HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-5634Board Of $outhold Town Trustees
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PERMIT NO ..... DATE: ..~ep.t.
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 61S of fha Laws of
the State of New York, 1893; end C, hepfer 404 of Se Laws of the
State of New York 19S2; and Se Souflmld Town Ordinance em
tiffed ."RE-~ULATIN~o AND THE PLAC~IN~o OF OBSTRUCTIONS
IN AND ON TOWN WATERS AND PUBLIC LANDS and the
REMOVAL OF SAND, ~oRAVEL OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM
LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;!.!. and in accordance
Resolution of The B6erd adopted afa meeting held on ....S..~t~.t..~..
.~-0(~.~...., and in consideration of the sum of $.-...~00.,.00... paid by
..~r~p~.~7....$~r~i~e~., .on...b.eh~lf .o£...$tever,...I~.~m ...........................
of ... ~utcl~og.~ ................................... N. Y. and subject fo ~rhe
Terms end Conditions IJ~ed on ~ne reverse side hereof,
of Soufhold Town Trudees eufhorlzes and permif~ fha followlna:
Wetland Permit to construct additions to existing house structure - mctudes thre,: se. ctiotls
14'x27.8' extends east 7'x65.4' located along back north aide ofe~isting structure 4'x9' front
- southside ofexistingstmcture, with the condition that haybales -during construction 20 feet
from the bulkhead - gutters and leaders - plans placed on a surx,ey -
ell in accordance wlfh the detailed specifications es presmlf'ed in
~he originating application.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees here-
[~ causes ifs Corporate Seal to be affixed, end fhese ~esenfs fo
subserved by a'mejodfy of fha said Board as of this daf~.
TERIdS and CONDITIOiqS
2. That rids Pemslt b' ~did brm .perlod of ~. mo~ ~Ich b eonsfde~f to he the
for ~m _,-.~-~d<)a m~y be made ~o the Board et ·
~. ~ ~ Pem~t dmuld be ~ imlef~iedy, or ss ~ ~s d~e hid Pemim~ wbbes
m ,-,*;,,,~;,, the st~cm~ o~ pmjec~ ia~cdved, to provide evl6mce to ~ mummed
Tht Ihe work involved will be ml~ect !o the inspection and al~ of the ]kMml er
ami =o[~ompIboco with.the proy~om ~ d3e ee~fom~ efJg~--~'~ioa, mt7 be cruse for
& '~'b~ttbesaJdl~NKdwillbenotifJedbytbePetmk~eotd~cainq]leda~.(~dSl~W(MCnm~--
9. Tl~t the Permittee will obtain nH other p'~d~ and comenls d]at may be ~iq~xI mP-
plemental m d~s pemdt ~ m~y be subject to tevo~ upoa f~t'e m oixaM sam~
Alber~ J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765~1366
July 21, 2004
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
P.O. Box 617
Cutchogue, NY 11935-0617
RE: STEVEN KRAM
100 WEST LANE, SOUTHOLD
SCTM#88-6-12
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular
Meeting held on Wed., July 21, 2004:
RESOLVED that the Southold Town Board of Trustees grants a One-Year Extension to
Permit #5634, as issued on September 25, 2002 and amended on July 23, 2003.
This is not an approval from any other agency.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
President, Board of Trustees
AJK:lms
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
July 25, 2003
Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
PO Box 617
Cutchogue, NY 11935
RE: $CTMg88-6-21
100 West Lane
$outhold, NY
$teven Kram
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The following action was taken by the Southold Town Board of Trustees at their Regular
Meeting held on Wednesday, July 23, 2003.
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Board of Trustees Approve an Amendment to Permit
5634 to construct 4 foot high mesh deer fence around the property beginning 15 feet landward of
the existing bulkhead - construct 4'x4' platform and stairs to beach on the.seaward side of the
existing bulkhead per project plans by Proper-T Permit dated July 1, 2003
If you have any questions, please call our office at 765-1892.
Sincerely,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
cc: DEC
A/K:cjc
11-,7'
vIND-
/
/
/
/
: le
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Tv-,,, Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. New ¥ot'k 11971.
