Neck to a north/south orientation along Little Hog Neck. This curve is interrupted by one inlet at Little Creek that is dredged yearly. Shoreline from the public beach south to Nassau Point is bulkheaded along its whole length with many groins. This shoreline is backed by a very steep bluff that quickly rises to more than 50 feet. This bluff has eroded in places from groundwater seeps that are not associated with coastal erosion. Fetch across Hog Neck Bay to Jesup Neck is about 20,000 feet, and waves come directly from the east. Direction of Iittoral drift is very sensitive to wave direction and can reverse many times during a year. According to baymen, the tidal current along this shoreline always sets towards the south. Nassau Point seems to be elongating in response to littoral drift and the tidal current. The shape of the bay, its dimensions and depths are such that normal wind/wave Iittoral drift does not occur, to replenish the subject beach. Instead, the beach is replenished by dredging of Little Creek Inlet, to the north of the Aloia and Manago properties, and pumping the sand onto the beach. The usual procedure is to use a floating dredge, with a connecting pipeline. A mixture of sand and water is then pumped to shore, discharging onto the beach. Predominant wave action transports the sand southward, to the Aloia and Manago area. The quantity of dredged sand placed on the beach, affects the nourishment of adjacent beaches. Depending on the seasons, the waves, currents and winds move the sand in different directions. The occasional, severe storms erode the beaches, damage bulkheads and destroy stairs leading down onto the beaches. The sand is washed away, leaving a bedding of shingles (coarse pebbles and gravel). Whereas, the bluffs do not provide sand,because they are protected from erosion by bulkheading. 4lko Engineering Page 4 Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine 5, ErodinQ Beaches The entire east side of the Little Hog Neck Peninsula is predominantly a natural shifting, changing and eroding beach - as evidenced by the following: i. Home owners have built groins and bulkheads to save their beach front. There are 3 groins retaining sand, north of the Aloia groin. The northernmost groin is the longest, retaining the most sand. The partial stone groip on the Manago property, to the south, is the shortest, retaining the least volume of sand. 2. Between the groins, wherever sand is not retained, the beach is coarse grained. In fact, south of the Manago stone groin, the beach is usually a coarse shingle (coarse pebbles and gravel) - the fines have washed away. The Manago property does not have a suitable groin, similar to the properties to the north, it therefore has no retained sand - and no comparable beach. 6. Retention of Sand bl Existin Groins As a further introduction to the subjects of groins, beach erosion, etc, the following excerpt from Reference 1, Page S-3, is of interest: The Peconic shores have been subjected to many erosion control structures to prevent landward migration. Over its 136 miles of tidally influenced shoreline, more than a thousand groins have been built. Groins are prominent along the 35+ miles of sandy shoreline, Where houses have been constructed, about 50 percent of the shoreline is bulkheaded. Most of the more than 25 inlets are protected by jetties. In 27 separate areas, the Town has undertaken almost 150 dredging projects since the 1960's. Suffolk County has dredged at least five creeks yearly since the 1950's. This heavy investment has maintained the shoreline, and few, if any, houses have been lost to erosion. However, several areas still flood regularly, leading to property damage. A high level of investment will continue to be necessary in the future to prevent loss of property and minimize damage. In this letter report, the beach structure, between the Aloia and Manago properties, is correctly referred to as a "Groin". Although, the depositions refer to the structure as a "Jetty" — which is not correct because the structure does not train a channel inlet. Olko Engineering Page 5 i Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine The Aloia and Manago properties are not isolated parcels of land but instead, located towards the southern end of Little Hog Neck, they are a part of the peninsula. The two properties must be evaluated in conjunction with the overall coastal complex. For example, the north/south coastline is about 3.8 miles long, but the Aloia property occupies only 99 linear feet of the shoreline— about 0.5 of one percent. Particularly important is the fact that north of the Aloia property are 3 relatively uniform groins having the following locations and distances from the 60 ft. long Aloia groin: 1. The first groin is located 200 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 65 feet into the Bay. This groin marks the northern boundary of the neighbor (Mr, Fry) located immediately north of Aloia. Sand, traveling northward, is retained by this first groin, particularly during the summer season. 2. The second groin is located 525 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 60 feet into the Bay. Sand is retained by this second groin. 3. The third groin is located 840 feet north of the Aloia groin and extends 100 feet into the Bay. The largest volume of sand is retained by this third groin. Accordingly, sand is retained north of Manago by 4 separate groins (Aloia + 3). The volume retained by the Aloia groin is conservatively about 440 cubic yards (99 ft long, 60 ft wide, 2 ft thick). The 440 cubic yards of retained sand by the Aloia groin is absolutely insignificant in terms of overall coastal sand movement, If a case is to be made of sand being withheld from depositing and staying in front of the Manago property, attention is directed to the 3 groins north of Aloia. The 3 groins influence a shoreline of at least 1,000 linear feet — compared to the Aloia and north neighbor shoreline of 200 feet, to the next groin. 7. Descriptions of Properties and Defects The Aloia property is 99 feet long and the Manago property is 150 feet long. Both properties are similar, from a coastal engineering viewpoint in that they have a facing of vertical timber sheet piling and uniform offshore contours. Accordingly, wave energies are not dispersed/absorbed by the bluff, because of the solid bulk-heading, Instead, any wave backwash Olko Engineering Page 6 Groin Construction&Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia&Costello Marine front the bulkheading tends to scour the beach. Whereas, the uniform offshore Contours show that the overatl effect of the short Aloia groin is insignificant, other than at the gro,n itself. The sand, moving southwvd, bypasses the filled 60 ft wid I field. Ooth properties have a groin. The 60 ft. long Aloia groom, # the south end of the property, is of timber sheet pile construction, and extends up about 2.3 to 3.0 above the adjacent Manago aeach. The Manago grain, towards the north end of the Manago property is located about 60 feet south of the Aloia groin. Its original purpose is not clear— either it represents partial construction of a groin, or foundation protection for a structure. Nevertheless, its presence on the beach causes it to act as a groin, retaining some sand. The Manago groin is constructed of random placed stone, rising about two feet above the beach and extends out into the Bay about 30 ft from the bulkhead. The Manago stone groin is too low, too short and has not been maintained. It is ineffective in retaining sand. However, between the Manago groin and the Aloia groin, the short (60 ft. long) Manago Beach sometimes has a shallow layering of medium sand, deposited by southerly waves. But, south of the Manago groin, the Manago beach is decidedly eroded, with a surfacing of coarse shingle. Accordingly, the Manago groin does, but to an insignificant extent, retain some sand. However, the Manago groin is too short and too low to be effective. The Manago groin is not only of insufficient size, but is also located at the wrong (north)end of the Manago property. Mr. Manago purchased a problem beach. Unfortunately, under present environmental regulations, it is very difficult to correct the situation in a reasonable, economic manner by constructing a groin, particularly since Mr. Manago is on record as an advocate of groin removal. The Manago property lacks a south groin, and probably, only with some costly mitigation measures would a permit be obtained to construct a south groin. However, it would seem that a case could be made to allow rehabilitation and maintenance of the existing north Manago stone groin — to at least retain a thicker layer of protective sand and beach at the north end of the Manago property. Another problem with the Manago beach construction is the access stair, which terminates about 1 '/2 feet above the shingle beach surface. The Contractor built the stair around the spring of 1996 when there was a surface layer of recently deposited sand. A mistake was make in not taking into account the seasonal/storm shifting sands on this coast. The stairs should have been constructed extending farther down, say about 2 feet, into the more stable shingle (coarse Olko Engineering Page 7 Groin Construction& Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine pebbles and gravel) beach material. The longer stairs would have provided easier access to the lower beach surface, eroded by the winter storms. S. Effect of the Aloia Groin Overall, the 5 groins combined, have little effect in terms of peninsula protection - because (1) They are all relatively short, compared to the water depths immediately offshore and (2) They are spaced too far apart. A unified "groin field" does not exist. Each individual groin retains some sand, in front of the individual property - as is the situation at the Aloia property. The relatively short cell (200 ft. long) between the Aloia groin and the next groin to the north, does not collect any sand, once it is filled. Instead, the sand bypasses alongside the cell and continues southward, where it would collect in front of the Manago property, if Manago had a groin at the south end of his property. The effect of the relatively short and low Aloia groin, adjacent to the Manago property, in terms of depriving Manago of sand - is absolutely insignificant. If the Aloia groin did not exist, during a winter storm, both properties would experience the same "erosion", because the Aloia groin retains so little sand_ In fact, the Manago beach would be eroded deeper because the Aloia groin disperses some of the north east wave energy and thereby "shelters", to some extent, the immediate Manago beach, up to the Manago stone groin - as witnessed by the deposit of finer graded sand between the Aloia and Manago groins. The various photos and measurements showing a difference in height of beach at the Aloia groin, are misleading. It is not a fact that the Aloia groin "permanently" withholds sand from the Manago beach and thereby causes erosion at Manago. Instead, the fact is that if the Aloia groin was removed, the very small volume of sand, retained by the Aloia groin, would very quickly pass through the Manago property and then, both properties would took "eroded". The photos showing differences in elevations at the groin are not necessarily photos showing erosion of the Manago Beach. Instead, the photos show what would be the condition at the Aloia property, if there was no groin. Or, expressed in another way, the photos show the sand that could be retained, if the Manago stone groin had been completed and properly maintained. 9. Effect of the Manago Bulkhead The Manago bulkhead is of relatively recent construction - and has a detrimental effect on the Manago beach front. 01ko Engineering Page 8 Groin Construction& .Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Mango Vs Aloia& Costello Marine Prior to the Manago bulkhead reconstruction, the old deteriorated bulkhead sheeting, with portions missing, dispersed wave energy on the soil slope in back and even provided some beach fill, resulting from wave wash of the backfill. But with construction of the new, intact bulkhead, wave run-up on the vertical wall, with backwash, erodes away what little sand accumulates in front of the Manago bulkhead. Unfortunately, without an adequate stone groin and additional groin at the south end of the Manago property, sand is not retained, to dampen the wave action Presently, the underlying coarse shingle beach protects the Manago bulkhead from being further undermined, by normal storm action. The material list for the Manago bulkhead indicates 16 ft. long fender piles and 14 ft. long sheet piles. Accordingly, the penetration of the timber fender and sheet piles, below the shingle beach surface, is about 8 and 6 feet respectively. 10. Responsibility of Costello Marine Contracting Corp. The Costello Marine Contracting Corporation has no responsibility for the lack of retained sand along the Manago beach. The groin repairs, performed by Costello, do not impact on the Manago Property conditions. The bulkhead constructed by Costello Marine on the Aloia property is, from a coastal stabilization viewpoint, the same as the bulkhead constructed by Manago — but, with the groin retaining sand, the Aloia bulkhead and stairs leading down to the beach are afforded additional protection from wave backwash and erosion. The top 6"xC'00 ft long timber cap placed by Costello Marine on top of the Aloia groin in 1999, and subsequently removed in 2001, had no effect because of its small size and location at the upper beach elevation. In fact, it was observed that no change in sand retention occurred, with or without the 6 inch high timber cap. On the 3 separate occasions, when Costello Marine repaired the groin, new timber sheeting was added. In 1995 the 14 linear feet of outermost ice damaged sheeting was removed, because of the severity of the damage, and new sheeting was driven in its place. Whereas, for the 1999 center 30 ft. and for the 2001 inshore 16 ft., it was possible to drive new sheeting alongside the old sheeting, because the old sheeting was still in alignment, for the 30+16 feet. Essentially, the new sheeting sealed some gaps in the old sheeting and strengthened the double sheeted structure against wave impacts. Accordingly, today, the outshone 14 ft of groin has one row of 2 inch sheet piles. Whereas, the inshore 46 ft, has two rows of back to back 2 inch sheet piles. The differences in thickness, between one row of sheeting Vs two rows, is a structural matter only. The total thickness of sheeting has no effect whatsoever on the movements of sand along the beach front. The double row of sheeting, for the inshore 46 linear feet of groin, does not in itself cause additional retention of sand, as compared to having only one row of sheeting. Olko Engineering Page 9 Groin Construction & Beach Erosion April 20, 2004 Manago Vs Aloia& Costello Marine Costello Marine has performed the usual function of a contractor. In turn, Aloia has the right to maintain and protect his property from damage. 11Concluding Comments The existing condition of the beach, in front of the Manago property, is a natural condition. It appears "eroded", only by contrast, becausC the adjacent low, short Aloia groin retains some sand, if the Aloia groin did not exist, the )Aa:nago bwh would not have more sand in front. Instead, the Aloia beach would appear the same as the Manago beach. Both properties are in an erosion zone -- where the "natural" stable beach is essentially a coarse shingle beach—not a sand beach. The amount of sand, retained by the Aloia groin is insignificant. Without the groin, the sand would wash away, at high tide, during the first moderate winter storm — and quickly pass southward through the Manago property. The coast, north of Manago, has sand only because property owners have built/maintained groins. The beaches are artificially replenished with sand by the dredging of the inlet. However, the Manago property lacks a suitable groin and therefore, the sand traveling southward, is not retained—but bypasses the Manago property, leaving a coarse shingle beach. QQp- FS U.� ( Very truly yours, e��N lq Q` ? � 'gyp 1 lln MA �l S.M. OLKO_ tn� • , References: 9� 2rtg3 F 1. Town of Southold Erosion Management Plan., November 1995, Revised January 1996. 2. Letter Report by EN-Consultants, Inc. dated October 10, 2001, 3, Letter Report by FPM Group, Ltd., dated November 17, 2003, Manago Vs Aloia Olko Engineering Page 10 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SERVICE COPY VINCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, ) Index No . 02-15690 Plaintiffs, ) 1 - against - ) AFFIDAVIT OF 1 STEPHEN M. OLKO IN JOHN F. ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA; ) SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' COSTELLO MARINE COMRACTING CORP. ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. , ) Justice Baisley Defendants . ) RETURNABLE January 5, 2005 STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) Stephen M. Olko, being duly sworn, deposes and says : 1 . I am the principal of Olko Engineering of New York, New York. 2 . I submit this affidavit in support of the motion of Costello Marine Contracting Corp . for summary judgment . 3 . I hold a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engi- neering from Dartmouth College, a Master of Science degree in Structural Engineering from the Thayer School of Engineering, a Master of Science degree in Soils and Foundations from Harvard University, and I was a Ph . D. Candidate at Columbia University . 4 . A copy of my current curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1 . Some aspects of my qualifications and experience are summarized below: 1 5 . I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in several states, including New York state . 6 . I have been a waterfront design engineer since 1948 and formed the Firm of Olko Engineering in 1956 . 7 . As a consulting engineer, I specialize in coastal stabilization issues and projects, as well as the design, impact and construction of ports, harbors and marina facilities . S . I am and have been for several decades an expert engineer and consultant in the area of coastal and beach engi- neering, including the study and remedy of beach erosion, litto- ral drift problems, and the design, location and construction of shore protection works and structures . 9 . My attached c . v. includes a summary of some of the hundreds of waterfront, shore and coastal engineering projects of which I have been in charge as a consulting engineer. 10 . These projects have included many in Long Island, New York, which have required me to become highly familiar with the beach erosion, accretion and littoral drift-related ; _ tions which prevail along the shores of Long Island. 11 . 1 am fully familiar with the effects of beach ero- sion and littoral drift on the shores of Long Island, and with the use of "groins" and "groin fields" to stabilize shorelines 2 and combat beach erosion . For clarity, a "groin" is a jetty-like structure used to stabilize a beach. The term "jetty" is used to describe a similar structure specifically employed to protect a channel inlet . The structure at issue between the Manago and Aloha properties .is actually a wooden "groin. " 12 . I prepared a report dated April 20, 2004 in con- nection with the subject lawsuit on behalf of the defendants . A copy of my report is attached as Exhibit 2 to this affidavit . 13 . Prior to making my report (Exhibit 2) , 1 made per- sonal observations of both the wooden groin in question and the eastern shore of Nassau Point in Cutchogue . The Manago and Aloia properties are but two properties along this shoreline, on which are found several other groins, at other properties . 14 . In making my report, I also considered various re- cords in the case, including the parties' deposition testimony, various maps and charts of the relevant area, an "Erosion Plan" developed for the Town of Southold, and photographs produced by the Managos and the Aloias depicting the wooden groin and sur- rounding areas . 15 . In preparing my report, I reviewed a letter report of "EN-Consultants" dated October 10, 2001, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 to this affidavit . 3 16 . I also received and reviewed a letter report by the Managos' experts, FFM Group Ltd. , dated November 17 , 2003 . 17 . In making this affidavit, I reviewed the affidavit of plaintiffs' expert Gary A. Molnar (of FPM Group Ltd . ) dated November 17 , 2004 . 18 . I agree with Mr . Molnar that the purpose of the subject - wooden groin is to capture some sand. 19 . I do not agree with Mr. Molnar' s conclusions con- cerning the effect of the wooden groin on the Managos' property, or with the efficacy of Mr . Molnar' s proposed solution of remov- ing the groin entirely from the beach . 20 . My conclusions and opinions in this case are stated in my report, which is Exhibit 2 to this affidavit . For purposes of this affidavit I refer to the contents of my report and, by reference, incorporate those contents herein . My conclu- sions and opinions in this case include the following : 21 . The construction and maintenance of the wooden groin does not cause erosion of the Managos' beach . 22 . Removal of the wooden groin would cause erosion of the Aloias' beach, and would cause additional erosion of the Managos' beach. 4 23 . The deteriorated and partial stone groin on the Managos' property is not sufficient to stabilize the Managos' beachfront . 