$OUTHOLD TO~N
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
At the meeting of the Southold Town Consemation Advisory Council held Tuesday, July
15, 2003, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Bob Ghosio, seconded by Nicholas Dickerson, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of
the Amendment application of STEVEN KRAM to Amend Permit #5634 to construct a 4'
high mesh deer fence around the property beginning 15' landward of the existing
bulkhead and APPROVAL WITH A STIPULATION of the Amendment application to
construct a 4'X 4' platform and stairs to beach on the seaward side of the existing
bulkhead,
Located: 100 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-12
The CAC recommend~ Disapproval of the application to construct a 4' high mesh deer
fence because the CAC doesn't want to see fragmentation of the wildlife corridors along
the wetlands,
The CAC recommends Approval of the application to construct a platform and stairs
with the condition of a 15' non-turf buffer.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Tovm Hall., 5309.5 Ma. in Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold. ~w York 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL
At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Monday,
September 23, 2002, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Drew Dillingham, seconded by Bob Ghosio, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustee.~~of the
Amendment Request of STEVEN KRAM to Amend Permit #5498 to extend ~[h-~'l'Elt~·
further than the expa~.:. ,.
Located: 100 West Lai~i~,'~"Eb'thold. ~CTM#88-6-12
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
September 23, 2002
(631) 734-5800
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Sonthoid
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Application of Steven gram; SCTM # 1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
-, SEP 2 3
[ was notified on Friday, 9/20/02, that our application fur an a~t to Tmstecs' Permit No. 5948 was
not acceptable. The proposed project was "ton extensive" and therefore required a "full permit". Because
of that, I was told, it would not be possible fur the project to be the subject of a public hearing at the Trus-
tees' meeting scheduled for Wednesday, September 25, 2002.
My client and I take strong exception to the Trustees' decision to deny the project a public hearing at the
Sep~nber 25t~ meeting. The reasons for our position are as follows:
· Thc required sign posting and mailing of notice to adjacent property owners was performed as re-
quired and in exactly the same manner as if the application had been for a "full permit", except
that the word "amandrnent" was used in the project description..
· The required notice was published in the Suffolk Times in exactly the same maoner as if the appli-
cation had been for a "full permit", except that the phrase "Amendment to Permit #5498" was in-
elude&
· Frequently in the past public hearings have been held by the Trustees at which the project acted
upon differed in material ways bom the project described in the published notice. In this case
there is no difference, material or otherwise, between the project as an amendment or as a "full
permit".
· The information provided to the Trustees which resulted in the issuance of P~afit No. 5498 is on-
changed with the exception of a new Project Plan, which was submitted with the application for an
amendment. However, a complete new set of documents is being submitted herewith, together
with the "full pra,,;t" fi~e less that already paid with the amendment application.
We urgeatly request that you reconsider your decision to delay the public hearing on this project. All the
elements are in place; no one with any interest in the project would decide not to attend the meeting bo-
cause the project was described as an amendment rather than as a "full permit".
s erely,
I roes E. Fitzgerald
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Pr. oper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-580O
September 23, 2002
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
SEP 2 3 2002
Re: Application for Pe~,~t on BehalfofSteven Kram; SCTM #1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
Attached are documents which have been prepm~ in support of the application for a permit to
expand the existing dwelling on the propert7 of the Kram Family Trust, Steven Kram Trustee;
and Shirley Kram in the Town of Southold.
Proper-T Permit Services represents the owners in this matter, and a letter of authorization is in-
cluded as part of this submission.
If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please call me.
Enclosures: ~
Application Fee ($200, less $40 previously paid)
Letter of authorization
Notarized Statement
Survey of Property
Application Form (3 copies)
Short EAF (3 copies)
Vicinity Map (3 copies)
Tax Map (3 copies)
Project Plan (3 copies)
~s E. Fitzgerald,~
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Soutbeld, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
April 30, 2002
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
P.O. Box 617
Cutchogue, NY 11935
STEVEN KRAM
100 West Lane, Southold
SCTM#88-6-12
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on
Wednesday, April 24, 2002 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEVEN KRAM applied to the Southold
Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated January 31, 2002, 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
April 24, 2002, 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 does not comply with the standards set forth in Chapter 97 of the
Southold Town Code,
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will affect the health, safety
and general welfare of the people of the town,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT,
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees DISAPPROVE the application of STEVEN KRAM to
construct a 4'X 57' fixed dock with four 2-pile dolphins for mooring, because the project would
monopolize the public bottom and cause damage to the enviroment.
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.
Fees: None
Very truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJK/lms
DEC
ACE
Dept. of State
Application off Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
March 21, 2002
FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR~.
Part ID. Informational Details
"If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such
impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them."
AIO: This question was answered in the affirmative simply because the project extends into
the waters of the Bay. It is unlikely that finfish of any variety would be found in the immedi-
ate area of the project before its construction. Shellfish (clams) may be present as they are
along many of the shores throughout the Town. The project site, however, is not unique in
any way from the standpoint of its nature as a possible fin- or shellfish habitat, and the pres-
ence of the proposed dock will not interfere with the potential of the immediate project area
in this regard; it may, in fact, make the area more hospitable to fin- and shellfish. With re-
gard to the possible effect of the structure on finfishing, it again is unlikely that either water-
borne or landbound fisherman would be interested in fishing in the immediate project area. If
there was such interest, it would not be difficult for them to avoid the structure, since as has
been stated, the immediate project area is not unique. Sbellfisherman, if they had any interest
in the project area, would not be deterred by the presence of the dock. It would not be diffi-
cult to maneuver around it either in the water or on land, depending upon the state oftbe tide.
Al4: Some residems of the neighboring Angel Shores subdivision, which owns land adjacent
to the project site, have stated that a dock on the Kram property would spoil their view of the
Bay. Every effort has been made, and will continue to be made, to keep the project mini-
mally intrusive visually by having it built as low as is practical. In addition, the length has
been kept to the absolute minimum that will provide reasonable docking for a small boat. In
addition, although this does not go directly to the appearance of the dock, the proposed loca-
tion and design of the structure is such that passage way is provided above the high water
mark between the landward end of the dock and the existing bulkhead, rlhis has been done to
make easy passage along the beach possible at all stages of the tide. With regard to the view,
there is no doubt that it will be different with the proposed project in place, but the total ef-
fect of the dock in such a wide and panoramic view will certainly be minimal, especially for
viewers at or close to the shoreline as would be so in the present case. It should further be
recognized that in response to comments from the few Angel Shores residents, the dock has
been moved as far as possible to the western side oftbe property to further reduce its effect
on the view.
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-5800
March 21, 2002
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Application of Steven Exam; SCTM #1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
As was requested at the 3/20/02 public hearing concemin~ this application, a Full Environmental
Assessment Form, with a completed Part 1, is provided herewith. A separate page responds to the
request in Part ID for informational details.
I am most anxious to see the Board's completed Part 2 as soon as it is available.
If you need anything else, please call.
ames E. Fitzger~
Jr.
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
SEQRA RESOLUTION RE: STEVEN KRAM SCTM#88-6-12
Resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Southold that the application
of Steven Kram, more full described in the public hearing section #13 of the
Trustee agenda dated Wednesday, March 20, 2002 is, pursuant to the SEQRA
rules and regulations, is declared an Unlisted Action; and be it
Further resolved that the applicant is required to submit a Long Environmental
Assessment Form (LEAF); and be it
Further resolved that upon receipt of the LEAF the Clerk of the Trustees is
hereby directed to commence a coordinated review pursuant to SEQRA.
Proper-T Permit Services
P.O. Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935
Phone: 631-734-5800
Fax: 631-734-7463
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Trustees
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
March 18, 2002
In order to resolve the concerns of the Angel Shores Homeowners Association, we have
moved the proposed dock to the western side of the property, away fiom the Association
beach~ Five copies of the revised Project Plan (3/8/02) are attached.
Also attached are five copies of''Notes Concerning Steven Kram Application", dated 2/20/02.
I would appreciate it ifa copy of the "Notes" could be provided to each Trustee before the
meetillg.
February 20, 2002
NOTES CONCERNING STEVEN KRAM APPLICATION
1. DEC regs state that a single open pile catwalk and/or dock in the SM (coastal shoals, bars
and flats) area is a generally compatible use and may be permitted by the DEC.
o
Chapter 97 does not make any distinction between the creeks of the Town and the open
Bay with regard to the construction of water-related structures; the "open Bay" is not even
mentioned. A structure that would be permitted in a creek should be permitted on the open
Bay, all other things being equal..
The idea of restricting structures from a given area because other structures do not already
exist in the area is not a valid concept, just as is permitting them because others do already
exist. The Trustees have repeatedly stated that every case is different and each must be
treated individually on its own merits.
4. The project is acceptable under 97-28 of the Town Code.
5. A condition of no future expansion could be imposed in the permit.
6. A condition of mandatory removal after a certain period of disuse could be imposed in the
permit.