24 . The vertical bulkhead reconstructed by the Managos in 1996 along their beachfront worsens the erosion of their beach . 25 . The repairs by Costello Marine Contracting Corp. to the subject wooden groin, did not cause erosion of the Mana- gos' beachfront . 26. Any sand which may have passed from the Aloias' property onto the Managos' beach through the wooden groin prior to its repair would not have been retained on the Manago prop- erty, because the Managos' property is not protected by an ade- quate groin or groins . Any such pass-through sand would have continued to move southward along the shore of Nassau Point, be- cause the Managos' stone groin is inadequate and because: there is no groin at the southern end of the Managos' property. 27 . The shape, dimensions and depth of the bay upon which the Aloia and Manago properties face are such that normal wind and wave-driven littoral drift of sand does not occur . 28 . Instead, the beaches along Nassau Point are re- plenished with sand mainly as a result of dredging of Little Creek Inlet, located near the north end of Nassau Point . The ex- 3 tent to which beaches south of Little Creek Inlet (including the Aloia and Manago beaches) are nourished, as a result of dredging activity at the Inlet, depends in large part on the quantity of sand placed on the beach in a given year. 29. The movement of sand (known as "littoral drift") along the eastern shore of Nassau Point is predominantly from north to south. The Aloias' property is adjacent to and north of the Managos' property. 30. The wooden groin in question is located on or near the property line between Aloia and Manago. 31. A partial stone groin is located on the Manago property about sixty feet south of the subject wooden groin. The partial stone groin extends about thirty feet out from the shore into the bay. 32. The Managos' beach does not retain sand, and therefore often has no beach, because there is no groin at the southern end of the property to capture sand, and because the Managos' stone groin is not sufficient to retain sand. The stone groin is not large enough, and it has not been maintained. 33. The movement of sand in way of the Aloia and Manago properties cannot properly be evaluated except by examin- ing those two properties in conjunction with the overall coastal complex into which they fit. The eastern shore of Nassau Point, 6 extending south from Little Creek Inlet, is about 3 . 8 miles long, whereas the shore-front properties of Aloia and Manago together only comprise about 250 feet of that coastline . 34 . The analysis in this case cannot properly be made without taking into consideration the effects of the three groins which extend out into the bay from properties to the north of the Aloia and Manago properties . 35 . When properly maintained, the wooden groin in question is capable of retaining about 440 cubic yards of sand. This amount is absolutely insignificant in the context of the overall coastal complex, especially when the effects of the three groins to the north of the subject properties are considered as well. 36 . The wooden bulkhead along the Managos' beachfront (constructed by the Managos) adds to the erosion problem on that beach . The bulkhead reflects incoming wave energy back out into the bay, which causes scouring of the beach in front . In addi- tion, the bulkhead prevents the nourishment of the Managos' beach by eroded sand From the bluff behind the bulkhead . 37 . It is my understanding that, for years prior to the reconstruction of the bulkhead by the Managos in 1996, there was no bulkhead in place along the beachfront of the Manago prop- erty. This allowed incoming wave energy to be absorbed by the 7 sandy bluff, and the exposed sandy bluff also provided sand to nourish the Manago beach . The reconstruction of the bulkhead by the Managos in 1996 had a detrimental effect on their beach. 38 . The bulkhead along the Aloias' property, which is similar in construction to the Manago bulkhead, does not have a similar detrimental effect on the Aloias' beach because of the presence of the wooden groin, and partially retained sand, which affords protection to the Aloias' beach . 39. The repairs to the wooden groin did not impact the condition of the Manago beach . 40 . The 6" x 6" x 30-foot timber placed atop the in- shore end of the wooden groin in 1999, and subsequently removed in 2001, had no effect because of its small size (less than six inches in height) and its location at the upper beach elevation as opposed to the seaward end of the groin . This is confirmed by Mr . Manago' s statement that no change in sand retention occurred on his beach after this timber was removed. 41 . That a second layer of vertical sheeting was added to the wooden groin in 1999 (middle thirty feet of the groin) and in 2001 (inshore sixteen feet) makes a difference only in the structural strength of the groin. The thickness of sheeting has no effect whatsoever on the amount of sand retained by the groin . 8 i 42 , In my 'opinion, Costello Marine Contracting Corp , has performed the usual function of a contractor. 43 . The existing condition of the Manago beach at any time is a natural condition . 44 , Photographs claimed to depict "erosion" of the Manago beach appear so only because the adjacent wooden groin : does retain some sand - as it was designed and installed to do . 45 . If the subject wooden groin were not present, the Manago beach would not have more sand. Instead, both the Aloia and. Manago beaches would be eroded. 46 . The amount of sand retained by the subject wooden groin is insignificant . If the groin were removed, that volume of sand would be washed away, at high tide during the first mod- erate winter storm, and would quickly pass southward through and past the Manago property. 47 . Both the Aloia and Manago properties are located in an "erosion zone" where the "natural, " stable beach is essen- tially a coarse, shingle, gravel beach and not sandy beach . 48 . The shoreline north of the Manago property has sand only because property owners there built and maintained groins to protect their properties . 9 49 . Beaches along the eastern shore of Nassau Point are artificially replenished with sand by the dredging of Little Creek inlet to the north . 50 . Because the Manago property lacks a suitable groin, sand traveling southward bypasses the Manago property, leaving a coarse shingle beach . 51 , In making this affidavit, I have reviewed the af- fidavits of John Aloia and Vera Aloia, dated October 14 , 2004 , and the affidavit of George Fry dated November 22, 2004 . The de- scriptions in the Aloia and Fry affidavits of beach conditions at the subject properties in prior years are in my opinion consis- tent with both the natural beach conditions at, and the effects of dredging activities and the several groins along the eastern shore of Nassau Point . D St phen M. Olko �pFESS10 Sworn to before me this . 2Z"`day of December, 2004 ���Q 0(,� � Not ry Public Z718� ZAHIDEL ALVARADO NOTARY PUBLIC,Slag of New Yor1t Number 01ALSMSS4 QuNMlad in Bronx County Ceraftace Fiied m New York County ,omms&or%Expires June OS,20_0J 10 OLKO ENGINEERING Stephen M. 01ko Ei V,CATION: Darrputh College,BS Civ engineering. Thayer School of Engineering, MS in Structural Engineering. Harvard University, MS in Soils and Foundations. Columbia University, PhD Candidate. LICENSES: Licensed Pro f Dasional Engineer in about a dozen States in the eastern USA. PATENTS: Registered United States Patent Agent. MEMBERSHIP: ACI, AICE, ASCE, ASTM, MTS, SAME, and many other professional organizations. Served on various committees and held executive office in a number of them. MILITARY: U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Corps Reserve—Lt. Jg. PUBLICATIONS & LECTURES: Author of papers and publications on ports, Foundation and Structural Engineering. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY: Mr. 01ko was Port Engineer, Chief Soils Engineer and Project Manager, 1948-1953, with Frederick R Harris, Consulting Engineers, in New York City, In 1953 he was Chief Port Engineer in London under subcontract to the U.S. Navy on studies of classified Naval Bases in the Mediterranean. In 1954-1955 he was Chief Port Engineer for Architects-Engineers, Spanish Bases Madrid, Spain. Since commencing private practice as a Consulting Engineer in 1956, Mr. 01ko has been in charge of over 1000 Projects—in the USA and abroad. His prime specialty is Ports, Harbors, Coastal Stabilization and Marinas and their related facilities — including feasibility studies, environmental impacts, economic appraisals, detailed designs, specifications, cost estimates, permit processing, expert testimony, cargo handling equipment and supervision of waterfront construction. 01ko short resume Stephen M.01ko Coastal Engu m November 7,2003 Studies and Designs Page 1 STEPHEN NL OLKO COASTAL ENGINEER S.M. Olko is a specialist in coastal and beach engineering problems involving wave analysis, littoral drifi approach channels,beach erosion and accretion and shore protection works. During the past 40 years he has worsted internationally on projects located offshore, as well as in protected harbors and estuaries. The studies and designs for which he has been responsible generally consist of. Evaluation of natural environmental conditions - such as winds, waves, tides, currents and soils. The evaluations often require filed surveys of bathymetry, side scam sonar, seismic surveys, wave and curraA recordings. Determination of design parameters such as wave forces and net littoral drift. Preparation of technical and economic feasibility studies with conceptual drawings evaluating alternative solutions to problems of coastal engineering. Development of preliminary design and cost estimates for various coastal works - such as navigation channels, groins, revetments, silt traps, sand bypass platys, feeder beaches, training jetties, bulkheads, and breakwaters. Preparation of detailed contract drawings for construction-including inspection of the construction. The following are brief descriptions of some specific,typical past coastal engineering projects,both in the USA and abroad. Breezy Point;NY Studies of navigation channel stabilization, tidal current channel erosion and changes in peninsula due to accretion. Entire south shore of Long Island was studied. Served as expert witness to State of NY in land condemnation litigation. Champerico,Guatemala Studies of littoral drift, including hydraulic model studies and wave action. Design of entrance channels and breakwaters with necessary silt traps. Client: Port Authority of Champerico. Fort Edward,New York Study of contamination of Hudson River from PCB discharges, including studies of tidal flows, depositions, dredge equipment and dredge disposal. Entire length of Hudson River was studied. Client: General Electric Co. Stephen M Olko Coasts!Engineer November 7,2003 Studies and Designs Page 3 Punta Cana,Dominican Republic Studies of beach erosion and stabilization,with dredging of channels for marina development with breakwaters. Prepared contract drawings and inspected the construction. Client: Punta Cana Beach Club. Gleq Cave,NY Study of alternative methods and costs to contrat beach erosion with filling, groins, revetments and offshore breakwaters. Client U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Puerto Plata,Dominican Republic Study of beach stabilization and use of dredged fill from harbor to regain eroded oceanfront Inspected dredging work at Costamba r Beach. Client: ADELA Sheepshead Bay,New York Study and development of beach for students at Kingsborough Community College. Inspected construction of groins and beach filling. Client: Dormitory Authority State of NY. East Hampton,New York Studies and construction of revetments for beach stabilization and control of erosion, for several private estates located along the beach- Puerto Quetzal,Guatemala Studies,contract plans and inspection of construction for 6 Km of beach front,consisting of groins, revetments, jetties and dredging for filling and stabilization. Client:Empresa Portua is Quetzal. Sharm Et Sheikh,Egypt Studies of beac"luff stabilization and underwater walkways for minimum environmental disturbances. Client Four Seasons Hotel, La Barrita,Guatemala Study and construction of beach stabilization with marina inlet jellies. Inspected dredging, fill, revetment and breakwater construction. Client Marina del Sur, Cape May,New Jersey Study of tidal cycles and navigational access at Cape May Canal, Client: Rutgers University. Tulum,Me>dco Study of offshore parallel geotube breakwaters to stabilize and improve beaches, and estimate wave overtopping for partially submerged breakwaters. Client: Hotels. Punta Same,Ecuador Study of geobag jetties for marina entranceway to prevent siltation of access channel. Client: Casablanca Resort. Puerto Penasco,Merico Study of geotube dike to create a slat-water lagoon. Wave farces, overtopping and seepage studies total length of 4,050 meters of dike. Client: Phoenix Bank. I ws��y oE � c � c IM4;lc*y 27, 0 MAY ] 3 2005 So11thold Town Board LONG ISLAND TOPICS BY HENRY BOKUNIEWICZ AND JAY TANSKI aaking a few years ago about beach erosion, I e Sen. Hillary Clinton dis Sea ris,. ee, [1-t at 0 - cussed the need to limit car- bon-dioxide emissions that are tied to rising sea levels. Said Senator Clinton, °I don't want to represent Short Island, but Long Island." Her comment reminds us that sea level is the first fac- tor that most policy-makers focus on when they think about the Island's eroding shorelines, which are taking a particularly harsh battering4. this winter in Hampton Bays �� and Sagaponack. i It's true, sea level is rising. 00 It has been rising for 20,000 years and will rise indefinite- ly, maybe until the next ice t ' age comes 40,000 years from now. The rise is accelerated by global warming, and this does deserve our attention. But sea level plays only a i small role in Long Island's s' most ,serious erosion prob- ` - _-- - - NEWSDAYPHoro:i993 lems. The sea is rising about I inch Sea levels are rising,but this erosion at Westhampton Beach came from swifter-moving factors. a decade. If you were walking y g NO silver bullet will that slowly, you'd die of old coast, the configuration of the ribl useful in picking a date r age before you took a single shoreline and the frequency for the company picnic. step•on the other hand,even a and intensity of storm tides We've been taught, for exam- take care of erosion moderate storm can raise and waves. pie, that beaches are wide in the summer and narrow in problems . water levels 4 to G feet above one stretch of shoreline . normal in a few hours. Now might be severely damaged, the winter. But research has that's a problem! while places only a half-mile shown that this rule doesn't ay will be in aw good condition work very well on Long Is- erosion of the bluffs at Montauk As coasts! residents know, the beach changes from day to a even gain sand. The land. The width of the beach is not a significant source of day, week to week, month to changes that happen to a depends more on the time sand for South Shore beaches. month, and year to year. The beach ins single month can be since the last storm than the Erosion is complex. Manag- waves' size and direction, the hundreds of times greater than season. You can often find ing a shoreline cannot be time since the last storm, the any caused by sea-level rise. wide beaches in the middle of based on generalizations,espe- shape of the beach, even the In the face of such complex- winter and narrow beaches in cially ones that aren't necessar- size of sand grains on the ity, often our predictions are the summer. ily true.There will be no silver beach all exert their influence of the general sort, like a You may have heard also that bullet that will take care of ero- - not to mention the supply weather.forecast that "it's hot sand travels along the beach in a sion problems everywhere, of sand for rebuilding beaches, in the summer and cold in westerly direction from Mon- nor are there permanent solu- human activity along the the winter."True,but not ter- tauk to Coney Island;it does,but tions that we can build and more often you'll find it going in walk away from forever.Coast- the other direction.Some of our al erosion is a moving target, Henry Bokuniewicz is a professor of most troublesome erosion oc- and management strategies t oceanography at Stony Brook Universt curs where the waves push sand . must be capable of adapting to ty,where Jay Tanski is the New York toward the east. And, contrary changing conditions, surprises Sea Grant coastal processes specialist. to what many people believe, and,yes,mistakes. e _ R ��� �� � �� � �� � � ��� i .� �; . _. ' OPINION We have to realize that ero- sion is site-specific and be will- ing to tailor our strategies for in- dividual stretches of the coast, based on an understanding of the factors affecting each area. This requires that Long Island commit to an ongoing monitor- ing program to supply data on shoreline conditions and be will- ing to use a variety of solutions. Almost any of the available shore protection alternatives, even structures that may be anathema to us now, can prove useful in the proper situ- ation. Likewise,we should not be too hasty to dismantle old groins and jetties.There is sel- dom any guarantee that taking these out will solve an existing problem without reintroduc- ing and perhaps exacerbating old ones. Our shore protection efforts are now almost always launched in response to some emergency. '. This is inescapable to an extent. Like a.prizefighter,we need to train to respond to shifting blows,but we must also develop our strategy for anticipating and, it is to be hoped, avoiding or at least softening the next punch. This means sharing a vision for the diversity of the Long Is- land shoreline and taking steps where possible 'to, -re- store our natural defenses. A rising sea level does mean that our erosion problems will be with us indefinitely.Howev- er,it should not be trotted out as a bogeyman either to scare us away from efforts to protect or maintain our shorelines, or to panic us into some ill-consid- ered policy of fortifying every inch of the shoreline. if we are managing our coast properly,we will find that doing nothing may be the best policy in some areas, artificially mov- ing sand is appropriate in others, and engineered structures will be needed elsewhere. The op- tions must be evaluated careful- ly, deliberately and honestly, based on what is actually hap- pening on the coast. 1 nr.,ienaref . on rnem,soiaiers wnn�,�--- rUTNILL R0AD r 376.39' ev : < r y O r A 1 U LA 1 r l ^ b r N N. 82.00'00'E. IW n1 CA �.s 6 ORI YfrAY C ` ,X a apY p R' D P Sryw r 49 co,ered 0 C " I> $ Z sw.s w r M 14 ^ W ti r CL Z O ,� ' ✓S w 1 VI O Q S. 82•oD°P/O L O TE C E0 SURVf Y OF D LOT 64 & = /O L O T 65 Ana s o �o5 D CERTFED TO, "AMENDED MAP'A'0c NASSAU POWT" LAWYERS. T17-L£INSURANCE COMPANY /XEQ AEJr,, 14 FiLENO.M ABSTRACT REPORTS, LTD. Southold Town -- VINCENT MANAGO AT NASSAU POINT Board of Tmslaea 5�EOF NEW CAROL MANAGO tpo�ast MErZ dt TOWN OF`SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. ' ANY ALTERATION OR ADDITION TO TI/S SURVEY IS A VIOLATION 04— � n 1u OF SECTION 7209 OF TIE NEw YORx STATE ED/KATION uw 1000_ � � l �:l�)) TM�I ' Y. EXCEPT AS PER sECTTON Ta�'09-SIATDA1rISION 2.ALL CERTXAAw�IOW. AREA c 13O8B4 Acres $Cc'�l®1 �'- = 30 �o AEREON ARE VALD FOR TNS MAP AND COPES TTEREOc DAL F yA j SAD M TT AP OR COPES BEAR E 6P/ESSED SEAL OF TAE SURVEYOR tO he i►e8 Feb W,.1996 Eco N1 C. WHOSE SIGMA TLRE APPEARS FEREOM ELEVAT/OIJS AND CONTOUR LINES April 4, 10ERTIFIGATIONS ADDED) (63/! 76 ®D 631) 765 ADOITICWALLY TO COMPLY WII}I SAD LAW DE TERM ALTERED BY �; r, -' P. O. BOX ARE REFERENCED TD N.C.v.D. up 230 TRAVELER STREET MKISf BE USED IR ANY AND ALL SURVEYORS AS 7A 6 A COPY APRIL 7, 2001 ( dole 1 OF ANOTHER SLRV£YOR'S MAP. ''£RAMS SD!JI AS 7dA"ECTED'AN^ FLOOD ZONE LINES DE TcRM/NED Fri'�M - ,M.A.RCH 27,Z_^^! 'new 5u!k^e:d; /; 'BHUUGNT rD-DATE'AYE H0T.7a COMPLIANCE WITH TW LAW. CONTOURS 6 F1RM, 4n,.: "! 30UTHOL'J, N.Y. 9, 96- 113 Farrell Fritz, PC. 1320 RexCorp Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 f� n r4 A Fax 516.227.0777 [j j www.farrellftitz.comSEp 2 4 2007Charlotte BiblowPartner Direct Dia1516.227.0686 � P, ile No. Direct Fax 516.336.2266 B tl of Tru t57-100 cbiblow@farrellfritz.com September 21, 2007 James King, President Members of the Board of Trustees Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY Dear Mr. King and the Members of the Board of Trustees: This Firm represents Vincent and Carol Manago, the owners of the above-referenced property. We are in receipt of a letter to you sent by Philip Nykamp who represents John and Vera Aloia, the next-door-neighbors to my clients. In his letter, Mr. Nykamp has incorrectly indicated what the ruling of the Supreme Court was. Although the Supreme Court decided who owns the groin, the decision and the record clearly establish that the groin in question is the cause of the beach erosion to the Manago property and to the properties to the south. Not only was that proven by the materials that we presented to the Town previously, it was also demonstrated by the Trustees' own visits to the sites in question. The damage and destruction caused by this groin continues to destroy the Manago property and the property south of it. The Town's failure to take the appropriate action to rectify this situation has added to beach erosion problem. Very truly yours, Charlotte Biblow CAB/yp cc: Philip Nykamp Esq. Vincent and Carol Manago FFDOCSIC766421.41 Bridgehampton East Hampton Melville New York r 9woomEY, 1LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN & QUARTARARO LLP Attorneys at Law Mailin Address Locatlon OF COUNSEL THOMAS A.TWOME Y,JR- 9 KENNETH P.LAVALLE STEPHEN 6. LATHAM Post Office BOX 9398 33 West Second Street JOAN C.HATFIELD A JOHN F.SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead PHILIP D. NYKAMP CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 11901-9398 New York 1 1 901-9398 LAURA I.SGUAZZIN A DAVID M. DUBINO - JAY P.QUARTARAHO' CYRUS G. DOLCE,JR-q• PETER M- MOTT Telephone: 631-727.2180 LISA A.AZZATO-F JANICE L. SNEAD Facsimile 631.727.1767 KATHRYN DALLI MARTIN D.FINNEGAND DANIEL G.WAN[t ANNE MARIE GOODALE JENNIFER A.ANDALORO BRYAN C.VAN COTT• www.suffotklaw.com KELLY E. KINIRONS PATRICK B. FIFE LAUREN E.STILES AMIEL S.GROSS e email address: PNykarnpgsuffolklaw.com LL.M.IN TAXATION t LL.M,IN ESTATE PLANNING O NY&LA BARS 0 NY&CT BARS A Direct Fax: 631-727-2385 NY.NJ.