Although there are relatively few other docks on the open Bay, there are many groins and
jetties on the open Bay throughout the Town. The proposed dock would be no more visu-
ally intrusive than these groins and jetties. The open Bay is not visually pristine. Further,
"in seasoft' there are many boats moored along the hayfi'ont throughout the Town and we
are not concerned by their visual impact. We are, at, er all, a waterfront community and
one expects to see jetties, boats and docks.
8. Within recent years, significant open Bay development with water-related structures has
been permitted on Robins Island and in New Suffolk.
9. The Trustees' concern with a dock's structural adequacy in a given location should be
limited to acting in an advisory capacity since no applicable design criteria exist.
10. It seems obvious that a given structure would have much less potential for adversely af-
fecting environmental factors if it were on Southold's open Bay than if it were on one of
the Town's creeks, and yet the Trustees are considering denying the application for this
structure merely because it is on the open Bay. ~ ,~
SURVE'f' OF PROPERT'r'
SI'FI)ATE-' BA'r'MIEI~I
TOI4N-- 50UTHO~
5t,FFOLK ¢_.,OI~TY, N'r'
SURVEYED 11-14-02, 01-21-0~
r::~FFOLK COUNTY TAX ~
1000-88-~-12
CERTIFIED TO:
STEVE KRAbl
NOTES:
P~CoNiC
· MONIJHENT FOUND
· STAKE FOUND
AREA : 15,18~ SF OR 0.~ ACRES
PARCEL LIES ENTIRELY IN FEIIA
FLOOD) ZONE AE (ELS) HAP ~ D,~IO~COI~8
ELEVATIONS SHOI~IN REFERENCE N~VD'2q
REFERS TO DRT t'tELLS INSTALLED) FOR ROOF RUN OFF, ¢aUTTERS AND LEADERS REQUIRED THROtI,.~HOUT
®P-.APHIC 'SCALE I":DO'
N
JOHN C. EHLERS LAND SURVEYOR
6 EAST MAIN STREET N.Y.S. LIC. NO. 50202
RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901
369-8288 Fax 369-8287 REF.-\'ffIp server~d~PROS\01-304C.pro
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Attic Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
October 8, 2002
Mr. James E, Fitzgerald, Jr,
Proper-T Permit Services
PO Box 617
Cntchogue, NY 11935
RE: SCTM# 88-6-12
Steven Kram
100 West Lane
Southold, NY
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The following action was taken by the Board of Town Trustees during a Regular Meeting, held
on September 25, 2002, regarding the above matter.
WHEREAS, Proper-TServices on behalf of Steven Kram applied to the Southold Town
Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold,
application dated September 24, 2002
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
September 25, 2002 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,
2
WHEREAS, the structure complies with the standard set forth in Chapter 97~18 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.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT,
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approved the application of Steven Kratn for a
Wetland Permit to construct additions to existing house structure - includes three sections
14'x27.8' extends east 7'x65.4' located along back north side of existing structure 4'x9' front
- south side of existing structure, with the condition that haybales -during construction 20 feet
from the bulkhead - gutters and leaders - plans placed on a survey -
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.
Fee must be paid, if applicable and permit issued within six months of the date of this
notification.
If inspections are required, at a fee of $5.00 per inspection (See attached schedule).
FEES: None
VeE? truly yours,
Albert J. Krupski, Jr.
President, Board of Trustees
AJKicjc
cc DEC
THE SHADED AREAS~RESENT THE PROPOSED ADDITIONS
WHICH ARE 'filE SUBJECT OF THE PRESENT AMENDMENT
APPLiCATiON. THERE ARE THREE: ONE tS 7' x 65.4', ONE IS
14.' x 27.8', AND ONE iS 4' x 9'.
------
D B' x 13' F...XTENStON WAS APPROVED
THIS PROPOS~ ,--~-,,,,"r 5498 DATED 2/21102.
THE TRuSTEEo tN pc:m,-,- NO.