&PA BARS D NY&NJ BARS NY, C,GA,&FL BARS{ O Extension 261 NY.NJ,CT.&FL BARS NY&TX BARS " September 18, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE (631) 765-6641 ,, , AND FIRST CLASS MAIL James King, President SEP j 9 ; ! Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold �C0::J Town Hall `--- S Tav t 53095 Route 25 Board of Trustees P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear Mr. King and Members of the Board of Trustees: This firm represents John and Vera Aloia, the owners of the groin that is subject to the above-referenced application. Reference is made to my prior letters to the Board of Trustees, dated August 23, 2005, September 20, 2005, and April 20, 2006, as well as the prior hearings in this matter. I have enclosed the judgment in Manago v. Aloia et al. This judgment was not appealed and is the final judgment. As you can see, the Manago's claims were dismissed in their entirety. In addition, the judgment states that the Aloias are the owners of the entirety of the groin and the land upon which it is situated. Accordingly, we again request that the Trustees deny the above-referenced application because: (1) the Applicant does not own the groin in question, (2) the record is clear that any maintenance performed on the groin cannot possibly be the cause of any beach erosion on the 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 ROUTE 112,FL 1S 400 TOWNLiNE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 631,324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300 James King, President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold September 18, 2007 Page 2 Manago property, and (3) because the standards for issuance of a permit to the Managos mandate that said permit be denied. See Town Code §97-28. Of course, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, rj P ilip D. ykamp PDN;kjc Enclosure cc: John and Vera Aloia Charlotte Biblow, Esq. r•i',I FA:�; NO. : 03 Sep. 07 2007 i?1:08F1.1 F- SUPRFME CQURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK --------------------------------------------------------------------X VINCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGD, Plaintiff(s), JUDGMENT WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY -against- INDEX 4 15690/02 ,IOHN F. ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA, COSTELLO .MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC., Defendant(s). ------ _ ----------x SIRS . PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the within is s true copy of the Judgment which was club• entered in the Office of the County Clerk of the County of Suffolk on ,Tune 18, 200 7. Dated-, Garden City, New York June 27, 2007 THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL L. KANZ' t 40 BY: ER, Of Cou A orneRlbr Defendants JOIN ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA Office & P,O. Address 1325 Franklin Avenue - Suite 320 Garden City, New York 11530 (516) 741-2121 FILE 4 2001-18479 TO: FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Office & P.O. Address 1320 Reckson Plaza Uniondale, New York 11M6-0120 (516) 227-0700 r t FAX NO. : 03 Sep• 07 2607 P' tiENNEDY, LILLIS, SCHMIDT & ENGLISH Attorneys for Defendants COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. 75 Maiden Lane- Suite 402 Now York, New York 10038 (212) 430-0806 k'+.Q I FAX NO. 03 Sep. 07 2007 01:09pl1 F r At a Special Terns of the Supresre Court of the State of New York. County of Suffolk, 235 ariffing Avenu verhea New YorX, or. Th day of 200'7 i PRESENT: � HONORABLE PAUL J BAISI,EY, JR. , J. S. C. I SUP"ME COURT OP THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY oD SUFFOLK VINCRNT MARAGG and WOL MANAGO. ) } l c C. Cuz_+)L� PlainCiffs, } FA(f(S4 sFr,�Z } Index No. 02-1569C k against - EA t3 PkCL Lm } JOFLN F, ALOIA and ELVIR.A ALOIA, �T .} a4R9 3 JUAGME23T COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. ) 11 N!�!! �Y�1 and COSTELLO MAR � INE SERVICES, INC. , } ; Ji1tR GW7 } T! � P Defendants . } A ! 7 The Defendants COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. and COSTELLO MA4RINS SERVICES, INC. , having moved for an Order direc~ U i ing the ent: y of summary judgment in their favor and against thF l✓ 1 P1air.Ci tts, and the Defendants+, JOHN F. ALOIA and ELVIRA A:.O1.A, having duly cross-moved for An order directing the entry a± sure- , Imary judgment in their favor and against he Plaint:.ffs, and fcr' i ( la Declaratory rudgmeAt in their favor, and the Plaintitfs having , duly cross-mQvnd for an Order directing the entry of summary- 7- j-,:dgmant in their favor and agalneC the Defendants, and oral ar 4' guments having been heard before CnIS Court on May 3 , 2005 , and. / an Order having been filed and entered on the lath day of April , '0 i l ' i 3 PAGE S,9`RUD Al UM2.0071'47;17 PM Ptnh flaAgN TImP)'S%PR0D&FAX9N42'00:5130333'CM'DURSOH(mfidst;P1�0 Frlf 1 FAX NO. 03 Sep. 07 2007 01:N9Pt1 ;✓_ r' j: 2on5 granting the CDs-rFT.:A Defendants' mo_lcr For summary Dudg- l iRment, granting the ALOIA Defendants' Cross-motion for sum-r,ary! judgment, granting a declaratory judgment in favor of the ki.01AF1 1 Defendants, and denying Plaintiffs' cross-motion, and filing i n the Defendnnts COSTELL.o 1 NOW, upon reading 1_ g , MARINE ConrrRAC'PINa CORP. and COSTELLO MARINE SERVICES, INC. ' S Mo- 1 tion dated October 1., 2004 and the Affixwati❑n of Thomas C. *cur- j phy, Esq. , dated October 1, 2004, together with the affidavits and exhibits attached thereto in support cf said motion, and 'riper! I � t�hs reading and filing of the Defendants, SOHN F. ALCIA &;t:l II ET,VIRA A.LOIA' S Croce-Mo:ior. for summary judgment dated November l �23, 2004 , and the Affirmation of Nancy R. Weiner, Saa. dated Nc- �vember 23. 2004, together with the affidavits arrd exhibits a�- ; Ir.ached thereca in support of aaia motion, and upon the readirrc! i and filing of Plaintiffs, VINCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGG' si Croas•Motion for summary judgment dared November 23, 2004, &r.o1 } jthe Affirmation of Charlotte Biblow, Esq. dated November 2004, together with the affidavits and exhibits attached theretol, { in support of said motion, and after due deliberation having been, I ,'. had thereon, and upon the order of thj.s Court dated April 12. 2006; IiI � IT Is HEREBY ORDERED, AWUDGED AND DECRE1"D that Defen- I dants, COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING .CORP. and COSTELLO MARINE, S I > I 4 Pq„'x 6,4'RCW!lT�Tr14Ql 1;41;1T ijM�Ce,�l{} TYs�e�'SVR;PROpBFAXSW112'nH(5;313W93'CSID;'�URATI4H�n�iS}:Q2.10 rFI:. 1 FAX NO. 03 5cp. 07 2007 01: 10Pi1 Fr i4:44 i SERv:CES, INC. ' 3 motion for summary :udgment is in all respects { granted and the complaint is diamissed, with prejudice, and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED tl:ar. the.i Defendants, JOHN F. AL02A and ELVIFtA ALOIA.' S motion fox• SUMMST Y E judgment is in all respects granted" and, k IT I9 FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a Ce- ' claratory Judgment is hereby granted to the Defendants, JOHn ALDIA and ELVIRA AW A, declaring that . the ALOIA Defendants axel the sole and exclusive owners of the entirety of. the -Jetty re- 1 ferred to in the Order of thin Court dated April 12, 2006 (tne � ,Jetty- ) , and the sole and exclusive owners in fee absolute ofj the land upon which the Jetty is situated (the "Land") except soli the extent that any part of the Land situated udder water is. r owned by any governmental entity under the Laws of the State of i t New Yarn or the United States ("Laws" ) , said betty being the same structure depicted in the surveys referred to in the aforemeru- � tinned orations and Cross-motions, to wit . The Donack sur"eyl f dated May 3, 1984,' the incegno survey datr;d February 27, 2002 , and the Pecoric Surveyors' survey dated February 16, 1996 , and. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that :hel', ownership of .the "Jetty" is appurtenant to the ALOIA Defendants' . II ownership of Section 118, Black 14 and Lot 9, also known as 8045 Nassau Point Road . Cutchogue, Suffolk County. New York, ,the I • 5 I RACE 7 `RCVD AT 5r2In�01 f;4�;lT PM jCemraibayligldT�ne�=5VR PR4DBPJ�(9Y1l12'DwS,�1�0393'CSC:"DilRAn4H(mmss),D214 I FF_r t FAX NO. 03 Sep. 07 2007 01: 10FN F­ 0E 44 "ALCIA Property' ) and that the ALDI?. Defendants, and any nucces- � I oars in interest to the ALCIA Property, subject to all Laws, have and shall have the exclus,ve right to possession, custody andl control oP the "Jetty" ; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEC'RBED that the I exclue i.ve fee simple estate of JQHN F. ALCIA and ELVIRA ALCIA :n l I the "Lando underlying the "Jetty subject to all "Laws, " sha'_i � i merge with ownership of the ALCIA Property, and suet estate shallf' �I iinure to the suCCescoxs in interest to the ALCIA Property, ana; li 1 1T IS s'URTFiEIi ORDERED, ADJ=CZD AND DECREED than trit Suffolk Co>Lnty Clerk, being the County RegisCrar, is hereby di - rected to eater, record and index this Judgment in its books un- der Section 118, Block 1.4 and Lot 9, and; I 1T IS PUR';HER ORDERED, ADaWCED AND DECREED Chat tht! ' I Plaintiffs' Cross-Motion for summary Judgment is in all respectsi denied; and, I IT IS PURTFMR ORDERED, ADJVWED AND DECREED that Plain t ! tiffs' complaint and all cross-claims are dismissed, wiCh pre_j- (dice, and. IT 1S FURTHER ORDr-RED, AWLTOCiED AND DECREED that r.he i Detendants ' requests for costs are hereby denied; snd, r R 5 4 PACE U °RCYD AT 6U2T{W 1:1 T PM[UWt Ufigk Time]=MPRODBFAM12'DMO-5130393=CSID: DURATION�ms):02,i0 Frill : FAX NO. : 03 Sep, 07 2007 01: 11PH P, r !! -T IS FURTHeR ORDEUD, ADJMGED A-NO DECREED tnat _his1i i judgment be entered herein by the Clerk of phis Court in favor of , the Defendants, JOHN F, XT-01A, ELVIi4A ALOI_A, COSTELLO MARINEi CONTACTING CORP. and COSTELIO MARINE SERVICES. INC. and aga,nstl the Plaintiffs, VINCENT MAXACC and CAROL K NAGO. i �r ,judgment a L"d thia day Of 2007 N T E R, i GRANTED 6' 6ezej,�2 .s . c. fl JUN 0 4 2007 JuCltn A.Pascalr CLERK of 9l1FFOLK couNTY O 1 r .: � s �'M k.L.,� 0:•�`E-n{-�2. 3fr 3 2GJ 44 .-fix C,034 n i o M Rn�u (:VAJVa Lhx y !I CLJv,d C.aikoo rA a.u.:u SuvaZ(A -7 S In 0— L4-f+-A Sic u'Y. 4 i •� E PAR N'RUD AT 6'77l1 7 f#T:it PM CCt J Day6g d T�rt►r�'SYR ARODbFAX9HR12`DHl3:Sl3€19�r CSiD:=DUR�T1a1I ptu�SSrD1!0 FHX NO. : 03 Sep. 07 2007 01: 11PI-1 F-- SETRFNIE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW WORK COE;NTY OF St:FFOLK V1NCENT MANAGO and CAROL MANAGO, Plaintiff(s), CERTIFICATION -against- INDEX # 15690/02 ,IOIIN ALOIA and ELVIRA ALOIA, COSTELLO'S MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. AND COSTELLO N1 .RINE SERVICES, INC., Defendants CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 130-1.1-a OF THE RULES OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR (22NYCRR) The undersigned certifies the following documents pursuant to 22NYCRR Section 130- JUDG'VIENT WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY Dated: Garden City, New York ,Dine 27, 2007 THE LAW OFFICES OF NEIL L. NLER BY: CY R,Of Counsel Attorneys for Defendants 3OHN ALOIA & ELVIRA ALOIA Office & P.O. Address 1325 Franklin Avenue- Suite 320 Garden City,New York 11530 (516) 741-212I FAX NO. : 03 Sep. 07 2007 01:1 aPI P 1 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) S5: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) NANCY R. WEINER, being duly sworn,deposes and says: That deponent is over the age of eighteen years, Is not a party to this lawsuit, and resides in Suffolk County, New York. That on the 27th day of June, 2007 deponent served the within JUDGMENT WITH NOTICE OF ENTRY upon: FARRELL FRITZ, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs Office & P.O. Address 1320 Recksoa Plaza Uniondale, New York 11556-0120 (516) 227-0700 KEN, EDY, LILLIS, SCHNUDT & ENGLISH Attorneys for Defendants COSTELLO MARINE CONTRACTING CORP. COSTELLO -KARINE SERVICES, INC. 75 Maiden Lane - Suite 402 New York, New York 10038 (212) 430-0906 via first class mail, by depositing a true copy thereof, in a sealed wrapper,with postage prepaid thereon, in an official depository of the United States Postal Service within the States of New Ynrk. CY R. . ER Sworn to before me this day of June 2 7. `OT ARY UBL C NEIL L. KANZER Notary Public- State of New York No. 02KA6095299 QuaKied it Suffolk County hey Commission Expires ju!y 7. 2007 PATRICIA A. FINNEGAN • SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY O a�F SOUTyI Supervisor patricia.finnegan@town.southold.ny.us 0 ~ O Town Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 KIERAN M. CORCORAN P.O. Box 1179 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY 00 ac Southold,New York 11971-0959 kieran.corcoran@town.southold.ny.us G ib LOR.I M. HULSEO Telephone (631) 765-1939 �C ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY QU{ , Facsimile(631) 765-6639 tori.montefusco@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 2007 Mr. Vincent Manago 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 Re: Alola Jetty Dear Mr. Manago: Please be advised that, as a follow-up to our meeting on September 5, 2007, 1 discussed this matter with all members of the Town Board. After reviewing your concerns in great detail over the past several months, the Town Board, the Board of Trustees, the Police Department, and the Town Attorney's Office are in agreement that the Town will take no action concerning your allegations of violation on the part of your neighbor. On behalf of the Town, I apologize for any distress this matter has caused you and your family. truly your SEP 1 2C07 tricia A. Fi neg n wn Attorney PAFIIk cc: Members of the Town Board Members of the Board of Trustees Ms. Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk Chief Carlisle Cochran, Southold Town Police Department r PATRICIA C. MOORE Attomey at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631)765-4330 Fax: (631)765-4643 May 7, 2007 Hon. Scott A. Russell Supervisor and Members of the Southold Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold NY 11971 RE: VINCENT MANAGO SCTM: 1000-118-4-10 Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Town Board: With reference to the above and supplementing my client's previous correspondence of May 8, 2007, enclosed please find a copy of a portion of the Trustees minutes of April 20, 2005 wherein it was stated by Aloia's attorney, Mr. Gaffney that "the Trustees have not lost their opportunity to act in a way they feel appropriate....Trustees have an absolute right to control the way construction is done." Please make this part of the previous packet submitted for your use at the work session to be held tomorrow, Tuesday, May 8, 2007. Thank you. V Qrt my yours, «-- atricia PCM1tW- ends. FMALAY715 C: Board of Trustees; SoutholdLori Montefusco, Town Attorney's Office 2-007 Town rust," 1�,1 uu u.s:3UF 5166275904 • • page 2 Board of Trustees 56 Apri12Q, 2005 by the ice storms. I can't really tell you when it was bulkheaded, but it was bulkheaded by 1958 when my parents bought the house. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. MR. SCHIFF: Good everting, my name is David Schiff. I'm the resident at 8425 Nassau Point Road, I'm the homeowner that is directly south of the Managos and two homes south of the Aloya property, and I wanted to first thank the Board very much for their time and energy on this topic. As you know and as you've seen, my beach has been materially impacted for the worse with the reconstruction of the jetty. I purchased the house in '98. I had a beach with some rocks but certainly not the devastated beach that I have now. This jetty has eroded and dropped the sand level by a few feet causing potential undermining of my bulkheading, preventing my enjoyment of the beach, and it's a very serious issue. So I would ask the Board to grant the Manago permit for the removal, for the destruction of the jetty to restore it to.. nonfurl-QtjQNn9 state, so that the natut—aMw can be restored and the beach rebuilt. TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, MS. BIBLOW: I would like to respond to a couple of things that Mr. Gaffney-said because I vt am invo o the Iawsuit, and I do represent the Managos in the lawsuit, Whether the judge is, .09 order.saying that,irs the Manago betty, the Aloya ietty or no one's jetty, the probT�m is that that jetty is destroying Nassau Point and this Board has an obligation to correct that. In 200.1. you had 66.. pportunity to do that, and what you did was yoj relied upon the good faith of the Aloyas and the Managos to try to work it out themselves. Unfortunately, the Aloyas did not act in good faith. The minute they walked out of this hearing in 2001 they refused to do anything about it. We had no choice but to sue, but that does not change the situation which is that this jetty is too high, too wide, too long and it is destroying a beautiful beach that goes all along Nassauoint, `.7-- I �• As said, I do have Mr. Mulnar here, and I would really encourage the Board if they had any questions about the devastation this jetty is causing. This is not a low profile jetty;this is high profile. This isj_.fii'gl�:-- i er tremendously Ft 9Fr"jetty. Tbam -%noftg that the supreme Court has done to stop this Board from acting. Th re is no stgy in .lace that prevents you from acg in your lawful jurisdiction.abQiit you. this jetty. Thank 56 NAY 04,2007 03:50P 5166275904 page J Board of Trustees 57 Apri120, 2005 ti.. MR. GAFFNEY:)I may, since the matter is before the Supreme Court, in all its various issues, many of which are very complicated, what we have heard tonight is basically anecdotal information from people that are potential witnesses in that same action. They're not being cross-examined, time and places are not being established, it's not in accordance with the rules of evidence, and I'm not suggesting that it's inappropriate. What I'm suggesting is that we have at our disposal in less than as monfli a -- vehicle for establishing the truth, not what people remember, not anecdotal information, not unsubstantiated evidence, but a trail process that can establish the truth. It can establish who the owner of the property is. By the way, one of the causes of action is for injunctive relief, asking the court to compel the removal of the jetty, but of course, it first has to be determined that it is, in fact, different from what the Aloyas are saying, and that's a process that has to go on. And I would suggest that it's not a process that we're going to get to the bottom of tonight. W,e're asking to let the process that's under way in the_Supreme Court fulfill itself.`-Mere­will -be Testimony, there will be an opportunity to rebut, there will be an application of the rules of evidence, and the court will make a determination on these issues. Have the Aloyas been negligent, should the plaintiffs be entifled to injunctive relief, were the Aloyas negligent per se; is there trespass; is there nuisance. This is a rather w, .�-•�� complicated real property litigation. It involves some . relatively serious_issues. Once these things have been sorted aut.irs t . .properform, the trust' have not lost : their opportunity to.act in a.waythat they feel is'. appropriate. Whoever it is that's determined to be#be owner of the d,'t then wouldTe tTe subject of that action."'Nobody denies, and certainly I woul0.n`�,,�t.the�- Boards of~{rustees'has an'absolute right to control the way construction is done in a wetlands area, to compel the removal of the jetty too, if it sees fit, all of those things._, But the applicant is makirig'the request today to remove their jetty. It has not be been established by any means that it is, in fact, their jetty. An argument could be made if it is their jetty and it is in violation, it's been that way for a long time. This jetty has been there, it was my understanding, since the '50s. Even if it's true that it's been there since the '60s, the period of time that it's been there under the control and open and notorious ownership of the Aloyas raises some significant issues which are part of 1 57 TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN, REALE & QUARTARARO, LLP Attorneys at Law THOMAS A.TWOM EY,JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL STEPHEN B.LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P LAVALLE JOHN F.SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD A CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 1 1 901-9398 New York 1 1 901-9398 DAVID M.DUBiNo ANNE MARIE GOODALE P. EDWARD REALE LAURA I.SGUAZZINA JAY P_QUARTARAROT Telephone:631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO PETER M.MOTT Facsimile: 631.727.1767 BRYAN C.VAN COTT JANIGE L.SNEAD ALICIA S-O-CONNOR6 MARTHA L LUFT LISA A_AZZATO+ JANE DiGIACOMO www.suffolklaw.com KATHRYN DALLI PHILIP D. NVKAMP DANIEL G.WANIt MARTIN D_ FINNEGAND NY&LA BARS O I.L.M.IN TAXATION t email address: PNykamp@suffolklaw.com NY&CT BARS o NY,NJ.