~. HOUSE_
A-~lication regarding the property of
Steven Kram, $CTM #1000-88-6-12
Rt~pres~ted by
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617, Cutchogu~, NY 11935
516-'/34-5800
JameS E. Fitzgerald, Jr. Revised July 8, 2002
205 Llncolr~ Street, P.O. Box 1308, Rivarhead, New York 11901
tel/fax: 631 4274346 · e-mail: bsykeeper@l~amptons.c~rn
Piebald BayKelpel'
Xevi~ McAiiister
February I 1, 2002
Via Facsimile and U,S, Mail
Exclusive to the Southampton Press
Mr. Joseph Shaw
The Southampton Press
I]5 Windmill Lane
Southanlpton, NY 11968
[)ear Mr. Shaw,
In response to the February 7, 2002 article "Trustees Reedy to Ban CCA" Z would like to
clarify my position on the issue. I support the ban on CCA and applaud the Board of
Trustees for taking this positive step. Although the ban on CCA in our waters will
certainly decrease trace pollutants such as copper, chromium and arsenic and is an
important action to improving water quality, this admirable effort will be minimized lC we
do not take steps presently toward addressing file larger more serious problem, The
accelerating loss, degradation and fragmentation of critically imlaortam tidal wetlands and
other fringe habitats resulting from the increasing number of bulkheads and docks poses
the more serious threat to the long-term health and productivity of our bays.
On natural shorelines, wave energy is effectively dissipated. In contrast, the placement of
bulkheads cause approaching waves to be reflected back offshore, resulting in the erosion
ofthe shoreline. Over time, the continual deepening of the neaxshore bottom results in
the disappearance of the intertidal zone, the area between high and Iow tide that is a
critical component to the health and productivity of the system. The cumulative impacts
from docks can include the fragmentation of habitat, the loss of valuable submerged
vegetation as result of structural shading and propeller dredging during vessel
maneuvering in nearshore waters.
The Board of Trustees is charged with the enormous responsibility to protect and
preserve the viability of surface waters, bottomlands and natural shoroline$ for th~ greater
public interest, i applaud the Board's commitment to resource protection but feel the
current poli~ies and permitting criteria established for dock and bulkhead construction
may not be adequately addressing the deleterious and cumulative impacts these structures
are havi~lg on the estuarine system. Moreover, the public's riBht to have unobstructed
access along its shorelines is subtly being eroded.
STRIVING TO PRESERVE OUR BAY HERITAGE
P.02
Joseph Shaw
February I1, 2002
Page 2.
[ respectfully urge the Board to again bc proactive through the thorough reevaluation of
thc policies and criteria governing the construction of all shoreline structures. I
recommend that the following interim and long-term legislative actions be considered:
· Temporary one-year moratorium on new dock and bulkhead permits while new
IcgJslative actions are being considered and codified.
· Thorough evaluation of the impacts to natural resources associated with the
placement of permanent versus seasonal structures.
· Assessment and classification of all shorelines and bottomiands for the purpose of
establishlng management zones to reduce the impacts from shoreline hardening
structures.
· Establisl~nent of more stringent permitting criteria,
· Legislative action that affirms a prohibition of all shoreline hardening structures
(including geotextile sand tubes) on shorelines that have not be,m previously armored.
I recognizc that thc legislative management actions suggested will unquestionably be in
conflict with perceived property rights and prove to be a challenging initiative. However,
lhis is s crltlcaIly important management action that requires irmncdiatc attention, h~ thc
interest of greater protection, we need lo seize this narrowing window of oppoi'tunity.
cAlhster
/~econic Baykeeper
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFF/CE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-5800
April 29, 2002
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11935
Re: Application of Steven Kram; SCTM # 1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
Please provide us with copies of the minutes of the public hearings held concerning this applica-
tion on February 20, 2002; March 20, 2002; and April 24, 2002.
In addition, please provide the written denial of the application setting forth the reasons for the
denial> as stated at the April 24, 2002 public heating, at your earliest convenience.
If you will let me know when the documents are available, I will pick them up at the Trustee of-
rice.
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
The
conservancy®
Saving the Last Great Places
Structural Alteration of Estuarine Shorelines:
Annotated Bibliography
By
David Edelstein
· , 2
Structural Alteration of Estuarine Shorelines:
Annotated Bibliograohv
1. Literature Review
What follows is a review of the readily available literature concerning the effect of man-
made shoreline structures on estuarine habitats and shorelines. In this case, "readily
available" usually means that this literature is published. A casual survey of
bibliographies suggests that a great deal of the commentary regarding shoreline structures
is contained within government documents, often sponsored by state environmental and
natural resource departments. Many of these documents are more in the nature of policy
or reasoned deductions about the impacts of shoreline structures than scientific studies,
and they are usually only available from the sponsoring agency, if they are still in print.
Even the published literature tends to be qualitative rather than quantitative. Most of the
studies reviewed below arc observational, in that it is usually not possible to manipulate
natural areas so that one represents a true "control" while others represent strict test
treatments. More typically the studies involve observations of adjacent areas, one
affected by a shoreline structure and one in a more natural condition. The enormous
variability and sources of variation between natural areas make such studies different
from the more typical "control/test" science model, however.
An important impact of shoreline structures that this review does not address is that most
structures increase the opportunity for boating. Boating carries with it a number of
impacts, including abrasion of the sediment, damage to seagrass beds, disturbance of
wildlife, and release of contaminants to water bodies. While these effects are not
discussed here, they should be considered when evaluating the individual and cumulative
impacts of shoreline structures.
The studies discuss a surprising range of effects. These include physical impacts on
shorelines, chemical changes in sediments, and impacts on estuarine vegetation, fish, and
benthic organisms. The literature reviewed here suggests that almost any artificial
structure inserts an alien physical presence into the environment, and that this object
produces an ecologically distorting effect.
Bulkheads produce the most profound physical effects of any of the small shoreline
structures, which include piers, pilings, and floating docks. The major effect is scour,
which is discussed in Chu 1985, Jackson 1996, NMFS 2001, and Niedowski 2000. Scour
occurs when wave energy is focused by the hard surface of the bulkhead in a way that
causes sediment to be removed from the base, or toe, of the bulkhead. This can lead to
loss of the beach in firont of the bulkhead (Douglass and Pickel 1999), and for this reason
Nordstrom (1989) recommends that their use be confined to highly erosional areas with
narrow beaches, where the loss could be considered minor. However, even this minor
loss has an impact on the ecosystem, in habitat loss, and on society, in loss of shoreline
passage (Douglass and Pickel 1999). Douglass and Pickel (1999), noting that the wave
climate in estuaries is more conducive to long-term sand placement, recommend beach
nourishment as a way of restoring estuarine shorelines damaged by bulkheading,
Bulkheads can prevent erosion of upland material on to the shore (Zabawa et al. 1981). If
the upland material was required to maintain the beach, then this can contribute to
accelerated beach loss. However, Nordstrom (1989) points out that is the upland material
is fine grained, it contributes to bay sedimentation and turbidity when eroded. In areas
where home development contributes to accelerated erosion of this material, bulkheads
can prevent excess sediment from reaching the bay or estuary. Bulkheads can also
interrupt the flow of groundwater to marshes (Thom and Shreffier 1994). This can affect
water salinity and other water chemistry measures in the marsh itself.
The scouring effect of bulkheads can have more subtle consequences as well. Shore
width and heights may be changed, and sediments may become coarser as they are
moved by higher velocity water (Jackson 1996). As a result, habitat areas may be scoured
away. Habitat areas mentioned in this context include fish spawning areas (Jackson 1996)
and meiofauna settling areas (Spalding and Jackson 2001). Doody (1996) defines an
"estuarine squeeze" as a situation where a marsh is backed by a bulkhead and faced with
a rising sea level. In this situation, marsh is lost as it is inundated by rising water but
cannot migrate landward because of the bulkhead. Ultimately, the marsh is replaced by
shallow or even deep water. Jennings et al. (1999) indicate that lake environments in
front of retaining walls are often simplified habitats of unnaturally deep water. However,
Thom and Shreffier (1994) correctly point out that this is not habitat loss, but habitat
change, which has more subtle and complex effects.
Structures that produce changes in tidal regimes, including tide gates, causeways, and
bridges, also cause chemical effects in tidal marsh sediments (Pormoy and Giblin 1997).
As the soil dries and aerates, it acidifies, sometimes dropping to a pH of less than 4.
Organic matter in the soil decomposes rapidly in the presence of aerobic bacteria,
releasing carbon dioxide and lowering the marsh surface. Commercial shipping docks
which interfere with tidal flushing can be restored to useful habitat, but are likely to
require management that prevents stratification and anoxia (Russell et al. 1983). Given
that movement of water usually controls the movement of oxygen as well, different flow
regimes can have a tremendous impact on water quality. Hendry et al. (1988) indicate
that anoxic conditions and other water quality issues are what prevent disused British
docks from being turned into habitat areas.