&PA BARS B NY&NJ BARS Direct Fax: 631-727-2385 NY.OC.FL.&GA BARS+ Extension 261 +~�� September 20, 2005 ZpQ� SEP 2I i 1 VIA FACSIMILE 631) 765-6641 } AND FEDERAL EXPRESS - -- Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O, Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: This firm represents John and Vera Aloia, the owners of the jetty that is subject to the above- referenced application. I write in response to the letter from Charlotte Biblow to you, dated September 14, 2005, and in further opposition to the application. As an initial matter, the Aloias have never admitted that they performed "reconstruction" activities on the groin during the period from 1999-2001. In fact, all that was performed was ordinary and usual maintenance and repair of the permitted groin. Therefore, in accordance with Southold Code Section 97-13, no permits were required for this repair. Section 97-13 states as follows: "The provisions of this chapter shall not affect or prohibit nor require a permit for the following: (5) the ordinary and usual maintenance or repair (of the same dimensions) of a presently permitted, existing building, dock, pier, wharf, jetty, groin, dike, damn or other water control device or structure". 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265A 414 631.765,2300 t Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Members of the Board of Trustees, Town of Southold September 20, 2005 Page 2 The Aloias' groin was permitted by the Trustees to be repaired in 1995 (i.e., the Trustees found the groin"functional"), and all subsequent repairs of the groin did not require a permit in accordance with Section 97-13. With respect to the 6 x 6 timber wale that was added to the top of the jetty in 1999, that wale was subsequently removed and had no effect on the Manago's beach. This is the "reconstruction" to which Ms. Biblow refers on page 5 of her letter and in her reference to the August 27, 2001 transcript. See Biblow letter at Exhibit "8". Of course, with the removal of the wale, there was never any change in the size and design of the jetty. The Applicants' attorney goes through great pains to describe the inner workings of the Aloias' collective minds and their intentions in lawfully repairing their own groin(e.g., equating the Aloias' lawful repair of their groin to "the nefarious "midnight dumper"who disposes of toxic materials secretly when no one is around to catch him.") I hope that the Trustees are able to look past the theatrics of the Applicant and realize that the Aloias very simply performed ordinary maintenance and repair on the groin that has been on their property for over 50 years. With respect to the prior jetty decisions that Ms. Biblow cites to in her letter, they are all easily distinguishable from the issues in this case in that they all involve "reconstruction", or "removal and replacement". None of the applications involved a request to perform ordinary repair and maintenance, as performed by the Aloias on their groin. That makes sense when one considers that"ordinary and usual maintenance or repair"does not require a permit. See Section 97-13. We again request that the Trustees deny the application because: (1) the applicant does not own the groin in question, (2) any maintenance performed on the groin cannot possibly be the cause of any beach erosion on the Manago property, and (3) because the standards for issuance of a permit to the Mangos mandate that said permit be denied. See Section 97-28. Very truly y urs, ilip D. Ny PDN;kjc cc: John and Vera Aloia Charlotte Biblow, Esq. TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN, REALE & QUARTARARO, 1,LP Attorneys at Law THOMAS A.TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location 6F COUNSEL STEPHEN B_ LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P, LAVALLE JOHN F. SHEA. III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFiELO 11 CHRISTOPHER D_ KELLEY New York 1 1 901-9398 New York 1 1 901-9398 DAVID M. DUBINo ANNE MARIE GOOOALE P. EDWARD RFALE LAURA I. SGUAZZINA JAY P. OUARTARAROr Telephone: 631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO PETER M_ MOTT Facsimile_ 6`:31.727,1767 BRYAN C.VAN COTT JANICE L.SNEAD ALICIA S. O'CONNORA MARTHA L. LUFT LISA A.AZZATO+ JANE DiGIACOMO www.suffolklaw.com KATHRYN DALLI PHILIP D. NYKAMP DANIEL G.WANIr MARTIN D. RNNEGANo email address: PNykamp@suffolklaw.com NV 8 LA BARS > LL.M.IN TAXATION t NY&CT BARS A Direct Fax: 631-727-2385 NY N,,a PA BARS o NY&NJ BARS NY,❑C.FL,&GA BARS+ Extension 261 August 17, 2005 VIA FACSIMILE„(631. 76) 5-6641 AND FIRST CLASS MAIL I Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees, Town of Southold AUG 18 M Town Hall 53095 Route 25 Southold Town P, O. Box 1179 Board of Trustees Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear Mr. Krupski: As you know, we represent John and Vera Aloia, owners of the property located at 8045 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, immediately north of the above-referenced property, I have been informed that a hearing on the above-referenced application is scheduled for Wednesday, August 24, 2005. After being made aware of the hearing date, we contacted our coastal erosion experts to determine their availability to testify on August 24. The coastal erosion expert will provide the Trustees with testimony supporting the Aloia's position opposing the above-referenced application. However, neither of our experts are available to testify on August 24. Therefore, I am requesting that the hearing on the above-referenced application either be adjourned to a date in September, or that the hearing on the 24`l' be kept open so that a subsequent hearing date can be scheduled to receive testimony from the Aloia's coastal erosion expert. 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O.BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE,NY 11788 SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 631.324.1200 631.287.0090 631.928,4400 631.265.1414 631.765.2300 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President August 17, 2005 Page 2 I thank you for your consideration of this request. Of course, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. *ip k p PDN;kjc cc: E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. John Aloia 08/17/2005 16:06 FAX 63172724$ TWOMEYLATHAMSHEWELLEY4 12 002/003 TwoMEY, LATHAM, SHEA, KELLEY, I)U13IN_ KEALE fir QUARTARARQ, i.v.r Arfaiwey.s at Lail, THOMAS A TWOMEY.JR mod,np A7drese Location 9c COv-%tL STEPHEN E. LATHAM A091 Office Box sage 33 WeBI SL+C011CI SlreBl KENrvETN R.LAVALLS JQNN F."EA.III SIverflead riiverhead JOAN C.14ATFIELD A CHFIBTOPHER D KELLEY New York 1 1 90 1-93913 Nrw York 11901.9396 DAVID M.01JOIN a ANNE LAURA UR 6O(IDALE 1,SGUA221N& P. ,P ARDQUA REALE TRACY KANECH PALUI480 JAY P Q M. MOTT ARQI Tpcxinn nN.631.727.2160 RRYAN C VAN COTT• PETER M.MOTT Fecrim,le 1;31.727,1767 jANICE I 4NFAD ALICIA 5. VAN MARTHA L.LUFT USA A22Aro4 JANE ViGIACOMO www,suflolklaw.com KATHRYN DALLI CIAwrt.C3 WANI I 1"ry!L!F'U.NYKAMI' MARTIN D FINNEnANO email address PNykamp a suifolklaw.com NY A LA RARr LL M IN TAXATION I NY•CT 9AF1d C Direct Fax; 631-727-2383 NY.N+ 6 PA 9Ans 0 NY A NJ OARS NY QC YL.A GA R-R$+ Extension 261 August 17, 2005 VIA FACSIMLE(631)765-6641 AND FIRST CLASS MAI El 1' Albert J. Kru ski, Jr., President ` Board of Trustees, Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Route 25 L P_ 0. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959c Re: Vincent and Carol Manago Premises: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY SCTM: 118-4-10 Dear Mr. Krupski: As you know, we represent John and Vera Aloia, owners of the property located at 8045 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York, immediately north of the above-referenced property. Y have been informed that a hearing on the above-referenced application is scheduled for Wednesday, August 24, 2005. After being made aware of the hearing date, we contacted our coastal erosion experts to determine their availability to testify on August 24. The coastal erosion expert will provide the Trustees with testimony supporting the Aloia's position opposing the above-referenced application_ However, neither of our experts are available to testify on August 24. Therefore, 1 am requesting that the hearing on the above-referenced application either be adjourned to a date in September, or that the hearing on the 24'h be kept open sa that a subsequent hearing date can be scheduled to receive testimony from the Aloia's coastal erosion expert. 90 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN sTREET 40o TOWNLINE ROAD 56UO MAIN ROAD,P O.ROX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11A37 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11958 POriT JEFFERSON 5TA.,NY 11776 LlAUPPAUGF,NY 11710 SOUTHOLD,NY 11071 631 324 1?MI 631.287.0090 631.928.4400 631.265.104 Rif 765 2300 O8/17/2OO5 18:07 FAX 631727� TWOMEVLATHAM3HEA&KELLE* 1&003/003 Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President August 17, 2005 Page 2 Y thank you for your consideration of this request_ Of course, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me- Yours truly, l PDN;kjc ZD. k p £�les��-- cc: E_ Brownell Johnston, Esq./ John Aloia 08/17/2005 IGAG FAX 631727 TIONNEYLATHAMSHEA&KELLEV* f 001/003 TWOMEY, LA'x'HAM, SHEA, KELLEY, DUBIN, REALE & QUA.RTA,RARO, LIP Alrurne.rs w LoLr THOn10%S A. f WOMEY.JH. MA1.09 Add-- Locarion u�uoumnri B TE PHEN B.LATNAM Post Off arR GOO 3306 33 Weei Second Street KENNETH P LAVALLE JOHN F,SHEA. M Rivcrheed Riveeheald JOAN C HATFIEL O A CHRISTOPHER D.KELLEY New York 1 1001-0398 New Yom 11901.9398 DAVID M bUDINi, ANNF MARIC GOODALE P.EDWARD REALE LAVRA I,SDUA221NO JAY a OUARTARARD' TAlaoho—.631.727.2190 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBn P ETFRM M[)TT F—i-1,_s`j1,7Q7,17t77 6 RYAN C.VAN CQTT' JANICE L.5NEAD Ai_c CIA;g D DDNNQRA MAiITHA L.LUFT LIRA A AZZATD+ JANE MCPACOMO www,3t+ftOIk1aw.conn KATHRYN nAi_i,i Ly M141P U {JY KAMO DANIEL G WANIT MARTIN D FINNEBAN0 �— NY A LA PARR ' FAX COVER SHEET M IN TAYATQry 1 NY L C,1 OAR:Q N� NJ 6 r A GARS.O NY L NJ RARE, . NY.GC ►L A G.A.@AR@{ TO: Albert J. Kru ski Jr. FROM: PTtilip Nykamp, Esq. TELECOPY NO: 631--765-6641 TRANSMISSION DATE: 8/17/05 TIME SENT: 5:04 1m SUBJECT: Vincent and Carol klanago NUMBER OF PAGES FOLLOWING THIS COVER SHEET: 2 IF ANY OF THESE PAGES ARE NOT LEGIBLE PLEASE CALL(631) 727.2180 AND NOTIFY: _._KaseY EXT: 262 PLEASE DELIVER THIS DOCUMENT TO: ROOM/EXTENSION/FLOOR: NOTES: This information may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is only tranxmitled for the intended recipient. Any review,retransmission,conversion to hard copy,copying,reproduction, circulation,publication,dissemination,or other use of,or taking of any action,or omission to Lake action. in reliance upon this information by persons or cntities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If yotl have received this message in error,please contact the sender and dcicLC the material from any computer,disk drive,diskette,or other SLorage device or media. 20 MAIN STFIFET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET 400 TOWNLINE ROAD SR140 MAIN ROAD.R O 13OX 326 EAST HAMPTON.NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11968 MAT JEFFEnSON STA..NY 11776 HAUPPAUGE.NY 11788 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 631.31!4.1200 E31 287.00W 631.928.dA00 631.285.1414 631 765.2100 Farrell Fritz, P. EAB Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.farrellfritz.com D) Charlotte Biblow 6 20L,J Partner Soathold Town Direct Dial 516.227.0686 Board of Trustees Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2266 57-100 cbiblowgfarrel l fritz.com August 15, 2005 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Hon. Albert J. Krupski, President and Members of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago 8225 Nassau Point Road,Cutcho2ue New York Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: As you may recall, this firm represents Vincent and Carol Manago on their application regarding their jetty. The Managos' application, initially heard at the April 2Oth Board of Trustees meeting, was adjourned by the Board of Trustees. It is now currently on the calendar for the August 24, 2005 meeting. The application was submitted following an inspection by the Board of Trustees of the damage caused by extensive and unauthorized repairs to the jetty by Mr. and Mrs. Aloia, who live next door to the Mangos in Cutchogue. Subsequent inspections by the Board of Trustees have confirmed the devastation not just to the beach in front of the Managos home, but also to residents south of the Manago property. Enclosed is a copy of a letter that one of the neighbors provided to the Managos, detailing their beachfront erosion problems caused by the Aloia jetty modification. I previously provided the Board of Trustees with a copy of the motions for summary judgment concerning the jetty, as requested at the April 20th meeting. No ruling has been issued by the Court on those motions. However, I wanted to point out to you pertinent testimony and documents in those motion papers that unequivocally establish that the Aloias made significant changes to the inshore 50 feet of the 64 foot jetty without applying for or obtaining any permit from the Town. The affidavits and deposition testimony included in the motion papers demonstrate the following. In 2001, the Aloias hired Costello Marine to reconstruct the jetty. The changes resulted in the jetty being widened, as a double row of sheathing was installed during the reconstruction activities, where a single row of porous sheathing had been in place pre- construction. In addition, the Aloias and Costello Marine admitted in their depositions that they Bridgehampton East Hampton Melville New York Uniondale August 15, 2005 Page 2 raised the jetty's height. This major overhaul of the jetty was done without any Town permits and without the knowledge and consent of the Managos. See Costello Affidavit at ¶¶ 82 to 107; Deposition of Mrs. Aloia at page 118, line 25 to page 121, line 2; page 123, lines 9-11; and page 128, line 24 to page 132, line 15 and Deposition of Mr. Aloia at page 176, line 20 to page 180, line 5. The Aloias and Costello Marine admitted they also failed to apply for or obtain permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("NYSDEC"), the United States Army Corps of Engineers or any other applicable governmental agency to reconstruct the jetty. See Costello Affidavit at ¶ 101, Costello Deposition at page 37, line 6 to page 41, line 4; page 50, line 14 to page 51, line 15; page 76, line 14 to page 79, line 14; page 113, line 15 to page 114, line 8; page 142, lines 22-25; and page 227, lines 9-21 and Deposition of Mr. Aloia at page 181, lines 4-22. The NYSDEC issued a Notice of Violation to the Aloias for this unauthorized work, (see Exhibit "D" attached to Mr. Manago's Affidavit), which violation has not yet been resolved. This Board must order that this reconstruction be undone. As the Managos own the jetty, their application seeks a permit to undo the unauthorized work done by the Aloias and Costello, as that reconstruction has caused devastating injury to the Manago property. However, this Board has the power to order the Aloias and Costello to undo the reconstruction of the jetty, as it was done without permits, even without ruling on the issue of jetty ownership. The destructive effects of the unauthorized reconstruction continues unabated and this Board must and can rectify the situation. I look forward to further discussing this matter with the Board of Trustees at the August 24th meeting. Veerry,,truly yours, Charlotte Biblow cc: Mr. and Mrs. Manago (via fax wlent.) FFDOC S I\644826 01 E AUG 16 � Southold Town Board of Trustees 06/14/05 TUE 14:08 FAX 516 *399 KINKO'S — GREAT NEC�% 2002 1 560 Carter Street New Canaan, Connecticut 06340 Board of Trustees (203) 966-4299 D � � ��e , Town Hall -Town of Southold , AD 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 AUG 6 M Re: Manago Hearing—June 22, 2005 Southold Town Hoard of Trustees Dear Members of the Board: We are the owners of a home at 9045 Nassau Point Road which is located 500 feet to the south of the jetty which you will be discussing at your June 22 meeting. Regrettably, we are unable to attend the Hearing to address the Board personally, but we are hopeful that you will accept this written communication as an indication of our deep concern. The formerly compromised and dilapidated jetty which will be the subject of the June 22 discussion has been reconstructed, reinforced(and possibly extended)without a hearing,any sort of approvals or any due process. This controversial and self-serving action on the part of one property owner has resulted in serious consequences for a number of neighbors whose properties no longer benefit from the natural littoral drift of sand to replenish our beaches. This jetty is a substantial wall of recent vintage which blocks any natural drift. Without a natural source of new sand, the level of our beach has dropped approximately two feet in the past two years. We now have lost the natural protective shelf in front of our home against which waves would wash, even at high tide, thereby absorbing the energy of normal wave action. The consistent smacking of waves against our bulkhead, which is now the norm as each high tide approaches, threatens the stability of the bulkhead and will eventually weaken and compromise the structure. In 2000-2001 we made three separate applications to the Town Trustees in connection with the construction of our current home and certain other site work. We deeply respect and support the work and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees and appreciated each of your personal commitments and responsibilities as Trustees. We believe strongly that compliance with Trustee and Town guidelines and requirements cannot be a matter of individual homeowner preference or sentiment. In our fragile environment, the welfare and interests of all residents are inter-Iinked. Unilateral, aggressive and self-serving actions by individual members of our community which violate public policy simply cannot be condoned. If you concur that this jetty has been re-built without your required approvals, we then strongly urge you to conclude further that the only appropriate remediation would be the complete dismantling and removal of this structure. This is the only proper outcome of this discussion given the inappropriate actions of those who re-constructed this wall and given the resulting damage already suffered by the neighbors "downstream." This is an important message for the Southold Town Trustees to deliver. incerely, a David W. Kilbride Kathleen B. Kilbride 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 Hon. Albert J. Krupski, President July 12, 2005 And Members of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY SCTM# 118-4-10 Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: I was deeply disappointed to learn that you have again adjourned our application pending a decision by the judge on motions that were made for summary judgment on ownership. This is now the third adjournment on this application. You may recall that this issue was first brought to your attention in August of 2001. At that time you asked us to try to resolve the matter in a neighborly manner; we tried without success and were forced into the litigation process. Since then a number of points are worth noting: • The Aloias were issued a Notice of Violation from the NYSDEC for the jetty reconstruction because they had no permit to do the work. • The DEC required them to obtain a new survey which shows the jetty is on my property. • The jetty was determined to be "non-functioning" by the Town (my attorney has furnished you that evidence). • The Aloias and their contractor admitted that they made changes to the-inshore SQ feet of the 64-foot jetty without any pen-nits. 'this resulied in changing the dimensions of the jetty. • We have provided you with a letter from our engineer discussing the extreme erosion to our beach and the remediation required. • You have heard from a number of our neighbors to the south who are concerned about the erosion of their beaches and the stability of their bulkheads; they have urged you to take the appropriate action to remedy the problem caused by the jetty. • My application was filed at your request and at my expense, based on my neighbor's appeal to you to inspect the jetty and take acti Qn to save. the beaches. saatsnii to POP �"17� 90'02 I n r 1 t;A _ `1 • You have inspected the jetty at least twice in the past few months and have seen the devastating effect the reconstruction has had on our beach and on the beaches of our neighbors to the south. You have indicated that the jetty would not meet your standards (length, height, low-profile, etc.). The legal process is long and circuitous. If it is not in one's interest to obtain a speedy trial then delays, motions, legal maneuvers and appeals can further delay the process. It is my understanding that the judge may rule on this most recent motion for Summary Judgment or he may decide to let a potential jury determine who owns the jetty. This may continue to go on for an indeterminate amount of time. That is why we are requesting your decision on the jetty solely on the merits and facts before you based on the rules and regulations of the Town. Why should those of us who have tried to abide by the Town's laws be made to suffer the consequences and years of injustice caused by the lawless actions of self-serving individuals? To facilitate the Board's action, Mr. Johnston, the Town's legal advisor, requested documentation showing that the jetty was reconstructed without permits. My attorney has provided you with the deposition transcripts of the Aloias and their contractor admitting that they made significant changes to the jetty without permits. At the time of your inspection you indicated that significant changes were now required to remedy the situation and that "It doesn't matter who owns the jetty." I believe the ownership issue presented to you is just another red herring meant to divert attention from the real issue --the legality of the reconstruction. Waiting for an ownership ruling may take a long time. I do not understand how your decision on the jetty will change depending upon who owns it. Either it was reconstructed legally with due process for all or it was reconstructed without permits and must be removed —regardless of who owns it. I believe you have the authority to issue an order on the reconstruction notwithstandin owners— we all know who reconstructed it without permits. Therefore, I am respectfully requesting that you rule on our application at the July, 2005 meeting. V frytrul o s 'Vincent ana g 0 PS Attached is a letter from one of our neighbors, which I believe was previously submitted to the Board. 560 Carter Street New Canaan, Connecticut 06840 (203) 966-4299 Board of Trustees June 5, 2005 Town Hall -Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Manago Hearing—June 22, 2005 Dear Members of the Board: We are the owners of a home at 9045 Nassau Point Road which is located 500 feet to the south of the jetty which you will be discussing at your June 22 meeting. Regrettably, we are unable to attend the Hearing to address the Board personally, but we are hopeful that you will accept this written communication as an indication of our deep concern. The formerly compromised and dilapidated jetty which will be the subject of the June 22 discussion has been reconstructed, reinforced (and possibly extended)without a hearing, any sort of approvals or any due process. This controversial and self-serving action on the part of one property owner has resulted in serious consequences for a number of neighbors whose properties no longer benefit from the natural littoral drift of sand to replenish our beaches. This jetty is a substantial wall of recent vintage which blocks any natural drift. Without a natural source of new sand, the level of our beach has dropped approximately two feet in the past two years. We now have lost the natural protective shelf in front of our home against which waves would wash, even at high tide, thereby absorbing the energy of normal wave action. The consistent smacking of waves against our bulkhead, which is now the norm as each high tide approaches, threatens the stability of the bulkhead and will eventually weaken and compromise the structure. In 2000-2001 we made three separate applications to the Town Trustees in connection with the construction of our current home and certain other site work. We deeply respect and support the work and jurisdiction of the Town Trustees and appreciated each of your personal commitments and responsibilities as Trustees. We believe strongly that compliance with Trustee and Town guidelines and requirements cannot be a matter of individual homeowner preference or sentiment. In our fragile environment, the welfare and interests of all residents are inter-linked. Unilateral, aggressive and self-serving actions by individual members of our community which violate public policy simply cannot be condoned. If you concur that this jetty has been re-built without your required approvals, we then strongly urge you to conclude further that the only appropriate remediation would be the complete dismantling and removal of this structure. This is the only proper outcome of this discussion given the inappropriate actions of those who re-constructed this wall and given the resulting damage already suffered by the neighbors "downstream." This is an important message for the Southold Town Trustees to deliver. Sincerely, David W. Kilbride Kathleen B. Kilbride Farrell Fritz, PC 3 EAB Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.farrellfritz.com Charlotte Biblow Partner Direct Dial 516.227.0686 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2266 16457-100 ebiblow@farrcilfritz.com June 14, 2005 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS f C E W E Hon. Albert J. Krupski, President �5 and Members of the Town of Southold Board of Trustees JUN 5 2005 Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Southold Town Board of Trustees Re: Application of Vincent and Carol Manago 8225 Nassau Point Road,Cutcho2ue,New York Dear President Krupski and Members of the Board of Trustees: Pursuant to your letter dated June 1, 2005, enclosed please find a completed Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Consistency Assessment Form with regard to the application for removal of the jetty at the above-referenced premises. Should you require any additional information,please feel free to contact this office. Very truly yours, Charlotte Biblow Enclosure %ocs,`61;g9 and Vincent Manago Bridgehampton Melville New York Uniondale FPM ' FPM Group, Ltd. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FPM Engineering Group, P.C. sos Marconi Avenue Ronkonkoma,NY 11779 formediy Fanning, Phillips and Molnar 6311737-6200 March 28, 2005 Fax 6311737-2410 President Albert J. Krupski And Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Permit to Restore Beach at the Manago Property Located at 8225 Nassau Point Road Dear Honorable President and Board of Town Trustees: Vincent and Carol Manago retained our firm to investigate the causes of severe erosion to their beach and to provide recommendations for corrective action. It was suspected that a wood jetty located on their north property line and extending into Little Peconic Bay was the major cause of their beach erosion. On May 29, 2003, 1 inspected the shoreline area of the Manago property located at 8225 Nassau Point Road, in the Town of Southold, New York. The purpose of the inspection was to assess if damage to the Manago shoreline was being created by the wood jetty (AKA groin) located near the north side property line of their property, and extending out into Little Peconic Bay, and to recommend corrections. Moreover, I have reviewed several historical photographs, maps and surveys pertaining to this shoreline, and researched applicable engineering theory of coastal processes to analyze the problem and to make recommendations.. I have concluded that: 1. The subject jetty is the primary cause of extreme erosion to the beach on Manago property. 2. The base portion of the jetty lies within the bounds of the Manago property. 3. Corrective action should include removal of the jetty and replenishment of the eroded beach with dredged or borrow sand. OBSERVATIONS Attached photos nos. 1 and 2 shows the change in the Manago beach area between the summer of 1996 to the summer of 2002. These historical photos clearly document that significant beach erosion occurred at the Managp beach during this period. On May 29, 2003, 1 had observed the conditions of the beach and had taken several photos. The photos nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 attached were taken at about 11:00 a.m. which was just about full high tide for that date and location. Photo no. 3 shows that an apparent loss of beach elevation of 2 to 3 feet had RONKONKOMA, NY • ROME.NY 9 SAN ANTONIO,TX • SPOKANE,WA 9 LANCASTER.CA • MIDWEST CITY,OK • MT. HOLLY,NJ • LAS VEGAS,NV „ UO 0 fIL occurred below the beach access stair. Photo no. 4 shows the obvious effect the subject jetty is having on the Manago beach. Sand was built up on the north side of the jetty, and eroded on the south side (Manago side). The sand elevation was about two feet higher on north side of the jetty compared to the south (Manago) side. From these observations there should be no question that the jetty is the primary cause of erosion to the Manago beach area. The base of the jetty is clearly located within the bounds of the Manago property. The property survey entitled 'Survey of Lot 64 and PIO Lot 65' by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., shows the wood jetty starting from a westerly point at the Manago bulkhead, within the Manago property, and extending easterly into Little Peconic Bay. From the survey, the first 10 to 15 feet (by scale measure) of the jetty is clearly within the bounds of the Manago property. From photos nos. 5 and 6 attached, it can be further observed that most of the jetty appears to be within the Manago property. Another survey for the Aloia property prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, shows about 7 to 10 feet (by scale measure) of the base of the jetty to be located on the Manago property. The angle of the jetty to the property line is very small, thereby a subtle emphasis in drawing the property line, even within an allowable margin of drafting error, can show a magnified difference in the amount of jetty on the Manago property. In any event, the most current surveys and my personal observation show a substantial portion of the base of the subject jetty to be within the bounds of the Manago property. ANALYSIS The subject "wood jetty” is more commonly known as a "groin" in coastal engineering practice for this type of application. Groins are an effective means for capturing sand by interrupting "longshore" currents and wave induced sediment transport along a beach. Sand is captured on the up-drift side of the groin, the amount of which is related to the length and height of the structure. The down-drift side of the groin is typically deprived of sand, causing an erosional effect. Longshore currents and wave action can vary in direction from day to day, however, a groins up-drift sand collection and down-drift erosion will eventually assume an equilibrium shape that is consistent with the direction of the predominant or prevailing currents and wave actions over a period of time. Different periods of time may yield different prevailing conditions and therefore different shapes. At the Manago beach front, it is apparent that the predominant longshore current and consequent sand drift has been from north to south. The Manago beach front, being down-drift of the groin (jetty), is clearly being affected by this groin effect. Sand is captured on the Aloia side of the jetty, and eroded from the Manago side. Mr. Manago had reported to me that the problem was not so severe prior to recent modifications to the wood jetty by Aloia. He stated prior to the recent modifications, the jetty was lower and was porous (sheeting missing). Under that situation, sand could be transported by longshore currents and wave action, through and over the jetty, providing some re-nourishment of his beach. It is my opinion however, that the Manago beach front would experience less damage if the jetty was removed entirely. FPM Aib"j� K tle Forecasting future localized erosive effects due to groins or other structures is difficult and not an exact science. There are some coastal engineering analytical and rule of thumb methods used to estimate coastal dynamics, but they are only starting points. As inaccurate as they may be, these methods sometimes are used when no other information is available. A myriad of factors, such as changing current and weather pattems, periodic storms, varying geometry of the shoreline over time, etc., all play into the dynamics of the unpredictability of shorefront stability and of any engineering forecasting models. Therefore, much of what is designed to protect the shoreline is a trial and error process. The actual damaging effect the subject jetty is imposing on to the Manago beachfront is an obvious after the fact observation. As described above, it is a well known fact that groins cause this effect. Therefore, there is no question the jetty is the cause of erosion to the Manago shorefront. The jetty should be removed to allow the beach to naturally stabilize. CONCLUSIONS It is my opinion that the subject jetty is the primary cause of the severe erosion of the Manago shoreline. i am not certain if the erosion has stabilized or if further erosion will continue in the future with this jetty in place. Only time will tell. However, there is no question that the jetty has damaged the Manago shorefront. Further, it is my opinion, from review of the various surveys and observation, that the jetty is located predominantly within the bounds of Manago property (the base or first 10 to 15 feet of the jetty) and thus the remaining part (in the bay) should be under the Manago jurisdiction. I recommend the jetty be partially or entirely removed to allow for a more natural localized beach dynamic. Moreover, to restore the beach to its previous line and elevations, I recommend replenishing the beach with dredged or borrow sand. We have calculated that approximately 300 cubic yards of sand will be required. I have marked on the attached part survey the location and depth profile of sand required. Very truly yours, Ga . Molnar, P.E. Pri in, FIRM Group GAM:df Enclosures FPM Aloia r r ri• .P Schiff r SUMMER 1996 Photo No. 1 Note: Building up of sand at Manago beach area. A r w Manago i SUMMER 2002 Photo No. 2 Note: Loss of sand at Manago beach area compared to 1996 photo. i f 5� 3 1 N f Photo No. 3 Stair to beach at Manago property (May 2003, high tide). Note: Apparent loss of 2 feet to 3 feet of beach elevation since stair was built. x, Photo No. 4 The subject jetty is in the Little Peconic Bay, perpendicular to the shoreline. Note: Manago beach is to the right (south), is experiencing erosion due to the obvious erosion effect of the jetty. ' rrx •. r i L T Photo No. 5 Standing on jetty looking westerly. Note: Mr. Manago is holding a stick on top of the surveyors property line monument, suggesting most of the jetty is within the Mango property(to the left). t I t lookingproperty monument ) s + 376.39` r r w rn ti loop STV's I IIALL rot IV fFL ,r \ A 300 a/1Y 4,ro Q ` I M �orere. r t° O coop T ` I (b r Z — 3.5B•g9v i 1 y URVEY OF & P10 LOT 65 V P 'A =,+OF M4 SSA U POINT" * 16AW FLEN0 156 ASSA U POINT Qum s���� � OF SOUTHOLD '0`� $ X COUNTY, N. Y. 0 - "8- 04 - 10 r- de: x"= 30' 91,� �� . NO. 4961 }b. r6r. 1996 'P ECONic P.C. -- 11 4, f (CERTIF7CATIONS A )ED) (6311 765 - (631) 765 - 1797 J../y ES,200/ (a�e.4,6-•05.) P. O. BOX 909 9T .r::• %P MP Pd� APRK 4, EM ( Wdvl' 1230 TRAVELER S TREE T �� 19 MARCH Z7, 2001 (now bulkhead) SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 N AML 376.-9' af 'TOwAlpli� rl -�-- } °d n �'4 I n 4;j1 f � MOLb ws STQS ` ti4 +IET- , 5,4 rey rat IV zs ,r F7L 30�o AAY o Q• ~ Gcrere, . v .p - 44 +� c� o^ 1 3-g.99' i v UR I I of �I" J!I(EiQ & ,P/0 L 0 IT65 ,V P A ,oF NASSAU POINT ASSAU PDXkW NT OF SOUTHOLD X COUNTY, N. Y. 1 � 0 - "W- 04 - 10 ale P'*= 30� jjt— 9'Y�Y. NO. 49616 o6. 104 1996 ECONIC 11 Alp r (CERT*WA TIONS AI)DEDJ (631) 765 - P.C. r9-A7 �'n." , ,�! J„/y 85,2oa� (aor c.�.�•�s ) P. O. Box 909 16311 T65 - IT9T 7 97- ,�.r , C ;/¢p p Po,�1 APW 4, EM It yvdah. 12JO TRAVELER S TREE T r ,G, !9yi. l et ,,, 1 MARCH ZTr 2001 (n.w &Ab.oJ S4UTHDLD, N.Y. 11971 s� AWE 01.140127, .ZOO MAY 13 W Southold Town Board LONG ISLAND TOPICS BY HENRY BOKUNIEWICZ AND JAY TANSKI Tasking a few years ago about beach erosion, Sen. Hillary Clinton dis A0 Atli 1 ea 0 - cussed the need to limit car S .a iseo - bon-dioxide emissions that are tied to rising sea levels. Said Senator Clinton, "I don't want to. represent Short Island, but Long Island." ; Her comment reminds us that sea level is the first fac- tor that most policy-makers focus on when they think about the Island's eroding shorelines, which are taking a particularly harsh battering this winter in Hamptoni Says k and Sagaponack. � :. It's true, sea level is rising. A . It has been rising for 20,000 4. years and will rise indefinite- ly, maybe until the next ice age comes 40,000 years from now. The rise is accelerated lik by global warming, and this . does deserve our attention. But sea level plays only a w most serious erosion rob- small role in Lon Island's p NEWSDAY PHDTO,1993 lems. The sea is rising about 1 inch Sea levels are rising, but this erosion at Westhampton Beach came from swifter-moving factors. a decade. If you were walking y picking NO silver bullet will that slowly, you'd die of old coast, the configuration of the ribl useful in ickin a date age before you took a single shoreline and the frequency for the company picnic. step.On the other hand,even a and intensity of stormides We've been taught, for exam- take care of eroslon moderate storm can raise and waves. ple, that beaches are wide in water levels 4 to 6 feet above One stretch of shoreline the summer and narrow in problems normal in a few hours. Now might be severely damaged, the winter. But research has that's a problem± while places only a half-mile shown that this rule doesn't As coastal residents know, away will be in good condition work very well on Long Is- erosion of the bluffs at Montauk the beach changes from day to or even gain sand. The land. The width of the beach is not a significant source of day, week to week, month to changes that happen to a depends more on the time sand for South Shore beaches. month, and year to year. The beach in a single month can be since the last storm than the Erosion is complex. Manag- waves' size and direction, the hundreds of times greater than season. You can often find ing a shoreline cannot be time since the last storm, the any caused by sea-level rise. wide beaches in the middle of based on generalizations,espe- cessar- shape of the beach, even the In the face of such complex- winter and narrow beaches in ily tcialrue.ue.Therey ones twill be no sil er size of sand grains on the ity, often our predictions are the summer. beach all exert their influence of the general sort, like a You may have heard also that bullet that will take care of ero- - not to mention the supply weather,forecast that "it's hot sand travels along the beach in a sion problems everywhere, of sand for rebuilding beaches, in the summer and cold in westerly direction from Mon- nor are there permanent solu- human activity along the the winter." True,but not ter- tauk to Coney Island;it does,but tions that we can build and more often you'll find it going in walk away from forever.Coast- the other direction.Some of our al erosion is a moving target, Henry Bokuniewicz is a professor of �77most troublesome erosion oc- and management strategies y oceanography at Stony Brook Universi- curs where the waves push sand . must be capable of adapting to s the New York toward the east. And, contrary changing conditions, surprises ry,where Jay Tanski i Sea Grant coastal processes specialist. to what many people believe, and,yes,mistakes. w OPINION A . We have to realize that ero- sion is site-specific and be*M- ing to tailor our strategies for in- dividual stretches of the coast, { based on an understanding of the factors affecting each area. This requires that.Long Island commit to an ongoing monitor- ing program to supply data on shoreline conditions and be will- ing to use a variety of solutions. Almost any of the availalile shore protection alternatives, even structures that may be anathema to us now, can prove useful in the proper situ- ation. cewise,we s o o e o hasty to dismantle old 'groins and jetties.There is sel- dom any.guarantee that taking these out will solve an existing problem without reintroduc- ing and perhaps exacerbatin :old ones. ore protection efforts are now almost always launched in response to some emergency. . This is inescapable to an extent. ;Like a prizefighter, we need to 'train to respond..to shifting blows,but we must also develop . our strategy for anticipating and, it is to be honed,avoiding or at least softening the next punch. . This means sharing,a;vision i for the diversity of the.Long IS-' land shoreline and .:taking steps where possible. 'to:tee_. store our natural defenses.. .A rising sea level does mean that our erosion problems will be with us indefinitely. Howev- er,it should not be trotted out as a bogeyman either to scare us away from efforts to protect or maintain our shorelines, or-':to panic us into some ill-consid- ered policy of fortifying every inch of the shoreline. if,we are managing our coast properly,we will find that doing nothing.may be the best policy in some areas, artificially mov- ing sand is appropriate in others, and engineered structures will be needed elsewhere. The,op- dons must be evaluated careful- ly, deliberately and honestly, bused on what is actually.hap- , pening on the coast. Farrell Fb.tz, P. EAB PLua 14th Floor,West Tower Unlondalt,NY 11556-1320 Voice:516.227,0700 Fax:516.227.0777 FROM: Karen T. Jarvis DAZE: May 13, 2005 FsoNE: 516.227,0676 CLMNT MA=R: 16457-100 PLEASE DELVER AS SOON A5 POSSIBLE TO: RECIPIENT COMPANY FAX NO. PHONE NO. ��Standish Town of Southold Board of 631-765-6641 631-765-1892 The original of the transmitted document will be sent by: ry Ordinary wii n Messenger ❑ Overnight Mast El This WID Be The Only Form Of Delivery Total number of pages including this page:2 If you do not receive all the pages,please call 516.227.0788 D s� �....._ --- ' M 1 3 2005 St;;:,ro',d 1j%%,n BC3rd of Trustees PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: This trangmiggion is A privileged and confidential communication by an attorney to an intended recipient. Any disscmivation of t1" comnlmioation i$ strictly prohlited. If you have received this document and are not the intended recipient, please notify ug immediately by telephone, Collect if necessary, for instructions to facilitate the return of this communication. Tlsu&you for your anticipated cooperation. 