Authors dealing with physical and chemical effects of shoreline structures listed in this
bibliography include: Chu 1985, Jackson 1996 NMFS 2001 Zabawa et al. 1981, Anisfeld
et al 1999, Doody 1996, Douglass and Pickel 1999, Hendry et al. 1988, Jackson 1996,
Jackson and Nordstrom 1992, Nordstrom 1989, Twu and Liao 1999, Portnoy and Giblin
1997, and Russell et al. 1983
Perhaps the most studied impact of shoreline structures on a biological factor is the effect
of dock shading on aquatic vegetation. (Colligan and Collins 1995, Kearney et al. 1978,
Loflin 1995, Ludwig et al. 1997, Niedowski 2000, Sharer 1999, Short and Echeverria
4
1996). Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), in particular, is extremely light sensitive,
and the amount of light passing through the water column may be the most important
factor in determining where SAV can grow (Backman and Barilotti 1976, Cambridge et
al. 1986, Fitzpatrick and Hirkman 1995). Sharer (1999) found that docks could cut total
irradiance to less than 20% of natural, unshaded areas. Both marsh plants and SAV under
docks showed sign of etiolation and reduced density (Colligan and Collins 1995, Keamey
et al. 1978, Shafer 1999, Loflin 1995). The presence of docks can also have a distorting
effect on the seagrass community and those organisms that depend on it (Loflin 1995).
Loflin (1995) found that shading caused changes in seagrass species and in the type and
abundance of epiphytes in Florida waters.
Dock related damage is not confined to shading, however. Short and Echeverfia (1996)
include docks in the catego~ of"mechanical damage" to SAV, which also includes such
boating impacts as propeller scouting and boats and mooring chains scraping the bay
bottom. Boating impacts are not dealt with in this bibliography, but most shoreline
structures are built to facilitate boat use, and boating impacts should not be overlooked.
In a case study, Ludwig et al. (1997) found that the presence of a large boat dock in Lake
Montauk had resulted in damage to bottom habitat some twenty times the area of the
dock itself, including damaged or extirpated SAV and gouging of the bottom sediments.
Some of this damage was caused by dock shading, but there was a great deal of
mechanical damage due to a float that hit the lake bottom and "propeller dredging." Part
of this damage resulted from an overall design based on a reported mean low water depth
of 4 feet when, in fact, the mean low water depth was 2 feet.
Other changes in primary production may not be directly connected with shading.
Development may lead to eutrophication, either due to runoff from housing
developments, changes in tidal flushing, or both (Corliss and Trent 1971). In situations
where an artificial structure replaces a similar substrate, total primary productivity may
be little affected (Ianuzzi et al. 1996). However, different substrates in different
orientations may attract a wholly different algal community 0VlcGuinness 1989). The
impacts of changes in the algal community structure apart from changes in primary
productivity are not well defined, however.
Authors dealing with the effects of artificial structures on vegetation include: Colligan
and Collins 1995, Corliss and Trent 1971, Keamey et al. 1978, Loflin 1995, Ludwig et al.
1997, McGuinness 1989, Niedowski 2000, Roman et al. 1984, Shafer 1999, and Short
and Echeverria 1996.
Effects on benthic organisms has been relatively little studied, but the available studies
raise interesting questions about relationships between a biological community and the
abiotic habitat, and the importance of maintaihing a nearly natural assemblage of benthic
organisms. The only paper reviewed here dealing with outright loss of benthic organisms
is Spalding and Jackson (2001). This one day study reported that scouring in front of a
bulkhead placed low on the estuarine shore profile had reduced meiofaunal numbers in
front of the bulkhead; in essence, the meiofauna had been removed with the sediment.
This effect was not observed in front of another bulkhead placed higher on the profile.
Perhaps a more interesting effect from the ecological point of view are studies that show
how artificial substrates can contribute to distortions or changes in the naturally occurring
benthic community. Glasby and Connell (1999) found that artificial substrates attracted a
different community of sessile organisms than did natural substrates. The effect was
noticeable even when artificially placed blocks of sandstone were compared to a naturally
occurring sandstone ledge in the same bay. They conjecture that the close placement of
artificial substrates one to another, as occurs in pilings, could encourage the movement of
invasive species or communities. The invasive species would only have to travel short
distances from one artificial substrate to the next, while naturally occurring organisms
that could not use the substrate would be left behind.
Karlson (1978) found a similar effect on pilings in North Carolina. Predacious organisms
often removed all but two fouling species from the pilings, allowing those two species to
dominate in an environment where they were normally uncommon. The pilings, in
essence, produced an unnatural symbiosis between the predator and the species it would
not eat. Reish (1961) examined the issue of ecological succession in a newly built
marina, and found that the marina community remained different from surrounding
benthic communities in natural areas. Although this was not explained, it seems likely
that the marina environment was different enough to confer a competitive advantage to
species not favored in natural areas.