289-d Z00/100'd 229-1 + -sojj 00:81 90-8I-ABA t Farrefl Fritz, P.C EAR P192a Udauds*New Rode 11SS6.1320 �e0epbone 916.227.07'00 Fax 816.227.0777 www.fgrta1mv-00M DhW Dial 316.227.0676 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2290 1M57.100 kjwY1s@f m11frit Lcom May 13,2005 By Fm^8 mmz Am FiRsT CLAN MAIL Ms. Lauren Standish Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 Re: Vincent and Carol Manago $225 Nassau Point Road ,Cate l<o1=ue,New York Dear'Ms. Standish: This will confirm that the public hearing on the tidal wetlands permit for the removal of the jetty at the above-referenced premises has been adjourned at the Board's bequest to the next hearing date,which is tentatively scheduled for June 22,2005. This will also confirm that no appearance is required on May 18,2005. 1 will follow-up with you on after May 18 in order to oonfiirm the date of the next meeting. Very truly yours, Karen T.larvis Legal Assistant cc: Vincent and Carol Mamp Charlotte A.Hiblow,Esq. MOCS062999910I 189-J Z00/Z00'd 119-1 + -Woaf 00;EI SO-6I-Ae19 Dr. John F. Alois 39 Nassau Boulevard T" Garden City, New York 11530 Board of Trustees Albert J. Krupski, President s,;;a �t 7rLsiees James King, Vice President Peggy A. Dickerson Artie Foster Ken Poliwoda P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 May 5, 2005 Dear Trustees: Please accept my apologies for not being able to attend the meeting regarding the application to remove the jetty, presented by the Managos and their attorney, Charlotte Bib low. Both my wife and daughter were present on April 20, 2005. However, we were represented by Robert Gaffney, in order to defend ourselves against the attempts of the Managos(and Schiff to force removal of our jetty. Our feeling is that the Managos are trying to circumvent the Supreme Court by applying for this permit knowing that a lawsuit they brought against us, which questions ownership and asks for$1 million in damages, is still pending. They have also enlisted their neighbor, Schiff, who filed suit, after the Managos, using the same attorney. I wish to apprise the trustees of the following to help in your decision regarding his permit application nd request that these fags gg rgad into h minlites.of the Ma 1 e hearing: I Ownership of the Jetty The jetty was built by the previous owner of our home, Dorothea Chute, over 50 years ago, following the advice of the Army Corps of Engineers. The jetty was purchased by us as part of our home purchase in 1984, Although asked to participate in the building of jetties on their property, the previous owners of the Managos' property, Dr. Pupura, and the previous owner of the Schiff s property, Dr. Cacciola, had decided to forgo the expense of building jetties over 50 years ago. Mrs. Chute decided to build the jetty, on her own property, at her own expense, to protect the beach in front of her home. 1 V • • When we purchased the property in 1984, our survey showed the jetty being completely on our property. (Please see the attached survey.) In fact, our title insurance has a specific rider stating so. The Purpuras as well as all the other neighbors have confirmed that it was built and maintained by the previous owner of our property. The expense of maintaining the jetty has been borne solely by me. We recognize that survey techniques have changed, and it is not unusual on Nassau Point, for there to be discrepancies of inches over the property line. Our neighbor's shed to the North is partly on our property according to new surveys. We would never dream of applying to the Town to have them move it, or declare it ours so we can destroy it. II Repair of the Jetty The jetty has always been a functional jetty. During an ice storm in 1995, the seaward end of the jetty was damaged. We hired Costello Marine to repair our jetty and he applied for and attained all the necessary permits to do so.Further repairs were done under the same permit by Costello in 1999. When the Managos reconstructed their bulkhead in 1996, the heavy equipment damaged the stringers on the landward portion of our jetty. During the repair made by Costello in 1999, he placed a single stringer on top of the groin. We were later told that this was non-conforming, and Costello was instructed to and did remove it. We hired Costello Marine again in 2001 to replace a deck. At that time, we asked him to perform minor repairs to the sheathing of the jetty,which he considered not to require a permit. Managos and their attorney complained to the DEC stating that Costello made repairs to"their"jetty without their permission. At the urging of Managos' attorney, the DEC requested a new survey from us to determine ownership; we did the survey as requested. Realizing that the Mangos had hired an attorney, we too obtained legal advice. Our attorney contacted the DEC to inform them that the issue of ownership is not within their jurisdiction, they should not have ordered a new survey, and that the original survey we have on file in Southold Town is the one we stand by. We wish to stress again, that the jetty has been continually functional and has not changed in dimension since we first purchased it. III Waterfront Property is Subject to Erosion Property owners on Nassau Point built jetties to preserve their beaches with the advice of the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950's. Some owners to the South of us elected not to make this investment, thus diminishing the relative value of their properties. Managos purchased 1.3 acres of bay front property for $325,000, much below market value, in 1996, with the full understanding of the condition of their beach, and that it clearly is not protected by a wooden jetty. 2 The Managos have presented selective pictures to the Town showing their beach, according to them, at its worst with seaweed and rocks. As of today, there is actually more sand on the Managos beach than ours! (Please see the photographs attached.) As for Schiff, the Managos have a rock jetty that was built on their beach. If Schiff wishes to improve the beach in front of his house and sincerely believes this can be accomplished by the destruction of a jetty, it is the rock jetty in front of Managos beach he should petition to dismantle. Additionally, they may both consider that perhaps the new and prominent bulk heading they, as well as their neighbors to the south, have installed has made it more difficult to retain sand. IV Impact on Nassau Point I am concerned about a discussion that I heard took place at the Trustees meeting that it is possible we could be ordered to alter or remove our jetty. Such an action would not only impact the beach in front of my home, and my property value; this decision would adversely affect our immediate neighbors to the north,the Frys. If this can be ordered,then all the jetties on Nassau Point would be at risk for removal or alteration. If the Managos are granted their wish to destroy our jetty, are we then to apply to destroy the Frasier jetty, then Frasier the jetty to his North? We would hope that the town would not make a decision to alter our jetty unless it was considering making changes to all the jetties on Nassau Point. Again, the reason the jetties were built is because the residents of Nassau Point were advised by the Army Corp of Engineers in the 1950's that unless they build their own jetties there is no realistic hope of avoiding erosion of their beaches. We are grateful that we were able to find a property that the previous owner took heed to the advice in the 50's and respectfully request that we are allowed to maintain and preserve the condition of our property. We have enjoyed our home on Nassau Point. It has been a refuge for our family for 21 years. We enjoyed friendly relationships with our previous neighbors, the Purpuras, the Cacciolas, and the Grahams. We still enjoy warm relations with our other neighbors who abide by the old code of conduct where we all remain considerate of each others privacy and quiet enjoyment. The Managos' and Schiff s continual intrusive behavior(tearing down our decorative picket fence, building berms to block our view, the law suits, the interruption of birthday parties, and intimidation of my children and grandchildren while they play, fish, and swim) has been unbearable. Additionally, in terms of this permit application, we believe that in the same way that the Managos tried petitioning the DEC to have them decide ownership of the jetty, they are attempting to use the Board of Trustees to achieve the same result and to declare that their beach has been damaged by our lawfully existing jetty, even trough no such damage exists. 3 We are hopeful that the board will defer these decisions to the Supreme Court. We also wish that somehow the Managos will come to recognize that to destroy what is ours will not be a gain for them, that they will someday have an appreciation for the beauty that surrounds them, and feel the serenity that many of us have benefited from in previous years on Nassau Point. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. I can be reached at (516) 663- 2442. Please note that I will be out of the country from May 6, 2005 until May 17, 2005. If you need additional information during this time, please feel free to contact my daughter Maria Davani at (516)656-9048. Thank you for your time and consideration. Res ctfully, , John F. Aloia cc: Brownell Johnston, Esq., Legal Advisor to the Board of Trustees Philip Nykamp, Esq., Twomey, Latham, Shea &Kelley, LLP Nancy Weiner, Esq., U.S.A.A., Casualty Insurance Company Lauren Standish Heather Tetrault 4 TUTHILL ROAD _ LOT 62 N82000'IX3"C FR. 8, ,l.v I �} GAR �1 lLOC OR o-r NON FNO 359.56' �� fS •YrT! 2N .r,dES ,v YY X C r r i STr cR n. r f£IE7 ~� s ii� + I 2 rh d HSc' N aec t.1 1 f O �ZS ac ctY SLA rE WOOD �I lin r ICI e •4 ea, PATltl sl STA,RS Il of C d �~ Q)tnl Q1 7 wtc 4Br- 1 I ,��.,,Oo J£TTY J W.4 FNa 33_33 -- Z 4 c is y 5.82o00•00" 3J8.aD 1 r -� 2 LOT 64 f CERTIFIED TO L4Wrf'RS TITLE //'JSVRAACE CORP. TITLE N° BA 538/ M..4P OF XIYN F AlG,4 �y1E�r Y� EL/l�1RA T ALO14 LOT 63 5 0��w.�J..,. p� .4P.15.:rD5D .S/.4P A "c �� dol�ack associates �NaSSAU f0/N7 �` °•�T, 313 west main street FfL67D.WG./5,192;'FiLC 155 M r - AT fv�55�'L' PO,,!- riverhead , new york 11901 (516) 369-1717 r,Jrt/�V �JF SUUT rI�-�L• \',F 4' a�� S_2;11;K �iJ%/lV,Y,•/ Y LAND S`�� .toy 3, 1984 Job No,84-5 2 5 1700-113-04-1-D9 Stale - 1" - 50' 04/29/2005 17:02 FAX 631727 TWOMEY LATHAM SHEA KEL @001/002 33 W.SECOND STREET Twomev P.O,BOX 9398 Kelley, LLP RXVERHEAD,NY 119o1 PHONE: (631)727-2180 FAX: (631)727-1767 x TO; Clerk, Trustees ofte Pax 765-6641 Town of Southold From: Lori Wessinger Humber of Pages (including this Page) Date: 4/29/05 Client Code: 0 730 Re: Dr. John Aloia Urgent For Review Please Comment Please Reply Please Recycle COMMENTS: Attached Is a letter from our Client.- Dr. John Alola granting our offlas permission to review the file Trustees file re: Manago If any of these pages are not legible please call. (631)727-2180 and notify: Lori Weisinger 'PHIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED ONLY POR THu USF OF Ttz INDIVIDUAL On ENTM TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED,AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDDMAL INFORMATION B$LONGING To THE SENDER WHICH IS PROnCPED BY TM ATTORNEY-CLIENT pRMLEGE OR OTHEIt DoCTRINR IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT,YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIEDTHAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COIyING, VMTROU nON Ott THE TAKING OF ANY ACTION IN ItELIANiCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THIS INFORMATION IS STRICTLY PROHIM W. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERltoR, IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE TO ARRANGE FOR ITS RETURN- 04/29/2005 17:02 FAX 631727 T410MEY LATHAM SHEA KEL f�002/002 Dr. John Aloia 39 Nassau Blvd. Garden City, Ny 11530 (516)375-9132 April 29, 2005 VIA PAZ Trustees Office Town of Southold Town gall ,Annex Main Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 IRE.- Manago Application Dear Sir/Madam: I have retained Stephen Latham, Of Twomey Latham Shea & Kelley to represent me in hearings before the Trustees in the matter of the applicatipn filed by Vincent Manago.Twomey Latham Shea Kelley full I authorize file. access to review and Copy my Sincerely, 1I J Aloia ,5) r 1 a ,� � � y"uK�wu�Y;UW�II� / ,ua„ �///i�r,r.�lt%�/ /���jy>%p��9i/// �%/k��i%/i///�%Gl�//t rrilfv��°���/ ✓!� � � ',f / r/ri //�i/iir�,/YO/�r�a✓G�/I�� rU�//r1 /i�ri/��%ii/I r //Alu�4 m f r ' r r% ,% ; Syr ! n f - ,�wu�U 5 �d Ilk 1 ire r J� Ayr' all, mllw r 9 j� "KVsi�kr i✓� 1r i✓ ! i� ip' I iW �i � 4 J Telephone Cz Town Hall (631)765.1892 �' 53095 Route 2 1"O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 CONSERVATION A.DVI ORV COUNCIL TOWN OF SOUTJ-101�1) At the meeting of the Souilthold Town Conservation Advisory Council held lion., April 11, 2005, the following recommendation was made, (loved by Don Wilder, seconded by ,hack McGreevy, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL of the Wetland hermit application of VIN ENT & CAROL MANAGO for complete removal of the existing 4' wood jetty and restoration of the beech on subject property with appro . 00, cy. of dredged or borrow sand. Located. 8225 Nassau point Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#118- -10 Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motiion Carried r � r March 17, 200�5 Field Inspectio o. f� 9liw a / A w / �w u„ f9N�mgvyr, ,,,,• N �/ �m Mr 01 � 0AM / / r� .,�,V mr 4J,,J ��� �11 ;i 11��/in%����%/� ii���/ �, a°�9 ���l�%�%✓ 11�r/� , 1 „1'%I/i�/�ri�( z i✓�� /rvYvP hr y a zj✓lz^� " ' �m.✓zi� i ilr ✓n,��p,�� ��'�v vz9 tr✓!���� ✓ r, ✓T�c ✓ wy p @Y� l�`ioJf fi � irewr ",�r, z4"' ¢z ! i ° ,yr I � '"mHf3i✓�w 'iJ1r ,Ju"I "L¢^' JPioam�f `Y�;, `r r^�, r0 � ! w:✓z� 1 y ✓ �or�I r'i v m N r hzull m �V i d,IMf dffidfi �a a �u�irwzw���nYr� a t �✓,r 4?�,z,. �,z� «�" z ihd I ✓ o� r" 4"'N�,N��In"z��Ar�t!��9iRl�tryf�^✓ui��`���t`rr�'!�kmzbl�dltr/✓o✓i�ri � rii� 1lJr 1 "t(�l/ i/� /k ���%��>� i/'i,,»�Ff��GJ��.' /�G�✓i/,���i z��d ,'J � i� l�r� ��p i���� �: r' i i i J ✓; �zs1z i az I, Man ago Leach in l'oregrounnd r✓. �X✓l DhY ✓� ✓l�', %Ut?I'1��k '/,✓ �� JA ✓ mlWm✓m'r �� ✓ v J �,r, �Yd N � ✓ ✓� � � „��MM lAl tl G6 ��� �-rill✓ r✓�( r {+Jt �9 ""�bY� ✓. �.. � �/� ✓J '� r✓FOR�re1 �� �I ✓� a� �, u "�✓ .f I�� � rll r ✓ a Y r - r � 7 ✓✓y �,� �r �°�: �,,,,,;� �,,.,;..,,v� , �✓✓✓✓Y yr `� i I i r i r�i 1✓� Sri rl rr9f���a u�✓✓,� ,� W l -y ' �a�Jvd✓e N osl lZec(ins Lrcrc°tiO0 Akhar�Bead, I�i OLI "Ol sa lul r ^- rr Y k' � ✓l �A f rvb� G �J rxw iia> ✓ q� r ii o ^r fAt�i�n�� ✓ f(uH�U�rw'� i;f� I�� ! 1"� ,� 7tl"1 � ✓�N ,��,u dew �,9i ✓ ✓ fr ' .1 � /k'/(�1y ,,,;,,, �(; � ,f✓II';j"� Y��VV / ///✓: ;f//� 1f/t ,.;: 9 N lli � f✓ 7✓ 6^/t'j ✓ � %Y�k�„%+I:In✓ q✓Ml�^, i���� I�'; � �"�✓,1�✓✓ / �i✓Y t i yyl J!l ,fi,�' �� sv/l%� r i1N, o-r ���'I'����V off//���N�/ 1�% ;�✓ ;y i �y � „F �Sj�� J/` /a �1r ry �re,J 90G� ✓F f / �w✓ Yi�,�'�//�1 / ,l✓ ' i,6 ji i ✓ //�y, y? � y "�^,.i st -A^r�b�����r ✓ iiryl�%��� � f✓jira ,. �7 1 1 � � i e � ✓l'✓pi� � Un rr ✓(���(��l l��11✓ f i �f 1 �'%` rl J�q � ,� PNs�r iIl✓ti ail'✓: �/i✓✓c�' r i/Y iDN/�'� � A+ �( I' fld ✓ Yd ✓x r f�i a/�, ✓vri�l'd�I° G�i/Ii I� r. ✓l F � Sri I v� I✓i�r ✓^� ^� �� mG; r%�,I 1/ dyX✓r r��.' "y���j f m y. d �R��r'1���/jf�i/�a,�a-1f , ����i N rl�Y�'1 ITr, ^; �y�d �'tl✓p^- r i alfllb�;.iG�%�y'/f J i;n � �� ���7 �'11F ilfi/14G11 � '�PIPs Ifi� /y / / / �i✓i ; rc� ,,,�,`ir -/,J � .. ,�Wk� '.. roil`�M1�fo�J^V.7uJ�/ r��wuvT�F!�r�kG,�,✓,rnm.�ua,.^����,, �r�e�i��� ,.wn, ✓.�u� .�-., �t T�„u, ,... a� �r zh After reconstN^rNNc•tI0f, - '1,11N,IC""O Bc3 ,ich art hi 11 Ode - %V Itel-CONICS UP to laNN1khcad l r' 9 YM Awwill I '• tl n � o w W � 011 . F 41 e� Pmm�. Double row oCsl,c,,tltilt iin Jetty C os"t n'econst.rucwh011 Z11 n a� wk j r3 w l i) 0,001, i it P i VI I�!611� f, r � yin i 1 ii, e �w y ✓ fI' o ✓ ��ii Pom reconstruction W a�r�r^ r ✓ Il I � +m r �rii� � �Yb7 ✓�a � " ✓ u r i r Y i f f � I ,e High o(le at N/lanago BraCh Vs, u ,�f�>�{✓i�i%i, ` r/ r,,,P�, r�✓�;r7Ji 'ril:r rrfi� > , - �`;'i �' i'idU/rly�i;G�^�„�`E",�� 'i�J���,: ,,Jpl/,.r�1 l��r�J„� i i Gq�✓(/i//+a�r,r�l�,, I ��//l'�l%i✓r ✓ rr �a✓ /i✓ 1.,� ✓., i/ i ?f-J�� (� i a0' f�/ .q :..��yi✓,���l(d i/lJi/A✓" f r ��6 � �'�HI 1�!�} ����dr/i R / I /r `�(�phi�S' ?E✓ f e{t,✓ ✓r �ii✓�i'� ar:✓" " ���°1���'� g rl r�i�✓/ rye ,�" � '' �$ r 1✓Y✓9���i 1 me ors 'i � "i err, ✓yl-✓ ✓a w,, u r r j f w � � 7 1 w A p�ry le Pot c°ecolrstr action - rlcrrtl:fdc row 4 shearthilr and; new, kv<r cr k i r r �IPA ----------- ��>3�6+W9�l�id2uri'!1�'JIIN`FJAlF /r/�V//1 NYIYWanMMuary.xyy / / //J / %/� W�XXIFIF�u. �� r� r r a' i � I m, t y rr o rq � a m 4 r p I y X MmVV ww tl ne r„ ryw JGi„�,� ,. i s" •�n i9•r w � " �. � ,%YMµ�pR i li.. "%('m Moia Beach psi 1,ack,,,r(,,,m d I{� u� „ µ n v Ew„ r u w �a w Jn r i�o " a�P a" �wF Note Idck oI'sx.m] on Managl,) Beacli: V i Pot reconstruction Now Imilad-up oR"sand on Aloir7 Beach darrrvin Sic p - mandglo Beach is lille d With rocks r ,�°W„i' ✓` �J N � 0%�;y @ "�'��i �1r a �+, r n ii�^ � � ;����;f r �Wf h m� d A PROW. w r t � Y F IWr i mf,�, C, R"~r,,� I kqr'� 1 i r r n (l Jil') rxr r, h Ir rr� �.r 0 ID� A6 fyNN 9n aW � ,'r ir�'rw � a��F ww. d, eV nni o.,e.rtµb f" Nib' rw� ten. w�vw i,a 3 vuu �a � 'r' e V7 �3rAwTV�r�J r I � � �1 u� i �o of i ti ,r �r9 r, r Pl1w wI r�y OFa �m 7 I flu iri:-� I r � �y a oy 1 W INK �4MY �y v r qo, A e ?' !✓� � a r ��J7'��/u�J ail,''� /,�l f���1i! /ice N ,.: ,/ ,,,,,a.f �` ;�i,}, ,,,,,,, ;�,^,,,,,; ,, I k a>l�ra+`'"1��r, r)��rl f✓�/ 1 u� � i r '�� j i �� ii �� �rdi ✓ ram"t��R � ��{<, ftbiitlk,�` »wwrrvn � J w mmuw fret �^Mr � '�tl'!i✓G'!� %�1��/ �f �,r �y; ;�,.. 1 , , ,�'9A rr a�elF,e"�3ru N a a DaruWc mww of'shw,°rrtWng up A) 1015 work. 1"'he 1995 work rrsw:d singl ivmv or AMing at wv d r4 end ()f jetty i i V , Summer 2002 " s P �m f r ri � ra i lyy�t/ r rir r/ Summer 2002 JIM" (,, Town Hull. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Telephone O_L_ �O Southold. New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 Ql 1 SOUTHOLD TOWN CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL TO: Southold Town Board of Trustees FROM: Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council DATED: June 22, 1995 RE: Recommendations from Meeting of June 21, 1995 The Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council met Wednesday, June 21, 1995 at 4:30 P.M. at the Southold Town Hall. Present were CAC Chairman Stephen Angell, and CAC members Bruce Loucka, Robert Keith, John Hagerty III, Betty Wells, and Allan Connell. The following applications were discussed and recommendations given. RECOMMENDATION OF WETLAND APPLICATIONS No.'1271 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Robert Keith, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees PARTIAL APPROVAL of the Wetland Application of DR. JOHN ALOIA 118-4-9 to rebuild 14' offshore end of jetty; rebuild 3' x 3' access stairway from existing platform to bulkhead; install 3' x 8' access stairs from bulkhead to beach; rebolt top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends approval to rebuild the 3' x 3' access stairway; install 3' x 8' access stairs; and rebolt the top clamp on bulkhead. The Council recommends DISAPPROVAL TO REBUILD 14' OFFSHORE END OF JETTY. The jetty is not currently functioning and is not needed. The Council also recommends the applicant plant the area behind the bulkhead with beachgrass to prevent erosion during overwash. 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue Vote of Council: Ayes: All Motion carried. No. 1272 Moved by Stephen Angell, seconded by Allan Connell, it was RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees APPROVAL WITH STIPULATIONS of the Wetland Application of EILEEN VILLANI 86--6-10 c CO UN "a Red Pr% N W�T. —1.or IT, ��12.t c. ------�� cmty&I o2 o�9 g - w 06 7 ME SEC.IIL CIL— LK wunrmve� pad TOON W to WT�D am. lip 5 4.2 do14 aP VT E -e- t4OTiC[ COUNTY I TEA,T- Red FroWty MIMT.S.1 T. cw�cw%tw 11—T­ iz.1 c, K.PE ETWI TO 9—IGE., Albert J.Krupski,President ��tv so yo Town Hall James King,Vice-President 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster & P.O. Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson G � Telephone(631)765-1892 COUNl�� Fax(631) 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 16, 2005 Charlotte Biblow, Esq. Farrell Fritz, P.C. EAB Plaza Uniondale, NY 1 1 556-1 320 RE: VINCENT & CAROL MANAGO 8225 NASSAU POINT RD., CUTCHOGUE SCTM#118-4-10 Dear Ms. Biblow: The Southold Town Board of Trustees has reviewed the current submissions and it is the Board's opinion that we would like to withhold any decision until a decision has been made thS%upreme Court. Please feel free to contact the office if you have any questions. Very truly yours, A4e',e 0. Albert J. Krupski, Jr., President Board of Trustees AJK:Ims cc: E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. — Legal Advisor, Board of Trustees Philip D. Nykamp, Esq. T Farrell Fritz, PC. EAR Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.fanr,llfritz.com Direct Dial 516.227.0676 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2290 16457-100 kjarvis@f=ellfritz.com May 13, 2005 BY FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Ms. Lauren Standish Board of Town Trustees FjM �. Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 1 6 2005 Re: Vincent and Carol Manago 8225 Nassau Point Road Southoid Town Cutchogue,New York Board of Trustees Dear Ms. Standish: This will confirm that the public hearing on the tidal wetlands permit for the removal of the jetty at the above-referenced premises has been adjourned at the Board's request to the next hearing date, which is tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2005. This will also confirm that no appearance is required on May 18, 2005. I will follow-up with you on after May 18 in order to confirm the date of the next meeting. Ve-Y truly yours, V Karen T. Jarvis Legal Assistant cc: Vincent and Carol Manago Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. FFDOCS11629989.01 Bridgehampton Melville New York Uniondale TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA 1& KELLEY, LLP Attorneys at Law THOMAS A.TWOMEY.JR_ Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL STEPHEN B- LATHAM Post Office Box 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE JOHN F.SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C. HATFIELD 0 CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 1 1 901-9398 New York 1 1 901-9398 DAVID M. DUBINO ANNE MARIE GOODALF P. EDWAR❑ REALE LAURA i_ SGUAZZINA PETER M. MOTT Telephone. 631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO JAY P. QUARTARAR01 Facsimile: 631.727.1767 BRYAN C.VAN GOTT JANICE L. SNEAD CYRUS G. DOLCI,°• MARTHA L. LUFT AL IC S. O'CONNOR� JANE DiGIACOMO www.suftolklaw.coln LISA A.AZZATO} PHILIP D.NYKAMP KATHRYN DALLI MARTIN D. FINNEGAN. NY&LA BARS email address: PNykamposuffolklaw.com LL M.IN TAXATION t NY 8 CT BARS NY,NJ,8 PA BARS a Direct Fax: 631-727-2385 NY&NJ BARS NY,NJ_FL.8 CT BARS LL M.IN ESTAT E PLANNING o Extension 261 NY.DC,FL,&GA PARS} May 12, 2005 1r l i 1 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL .TL Ms. Lauren Standish Secretarial Assistant ---"--- Town of Southold Board of Trustees ,.I� fl TrE;leas Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P. O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971-0959 Re: Manago Permit Application Dear Ms. Standish: I write to confirm that the hearing in the above-referenced application had been postponed from Wednesday, May 18 to Wednesday, June 22, I appreciate you informing me of this adjournment. 71 Yours truly, hilip D. Nyk PDN;kjc cc: Nancy R. Weiner, Esq. Maria Devany 20 MAIN STREET 51 HILL STREET 105 MAIN STREET ONE EAST MAIN STREET,SUITE 1 400 TOWNLINE ROAD 56340 MAIN ROAD,P.O BOX 325 EAST HAMPTON,NY 11937 SOUTHAMPTON,NY 11966 PORT JEFFERSON STA.,NY 11776 BAY SHORE,NY 11706 HAUPPAUGE,NY 1171313 SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 631.324.1200 631287.0090 631,928.4400 631-665-9300 631.265.1414 691.76.5.2300 Office Use Only Coastal Erosion Permit Application r Wetland Permit Application Administrative Permit _Amendment/Transf r/Exten�n __deceived Application:�� oReceived Fee:$ o-Eompleted Application _Incomplete _SEQRA Classification: D Type 1 Type Il Unlisted —Coordination:(date sent) _.,CAC Referral Sent: S Q mate of Inspection: Y I MAR 3 0 2005 i _Receipt of CAC Report: Lead Agency Determination: Technical Review: Scu,,Iiold Tom �iblic Hearing Held: Board of Trustees Resolution: Name of Applicant Vincent and Carol Manago Address 10 Bellows Lane, Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone Number:( ) 516-627-3784 Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 118-04--10 Property Location: 8225 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, New York LILCO Pole No. 150-5(1) and (2) (provide LILCO Pole#, distance to cross streets, and location) AGENT: Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. (If applicable) c/o Farrell Fritz, P.C. �1 Address: 1320 EAB Plaza, West Tower Uniondale, NY 11556 phone: 516-227-0700 Board of Trustees Application GENERAL DATA Land Area(in square feet): 1.3 Acres Area Zoning: R-40 Previous use of property: Single-family dwelling and accessory structures Intended use of property: Same as above. Prior permits/approvals for site improvements: Agency Date See attached. No prior permits/approvals for site improvements. Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency? x No Yes If yes, provide explanation: Project Description(use attachments if necessary): Complete removal of existing 64-foot wood jetty located in Little Peconic Bay in proximity to northerly property line and restoration of the beach on subject property with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. See attached report of FPM Group. PRIOR PERMITSIAPPROVALS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS 8225 NASSAU POINT ROAD CUTCHOGUE NEW YORK Agency Date PermitlApproyal Building Dept. 1996 Building Permit#11154--raised patio terrace Board of Trustees March 1996 Permit#4578--reconstruct bulkhead, stairs and build storage shed. ZBA May 1996 ZBA Case#4384--setback variances for shed Building Dept. May 1996 Building Permit# Z24327--raised patio,terrace addition to existing dwelling Board of Trustees May 1996 Amendment to Permit 4578--move decking Building Dept. July 1996 Building Permit#23602Z--reconstruct existing storage shed Building Dept. Oct. 1997 Building Permit#24410Z--construct additions and alteration to existing dwelling Building Dept. April 1998 Building Permit#24840Z--erect split rail fence around perimeter of property Board of Trustees June 1998 Amendment to Permit 4578--supply water from main house to south side of existing beach house for watering plants ZBA Dec. 1998 ZBA Case No. 4618--variance to enlarge non-conforming building(construct second story addition for storage to existing accessory building Building Dept. Jan. 1999 Building Permit#25471Z--construct addition and alteration to existing accessory garage Building Dept. April 2001 Building Permit# 27304--construct deck addition to existing dwelling FFDOCSl1622656.01 Board of Trustees Application WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA Purpose of the proposed operations: To remove existing 64-foot wooden jetty and replenish eroded beach with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. Area of wetlands on lot: square feet Percent coverage of lot: Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland edge of wetlands: feet Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland edge of wetlands: N/A feet Does the project involve excavation or filling? No x Yes If yes, how much material will be excavated? cubic yards How much material will be filled? 300± cubic yards Depth of which material will be removed or deposited: 2 feet Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: Manner in which material will be removed or deposited: see attached report of FPM Group Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters of the town that may result by reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate): PROJECT ID NUMBER . 517.20 SEAR APPENDIX C STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PART 1 -PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by plicant or Project Sponsor) 1.APPLICANT I SPONSOR 2.PROJECT NAME Vincent and Carol Manago Jetty Removal and Beach Restoration 3.PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality Cutchogue, Town of Southold County Suffolk 4.PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc -or provide map 8225 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, New York 5.IS PROPOSED ACTION: ❑X New ❑Expansion ❑Modification 1 alteration fi.DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: Removal of existing 64-foot wooden jetty located in proximity to the northerly property line and extending into Little Peconic Bay and replenishment of eroded beach with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. 7.AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially 1.3 acres Ultimately 1.3 acres 8.WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS? ❑Yes ❑ No If no,describe briefly: 9_WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) ❑X Residential ❑Industrial ❑Commercial ❑Agriculture ❑Park I Forest I Open Space ❑Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, Stateor Local) permit from New York State Department of Environmental ❑Yes El No If yes, list agency name and permit 1 approval: Conservation Permit from U.S. Army Corp. of Engineers 11.DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ❑Yes ®No If yes, list agency name and permit I approval: 12. AS A R ULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Dyes LANo I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant 1 ponsor Nam 4 � Date:�(���j�a q ,1vO S Vincent and Carol Man �/ / Signature / l ( ncent Ma' Carol Manago If the actio is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment 0 0 PART 11 - IMPACT ASSESSMENT o be completed by Lead Agency) A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.4? if yes,coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAR ❑ Yes ElNo B. WILL ACTION RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEW AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR,PART 617.6? If No,a negative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. ❑ Yes ❑No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING:(Answers may be handwritten,if legible) C1. Existing air quality,surface or groundwater quality or quantity,noise levels,existing traffic pattern,solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion,drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic,agricultural,archaeological,historic,or other natural or cultural resources;or community or neighborhood character?Explain briefly: C3. Vegetation or fauna,fish,shellfish or wildlife species,significant habitats,or threatened or endangered species?Explain briefly: C4. A community's existing plans or goals as officially adopted,or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources?Explain briefly: C5. Growth,subsequent development,or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action?Explain briefly: C6. Long term,short term,cumulative,or other effects not identified in CI-05? Explain briefly: C7. Other im acts(including changes in use of either quantity or type of en Explain briefly: D. WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA(CEA)? If yes.explain brief! . ❑ Yes No E. IS THERE,OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE,CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS? If en Yes No PART III-DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE(To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above,determine whether it is substantial,large,important or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its(a)setting(i.e.urban or rural);(b)probability of occurring;(c)duration;(d)irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and(f)magnitude. If necessary,add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question d of part ii was checked yes,the determination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. Check this box if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check this box if you have determined,based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation,that the proposed actin WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting thiss determination. Name of Lead Agency Date Print or Type Name of ResponsibleOfficer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparerdifferent from responsible o ice' c Albert J. Krupski, President ��. O Town Hall James King,Vice-President �� Gy� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster co - P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda • Southold,New York 11971-4959 ip Peggy A. Dickerson *A a Telephone(631) 765-1892 1 `t► Fax(631) 765-+1,a8 6WI BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of Aiqc -��----�a�!------------- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, V't,/ /IjA Q-12residing at to A-1 l�c LAr - _M&AA A c ,,-r being duly swom,depose and say: That on the j day of A Ap !,200�, I personally posted the property known as a-a.S' thr -qA '4_ Da :T J D by placing the Board of Trust es of icial poster where it can easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held IjQd. Q 6 k p;Q Dated: Apv 1 Z do, 2,�"'' �A4 A M 41 (signature} Sworn to before me this ,70 day of i 200 5' Notary Public CHARLOM B1BLOW Notary Public,State of New York 14o,41-4796874 Qualifiod in Queans Canty Commission Fr--,­ i Farrell Fritz, PC EAB Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.farrellfritz.com Direct Dial 516.227.0676 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2290 16457-100 kjarvis@faiTellfiitz.com April 12, 2005 BY HAND Albert J. Krupski, President, and the Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold 53095 Main Road t i P.O. Box 1179 LOU� Southold,New York 11971 Re: Vincent and Carol Manago Boa d of rsusteps 8225 Nassau Point Road Cutcho ue New York Dear President Krupski and Town Board of Trustees: Enclosed please find a duly executed and notarized Proof of Mailing of Notice of Owners and certified receipts with regard to the application for a wetlands permit at the above-referenced premises which is scheduled for public hearing on April 20, 2005. Should you require anything additional in this matter,please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, -j ?__'­, - Karen T. Jarvis Legal Assistant Enclosure FFDOCS1\624888.01 Bridgehampton Melville New York Uniondale PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: David M. Schiff 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 John F. and Elvira T. Aloia 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 39 Nassau Boulevard, Carden City, NY 11530 Richard and Cheryl Ann Corazzini 8500 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11935 STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Karen T. Jarvis , residing at Hackensack New Jersey , being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 11th day of April , 20)5 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above named persons at the addresses set opposite there respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold;that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at � endale3—P , that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified} (registered) mail. Karen T. aarvis Sworn to before me this 12 th Day of April , 20 05 6// SHEILA KWARTLER Notary Public Rory Public.State of New York I Y No,30-4920794 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires Feb.16,2aa!t�) NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Vincent and Carol Mana o SCTM# 1000--118-04-10 YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Remove existing wooden jetty and restore beach area. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 8225 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, New York 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public comment on: April 20, 2005 You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. OWNERS NAME: Vincent and Carol Manago_ MAILING ADDRESS: 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 PHONE#: 516-627-3784 Eric-. Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. v 376.39' IL rrocruv� �� y y L w w r w w l�w m, `"' Y FA ,� o, � _ n 300 c�ycs N g�1Y 4.r oy `over wow [D.t f " �a � h • l nn 1 358.99' a 1 uRY ofic� ,��,� & P/OL0T65z' P 'A'"•OF NASSAU POINT" G IAMs FXENO 156 qk ASSA U POINT �a�� 1. �° r®,� OF ; SOUTHOL D X COUNTY, N. Y. x.. 0 - 118- 04 - 10 , lwi v I 31 a 30 �/h o�,�,. �� C. NO. 49616 fb• � f 1996 ECONIC P.C. — !1 4� 1 JCER7*FCATIONS AnI-)ED) (631) 765 - 5 f6311 765 - 1797 9 7 rmo-l., ,cl J,)>, es,2ooi �.,� �,�. •,s 1 P. 0. 80X 909 '?7- . �r,,._c ; i p.My pca,,T APRAL 4. EM ! yadale 1230 TRAVELER STREET r 19 y) MARCH 27p 2001 (now bulkhead) SOU THOLD. N.Y. 11971 z � e� I U.S. Postal ru �• U,S. Postal Service ` r + i` C� MAIL— y.. fll (Domestic Mail Only, . insurance Coveragep (Domestic Only; Coverage For delivery information visit our website at www.usps.connu #. S : m 9 m L } N M i Ln Postage $ � Postage $ r3 Certified Fee r'q Certified Fee0. r = C1 Postmark p CJ Return Reclept Fee Here p Postmark ' a (Endorsement Required) Return Receipt Fee ..Here 0 (Endorsement Required) lye p Restricted Delivery Fee , D (Endorsement Required) M Restricted Delivery Fee �r Q. (Endorsement Required)ru ru Total Poste &Fees !ror I Total Postage&Fees $ - C- r` 0 Sent To � � Cl l b � trees �p: oC ! -.> .. . 1G1Y.?:.. Ia 1 u'L� ------------ No.; - _ Richard W.Corazzmi,Jr--`&Cheryl t�nn ------ __.:.._ Ci or PO to ZlF+4_.CuOtcho Nassau r ea NY tI 1t435 d ..._.J*Box No. V or PO B.No. �� N��SC7r:C�.,��S{---•-_--•----,--- �.- P h. cry,Srara,zlP+a PS Form r 2002 5 13n CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT LO CERTIFIED MAILT, RECEIPT tl7 ..Lla+:U.S. Postal Service,,, U.S. Postal Service ru (Domestic / . . (Domestic I . Coverage i Postage $ Postage $ s lC p ! p Certified Fee p Certified Fee Cl Postmark p r p Return Reelept Fee Hera p Return Reciept Fee y Postmark (Endorsement Required) % (Endorsement Required) Here Restricted Dellvery,Fee „'' 0 Restricted Delivery Fee } ,+ _D (Endorsement Rogwred) — i E , f J (Endorsement Required) I'1.1 Tote[Postage&Foos $ IV- � j Tote[Postage&Fees - m / m O Sont To p anti To 'I{ p John F.and Elvira T.Aloia •--- David M.Schiff e IfT' smear•apr.No $ireet Arir:'No:; """ 8425 Nassau Point Road /b5r�r% or PO Box No. 8145 Nassau Point Road /� or Po Box Na. I , ------44 Cutchogue,NY 11935 Cutchogue,NY 11935 Crry State,ZlP+4 City,State„ZIP+4 ""............ ° PS Form :ir it �- r r rverse or r E ALL ons F Z } Y 5 -•f k37 p. - - { , - 'Y�'ate. � .•_ :.. 1 S s r 1. { 1 i u ` �� � k - 3 } r Q' I �� ROAD LL 3709 a , ry as S nm ,n 8x wtw •00.00' E• ! tea!tit `• N• MH - It #ILL - �- e j4f{r �{ a•f 1 t w 14 40 / 6 _ Ai r 1 dJIJY4.I,4NAY � O 1 T s4 �0`" T LOT w y �- jo 00 1Iz,y o. PI ,071 b LOT T y Pip /v a � plo LO - SUR Y OF .: 65 - _ LOT 64 &..'1 �0 L 0 r lnrr�� Nam► "AMENDED MAPS 4 F NASSAU Po o r CERTlF1ED 7*08 OMPANY FLED AUa I1► FUNO 156 LAWYERS. TITLE INSURANCE C �t+ U POINT ABSTRACT REPGO�TS, LTD. ► A``l � VINCENT MANA ,TOWN C`F SOUTHOLD CAROL MANAGO 7 € NrY, N. Y.SUFFOLK + _ NO. 49618 00 ALMA nW OR amrtoly To nos A RVEY IS A V7 LATRW SCalit: 1• 30' ECONIC P.C. oK sEcnav rros OF Try "' YORK STATE WWA r4N u w - 3004 Ages Feb. 799s (631) T65 - 5 163N T63,- I T9T Oxc�r as P� sEcr►o�+ Tzos-s�a�a+�s:aN z au cERTrxaiays AREA .. 1. P. 0. BOX 909 ExcE r ARE VALID FOR TMS MAP AND COPIES Tt�REOF OVnCY � to tie kes AT10NS ADDED' COPES BEAR Tr�E RESsm SFAL OF THE 5MVEYOR Apr# -4 I T. (C�`R G 2oA+ (a-,- "^'1 1230 TRAVELER STREET ANSARS MWOM ELEVATIONS AIuO CONTOUR LINES GPM s, + Or! 2 +9f rl ririo:i.s ��'F vet? .aPR1L .�, pool r apdat• ) SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 ARE REFERENCED TO N.G V.D. 111 G, i9! `. {enc e t/a�np P MARCH 27i 2001 (rt*w bwkhead) A DTBY Y11D ALA S�t/R�ORUTMaM WW AT COP 'I LOYES Y Apra 1.�:,!9! t set n•"j R sYaaVEy'Y A D ALI. StxN AS w.•AAV *LOOQ 2 DETERMINED FROM OF A R 'rel-I)AW ARE NOT Jhl COA�LlMIOE. M'ITN Board of Trustees Application County of Suffolk State of New York Vincent Manago and Carol Manage BEING DULY SWORN DEPOSES AND AFFIRMS THAT HE/SHE IS THE APPLICANT FOR THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PERMIT(S)AND THAT ALL STATEMENTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE TRUE TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, AND THAT ALL WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THIS APPLICATION AND AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THE APPLICANT AGREES TO HOLD THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE TOWN TRUSTEES HARMLESS AND FREE FROM ANY AND ALL DAMAGES AND CLAIMS ARISING UNDER OR BY VIRTUE OF SAID PERMIT(S), IF GRANTED. IN COMPLETING THIS APPLICATION, I HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE TRUSTEES, THEIR AGENT(S) OR REPRESENTATIVES(S), TO ENTER ONTO MY PROPERTY TO INSPECT THE PREMISES IN CONJUNCTION WIT REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. Signature Vincent Manago Carol Manago SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS Z"' DAY OF March ,20 n 5 Notary Public CHARLOTTE 818LOW Notary Public,State of New York No.41-4796874 Qualifiod in Queens county Commission Expires " 31, 200 Board of Trustees Application AUTHORIZATION (where the applicant is not the owner) 1, Vincent and Carol Manago residing at 10 Bellows Road, Manhasset, NY 11030 (print owner of property) (mailing address) do hereby authorize Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. of (Agent) Farrell Fritz, F.C. to apply for permit(s) from the uthold Board of Town Trustees on my be alf. 6�4 ( wner's sigh tore) ncent Manago Carol Manago 0 0 APPLICANT/AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The purpose of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOURNAME: Manago, Vincent and Carol (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.If so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) NAME OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax grievance Building Variance Trustee Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of plat Mooring Exemption from plat or official map Planning Other (If"Other",name the activity.) Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business, including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO X If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee.Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that apply): A)the owner of greater than 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity(when the applicant is not a corporation); C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant;or D)the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted thi q da AO-1 L& 200 ! / Signature 4 1 Print Name ent Man o Caro Managd Form TS 1 Farrell Fritz, P.C. EAB Plaza Uniondale,New York 11556-1320 Telephone 516.227.0700 Fax 516.227.0777 www.farrellfritz.com Direct Dial 516.227.0676 Our File No. Direct Fax 516.336.2290 16457-100 kjarvis@faiTellftitz.com March 29, 2005 BY RAND Albert J. Krupski, President, and the Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold D E C E I V E 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 MAR 3 0 2005 Re: Vincent and Carol Manago 5outiiold Town 8225 Nassau Point Road Board of Trustees Cutchoeue, New York Dear President Krupski and Town Board of Trustees: Enclosed please find the following documentation submitted on behalf of the applicants, Vincent and Carol Manago, in support of their application for a wetlands permit for the removal of an existing 64 foot wood jetty in Little Peconic Bay and restoration of the beach at the above- referenced property: 1. Application to Board of Trustees for a Wetland Permit, sworn to the 29th day of March, 2005 (original and five copies). 2. Transactional Disclosure Form of Vincent and Carol Manago, sworn to the 29th day of March 2005 (original and five copies). 3. Short Environmental Assessment Form dated March 29,2005 (original and six copies). 4. Six copies of a survey of the subject property dated February 16, 1996, and last revised March 27, 2001,prepared by Peconic Surveyors,P.C.,Southold,New York, 5. Six (6)copies of a report dated March 28,2005 from FPM Group, Ltd. 6. Six (6) copies of a memo dated June 22, 1995 from the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council to the Southold Town Board of Trustees Bridgehampton Melville New York Uniondale Albert J. Krupski,President, and the Board of Town Trustees March 29, 2005 Page 2 recommending disapproval of an application to rebuild a portion of the jetty because it is not functioning and not needed. 7. Six (6)copies of a survey of abutting Lot 63 dated February 27, 2002,prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land Surveyor, Riverhead,New York. 8. Six (6)sets of color photographs of the subject jetty and existing conditions. 9. A check in the sum of$250.00,made payable to the Town of Southold, in payment of the filing fee. As you are aware, several of the Trustees, as well as yourself, have visited the subject property and inspected the condition of the jetty. Once you have had an opportunity to review the application,please feel free to call me if you require anything additional. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Very truly yours, Karen T. Jarvis Legal Assistant Enclosures cc: Vincent and Carol Manago Charlotte A. Biblow, Esq. FFDOCS11622674.01 • s FPM (Trolli) �(�I"��;�'Iir!�1 ��n�a Cnvirol�i��cnt<<I 5cit.[)co —_-----___..__.-_s.___---_____ FPM Group, Ltd. CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS FPM Engineering Group, P.C. 909 Marconi Avenue 9 g P. Ronkonkoma,NY 11779 formerly Fanning, Phillips and Molnar 6 3 117 3 7-620 0 March 28, 2005 Fax 6311737-2410 President Albert J. Krupski U CY7 L� And Board of Town Trustees Town of Southold MAR ji Main Road 20�� ! � Southold, NY 11971 5c,;. ,ctirn Re: Permit to Restore Beach at the Manago Prop BCa d Of Trustees Located at 8225 Nassau Point Road Dear Honorable President and Board of Town Trustees: Vincent and Carol Manago retained our firm to investigate the causes of severe erosion to their beach and to provide recommendations for corrective action. It was suspected that a wood jetty located on their north property line and extending into Little Peconic Bay was the major cause of their beach erosion. On May 29, 2003, 1 inspected the shoreline area of the Manago property located at 8225 Nassau Point Road, in the Town of Southold, New York. The purpose of the inspection was to assess if damage to the Manago shoreline was being created by the wood jetty (AKA groin) located near the north side property line of their property, and extending out into Little Peconic Bay, and to recommend corrections. Moreover, I have reviewed several historical photographs, maps and surveys pertaining to this shoreline, and researched applicable engineering theory of coastal processes to analyze the problem and to make recommendations.. I have concluded that: 1. The subject jetty is the primary cause of extreme erosion to the beach on Manago property. 2. The base portion of the jetty lies within the bounds of the Manago property. 3. Corrective action should include removal of the jetty and replenishment of the eroded beach with dredged or borrow sand. OBSERVATIONS Attached photos nos. 1 and 2 shows the change in the Manago beach area between the summer of 1996 to the summer of 2002. These historical photos clearly document that significant beach erosion occurred at the Manago beach during this period. On May 29, 2003, 1 had observed the conditions of the beach and had taken several photos. The photos nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 attached were taken at about 11:00 a.m. which was just about full high tide for that date and location. Photo no. 3 shows that an apparent loss of beach elevation of 2 to 3 feet had RONKONKOMA,NY • ROME,NY • SAN ANTONIO,TX • SPOKANE,WA • LANCASTER,CA • MIDWEST CITY,OK • MT.HOLLY, NJ • LAS VEGAS,NV President Albert Krupski -2- March 28, 2005 occurred below the beach access stair. Photo no. 4 shows the obvious effect the subject jetty is having on the Manago beach. Sand was built up on the north side of the jetty, and eroded on the south side (Manago side). The sand elevation was about two feet higher on north side of the jetty compared to the south (Manago) side. From these observations there should be no question that the jetty is the primary cause of erosion to the Manago beach area. The base of the jetty is clearly located within the bounds of the Manago property. The property survey entitled "Survey of Lot 64 and PIO Lot 65" by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., shows the wood jetty starting from a westerly point at the Manago bulkhead, within the Manago property, and extending easterly into Little Peconic Bay. From the survey, the first 10 to 15 feet (by scale measure) of the jetty is clearly within the bounds of the Manago property. From photos nos. 5 and 6 attached, it can be further observed that most of the jetty appears to be within the Manago property. Another survey for the Aloia property prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, shows about 7 to 10 feet (by scale measure) of the base of the jetty to be located on the Manago property. The angle of the jetty to the property line is very small, thereby a subtle emphasis in drawing the property line, even within an allowable margin of drafting error, can show a magnified difference in the amount of jetty on the Manago property. In any event, the most current surveys and my personal observation show a substantial portion of the base of the subject jetty to be within the bounds of the Manago property. ANALYSIS The subject "wood jetty" is more commonly known as a "groin" in coastal engineering practice for this type of application. Groins are an effective means for capturing sand by interrupting "longshore" currents and wave induced sediment transport along a beach. Sand is captured on the up-drift side of the groin, the amount of which is related to the length and height of the structure. The down-drift side of the groin is typically deprived of sand, causing an erosional effect. Longshore currents and wave action can vary in direction from day to day, however, a groins up-drift sand collection and down-drift erosion will eventually assume an equilibrium shape that is consistent with the direction of the predominant or prevailing currents and wave actions over a period of time. Different periods of time may yield different prevailing conditions and therefore different shapes. At the Manago beach front, it is apparent that the predominant longshore current and consequent sand drift has been from North to south. The Manago beach front, being down-drift of the groin (jetty), is clearly being affected by this groin effect. Sand is captured on the Aloia side of the jetty, and eroded from the Manago side. Mr. Manago had reported to me that the problem was not so severe prior to recent modifications to the wood jetty by Aloia. He stated prior to the recent modifications, the jetty was lower and was porous (sheeting missing). Under that situation, sand could be transported by longshore currents and wave action, through and over the jetty, providing some re-nourishment of his beach. It is my opinion however, that the Manago beach front would experience less damage if the jetty was removed entirely. FPM President Albert Krupski -3- March 28, 2005 Forecasting future localized erosive effects due to groins or other structures is difficult and not an exact science. There are some coastal engineering analytical and rule of thumb methods used to estimate coastal dynamics, but they are only starting points. As inaccurate as they may be, these methods sometimes are used when no other information is available. A myriad of factors, such as changing current and weather patterns, periodic storms, varying geometry of the shoreline over time, etc., all play into the dynamics of the unpredictability of shorefront stability and of any engineering forecasting models. Therefore, much of what is designed to protect the shoreline is a trial and error process. The actual damaging effect the subject jetty is imposing on to the Manago beachfront is an obvious after the fact observation. As described above, it is a well known fact that groins cause this effect. Therefore, there is no question the jetty is the cause of erosion to the Manago shorefront. The jetty should be removed to allow the beach to naturally stabilize. CONCLUSIONS It is my opinion that the subject jetty is the primary cause of the severe erosion of the Manago shoreline. I am not certain if the erosion has stabilized or if further erosion will continue in the future with this jetty in place. Only time will tell. However, there is no question that the jetty has damaged the Manago shorefront. Further, it is my opinion, from review of the various surveys and observation, that the jetty is located predominantly within the bounds of Manago property (the base or first 10 to 15 feet of the jetty) and thus the remaining part (in the bay) should be under the Manago jurisdiction. I recommend the jetty be partially or entirely removed to allow for a more natural localized beach dynamic. Moreover, to restore the beach to its previous line and elevations, I recommend replenishing the beach with dredged or borrow sand. We have calculated that approximately 300 cubic yards of sand will be required. I have marked on the attached part survey the location and depth profile of sand required. Very truly yours, ary Molnar, P.E. Prin al FP Group GAM:df Enclosures FPM . . ........... . . . m yi I r, u io 1641 '.iyF' f MN fM 4 SUMMER 1996 Photo No.. 1 Note: Building up of sand at Manacgo leach area. SUMMER 2102 Photo No. 2 Note: Loss of sand at Manago teach area compared to 1996 photo. ii uuu°uuuiumu � r q°iq r i✓c �% i r� prop r Photo No. 3 Stair to beach at Manago property (flay 2003, high tide). Note: Apparent bras of 2 feet to 3 feet of beach elevation since stair was built. ry O 1 /G r j Photo No. 4 The subject jetty is in the 'Little Peconic Bay, perpendlicular to the shoreline. Nate: Managa beach is to the right(south), is experiencing erosion clue to the obvious erosion effect of the jetty. r r„ r �r � t d i r Photo No. Standing on jetty looking westerly. Note: Mr.. Manago is holding astick on top of the surveyors property lline rnonume,nt, suggesting most of the jetty is within the Manago property (to the left). / rr t �I,f,0 i �° 1��' / / �l1i ! v ! i !r� p Iqe of Jpp i�I 771 %� ! /✓� �� i %!o9! !i i fViPYu�4 `,. r d MY 1 r„ f ! u r �y ir<N i r ! r Hi # • 1w it � 1 • 91 � • • - • w w w r r sees r 376.39' fit i a4' rroacAx�F r� _Y y d 5 .r a W a y w � � y `m WS)Fs s -.4 `Y s!o y{Y 4.4' a a � rya 4X , pow 140' � �o�cre�'• O � r� a 10.4' Z ern . lot m i fl� ' � a �n 3g8.99` ti UR WY OF & 10LOT 65 ,V P A,,0F NASSAU POINT ASSAU POINT �,�� .� r®� OF SOUTHOLD S�-10 X COUNTY, N. Y. 0 - IM- 04 - 10 ) „N Ile: I" = 30' ,�� 1 9N.Y. NO. 49616 lb. r0r_ 1996 DCONic P.c. 11 4, 15 (CER*ICA T1nNS ADDED) (631) 765 - (631) 765 - 1797 ? 1997 'c/ J✓/y j?S'-Zool P. 0. J Box -qOrj J 97, ,l-e,7.;c r IAN�P oo.�o APM 2 Rom 1 update J 1230 TR AVELER (r i90 (ser m MARCH 6 ) 001 (now bul+f-head) SOUTHOLD, N.Y. 11971 s: l l TW p�OMEY LATHAM SHE A 8z KELLEY LLr Attorneys at Law THOMAS A-TWOMEY,JR. Mailing Address Location OF COUNSEL STEPHEN B-LATHAM Post Office BOX 9398 33 West Second Street KENNETH P. LAVALLE JOHN F.SHEA, III Riverhead Riverhead JOAN C.HATFIELD A CHRISTOPHER D. KELLEY New York 1 1 901-9398 New York 11901-9398 DAVID M. DUBINO ANNE MARiE GOODAtE P, EDWARD REALE LAURA I. SGUAZZSNA PETER M.MOTT Telephone: 631.727.2180 TRACY KARSCH PALUMBO JAY P QUARTARAROt Facsimiles 031.727.1767 BRYAN C, VAN COTT JANICE L. SNEAD CVRUS G. DOLCE°- MARTHA L. LUFT ALICIA S- O'CONNORA JANE DiG1ACOMO www.suffolklaw.com LISA A-AZZATO+ PHILIP D- NYKAMP KATHRYN DALLI MARTIN D- FINNEGAND NY&LA BARS O LL-M-IN TAXATION t NV&CT BARS A NY,NJ,&PA BARS a NY&NJ BARS NY,NJ,FL,&CT BAR5 LL.M.IN ESTATE PLANNING a NY,DC,FL,&GA BARS+ May 5, 2005 Southampton Town Hall ! i r' ``;' '> �� Board of Trustees P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 ' ten, E Att: Lauren Standish _ J Re: Manago Application Dear Lauren: Enclosed is our firm check in the amount of $21 . 50 for photocopying charges on the above matter. Thank you for your assistance. Very truly yours, i z0f Weisinger)'Legal Assistant N CASH R1RECEIPT Date }" Received From 042737 N � ^ � orAi Address r � Z c>: 3: (4 z 0 a For _ Dollars$ C HOC IS Oz5? 9 Q 03 c°n AM7 DF m O ACCOUNT CASH �] Cr / C m AMT PAID HECK 1 i BALANCE MONEYOROFR❑ L �7 DUE 56340 MAIN ROAD,P O.BOX 325 CPEDITCARo❑ SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 631.765.2300 Toavn of Southold 0 • LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM A. INSTRUCTIONS 1. All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold.Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Except minor exempt actions including Building Permits and other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. 2. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area(which includes all of Southold Town). 3. If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to snaking a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION SCTM#1_0--__I_X oa-1s— The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board ❑ Planning Dept. ❑ Building Dept. ❑ Board of Trustees 1. Category of Town of Southold agency action(check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency(e.g. capital ❑ construction,planning activity, agency regulation,land transaction) ❑ (b) Financial assistance(e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Complete removal of existing 64 fcot etty in proximity property line and restoration of the beach on subject property with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. Att,ch additional sheets if necessary • Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III--Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section III — Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria xx Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable As referenced in the report of .FTA Group, Ltd. dated March 28, 2005 (copy attached) , the ad ause t1 m re erosion than it prevents. Remalal of the Jetty will rpfiurt- UP erosiQn- Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy S. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III —Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria ❑ Yes ❑ No X❑Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section III — Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. ❑ Yes [:] No © Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine and Town waters. See LWIZP Section III resources in Long Island Sound the—Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation rPeconic Estuary terra. Yes El No ❑ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III— through 65 for evaluation criteria. Policies; Pages 62 ❑ Yes ❑ No❑ Not Applicable Attach additional sheets if necessary Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral reso Section III—Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria, urCes• See LWRP ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Applicable Created on 5125105 11:20 AM osuF�oc� Albert J. Krupski, President ��► CQ Town Hall James King,Vice-President �`� G'y� 53095 Route 25 Artie Foster - P.O.Box 1179 Ken Poliwoda Southold,New York 11971-0959 Peggy A. Dickerson y�o aQ� Telephone(631) 765-1892 ^� �► Fax(631) 7654366444/ BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TRUSTEES: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD --------------------------------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application of a-ex A,- J C4&A _47-MW611(�------ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING residing at D e LLDw, L&,r,. being duly sworn, depose and say: i That on the 14 day o ff- , 2 (J,,I person y posted the rope y known as / by placing the Board of Trustees official poster where it can easily be se , and that I live checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to the date of the public hearing. Date of hearing noted thereon to be held_ ` � o n a Dated. (s ature) Sworn to before me this day of j�qy�200 S' Notary Public No .va- t0 (�uUAus COv-cti9 toys„ wa- cry P cqmJj 31, 2oog PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE ATTACH CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPTS Name: Address: David M. Schiff 8425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY 11935 John F. and Elvira Aloia 8145 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue,NY 11935 39 Nassau Boulevard, Garden City,NY 11530 Richard and Cheryl Ann Carazzini 8500 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue, NY 11835 STATE OF NEW YORK) ).ss: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) Karen T. Jarvis,residing at Hackensack, New Jersey, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 161h day of August, 2005, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the address of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Uniondale, New York,that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by(certified) (fegistefed) mail. aren T. Jaz SwqZp to before me this day of August, 2005. �Notar�yPub�lic �� BHf ILA KW4RTL€R 10VXry Publie.State of New*& No.30-4920794 ouslified in Nassau COUI Commission Expites r-.b,16.Z FFDOCS11645294.01 NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER BOARD OF TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the matter of applicant: Vincent and Carol Mana o SCTM# 1000-118-04-10 _ YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to request a Permit from the Board of Trustees to: Remove existing jetty and restore beach area with approximately 300 cubic yards of dredged or borrow sand. 2. That the property which is the subject of Environmental Review is located adjacent to your property and is described as follows: 8225 Nassau Point Road Cutchogue, New York 3. That the project which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, and/or 97 of the Town Code is open to public continent on: August 24 2005. You may contact the Trustees Office at 765-1892 or in writing. The above-referenced proposal is under review of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold and does not reference any other agency that might have to review same proposal. O`VNERS NAME: Vincent and Carol Mana o MAILING ADDRESS: 10 Bellows Lane Manhasset, NY 11030 PHONE#: 51 6-627-3784 _ Enc: Copy of sketch or plan showing proposal for your convenience. i! I 'I PostalU.S. Postal ru CERTIFIED MAIL,, RECEIPT Ln CERTIFIED MAILT, RECEIPT rance coverage Provided) nT (Domestic mail Only; f, r-a r-3 L0 . delivery'� ' u•1 information • n, I cc A D L Postage $ ��li�. A[ Postage $ ��QN b = o Centred Fee l� � o Certified Fee J� ark Return Recoipt Fee i p j rtixlr �. Return Receipt Fee er� (Endorsement Required} Hefe (Endorsement Required) Ct Restricted Delivery Fee L` O Restricted Delivery Fee Cr (Endorsement Required) [r (Endorsement Required) CO ru rU Total Postage&Fees \�,��/ Total Postage&Fees Q aryl TO Sent To O [� Sheet,AAt:]�t'o.; f�'. -S`troet, pt.No.; or PO Box No. or PO Box No. r --------------- Q City,State,Z1P+4 �,giffi,Zr.4'- sr __,P.s n __ y�_ I l C4 Form 3800 June 2002 Postal Postal Service— Er CERTIFIED RECEIPT , RECEIPT f. • (DomesticOnly, • Provided) CoverageProvided) rq • r Pm'1 r delivery •Ln Ln 7 �r ifE COPostage $ '';)1110N cD Postage $ NQ '� Certified Fee �9�� Certified Fee t <0\ PostmWk ' , p Return Receipt Fee ! Return Race" Fee Herd- M (Endorsement Required) t Rqu ' r (Endorsemeneired) p Restricted Delivery Fee Cn C1 Restricted Delivery Fee Ir (Endorsement Required) G O' (Endorsement Required) cc Go RJ lbtal Postage&Fees $ f1J Total Postage&Fees SOW To � 1:3 ant To . �L�rx.�__�.rGk,__�1vix�-------_---��ni_�............. � .-_.fah+ca._�:_sa�x�l..�,1.��r�_T,_. . .l,a;_s�•...----- r%- S�tiset,Apt.No.; r- 4froet,Apt.No.; �----JJ or PO Box No. orPoBoxNo. s.al�.- - ...... 1L1--?—QCL ---- - -• -- ... City,state,ZlP+4 - City,State,ZtP+4 PS FDrm :fir June-2002 See.Reverse for l9struction8 PS rorn,3800 a E i