Thom and Shreffier (1999) describe the expected succession that occurs as intertidal
shoreline in Puget Sound is transformed to deep water and hard substrate in front of a
bulkhead. In this situation, an eelgrass/small crustacean community gives way first to an
Ulva/bivalve community. This is followed by a community of isopods and amphipods.
With further change, these are replaced by barnacles and and rock-boring bivalves,
ending with barnacles and seaweeds. The estimated time for this succession in Puget
Sound is approximately 20 years.
The impact ofbulkheading on commemial bivalves is less clear (Thom and Shreffier
1994). Although increased wave energy and erosion may reduce settling, some species
are able to make use of the coarser sediments left behind in front of bulkheads. The
impact on species that occupy deeper water is also uncertain.
Authors examining the effects of shoreline structures on benthic organisms include:
Glasby and Counell 1999, Karlson 1978, Reish 1961, Thom and Shreffier 1994, and
Spalding and Jackson, 2001
Fish are highly mobile, and may not seem so tied to a particular habitat that they would
be affected by shoreline structures. However, papers reviewed here suggest that they are.
Fish often make use of nearshore waters for foraging or refuge, and changes caused by
the placement of structures can ruin these areas for fish. Duffy-Anderson and Able (1999)
and Able et al. (1999) demonstrate that areas under very large piers have a negative
impact on fish growth and feeding. The piers in these studies deal with very large
municipal piers, however. Small private piers and docks might not produce measurable
6
effects. Some fish also avoid shaded areas (Able et al. 1998), and this can affect the
migratory patterns of certain fish, as has been shown for salmon on the west coast (City
of Bellevue 2000). Harm at the population level has not yet been shown to result from
these changes in migratory movements.
One of the most interesting presentations of the cumulative impact of shoreline structures
on fish in that of Jennings et al. (1999). The authors point out that the addition of a single
artificial structure to a natural shoreline does increase habitat diversity at a local level,
and may provide certain oppommities for the fish species that can use that habitat.
However, as artificial structures take over a shoreline, there is a cumulative impact in that
the artificial habitats resemble each other more closely than do stretches of natural
shoreline. In the end, the impact of structures is to reduce habitat and species diversity on
the scale of the water body. The authors also point out that due to time lag and indirect
spatial effects, it would not be possible to identify a single structure as the one that had
the ecological impact; rather, the cumulative impact must be managed for the water body
as a whole. This can present a regulatory problem.
Juvenile fish especially make use of shoreline vegetation and shallows as a refuge from
predation. Structures, especially bulkheads, often eliminate these habitats. This carries the
risk that predators could wipe out the prey base, leading to the ecological collapse of an
enclosed water body. Bryan and Scamecchia (1992) noted that juvenile fish in a lake in
Iowa were found in greater abundance near natural shorelines, making use of the
vegetation as a refuge. Gotceitas and Colgan (1989) carrried out a laboratory experiment
designed to determine if there is a threshold level of vegetation density that 1) reduces
predator success; and 2) is more attractive to prey species. They found that prey species
preferred vegetated habitat that was denser than required to foil predators. This provides
an important connection between the shoreline simplification and vegetation removal
caused by artificial structures and a real impact on fish survival (City of Bellevue 2000).
It is not surprising that salt marshes are fish nursery areas (Weinstein 1979), and it can be
expected that damaging these areas will ultimately limit adult fish populations.
Several fish species use the intertidal area for spawning (Thom and Shreffier 1994).
Transformation of sandy substrates to hard surfaces in front of bulkheads makes these
areas unsuitable for spawning. Thom and Shreffier (1994) discuss this problem in relation
to west coast fish species, and the effect on local species is less documented.
Ties to a particular habitat can also affect another highly mobile group of creatures, the
sea turtles. Bouchard et al. 1998 tested whether the presence of piles emerging from the
surface of a beach would affect turtle nesting. They found that nesting was significantly
reduced compared to adjacent control beaches and the same beach with the piles
removed. The possibility that shadows from the piles could affect hatchling orientation
was raised as an area for future research.
Authors dealing with the impacts of structures on fish, turtles and their habitats include:
Able et al 1998, Able et al 1999, Beauchamp et al 1994, Bouchard et al. 1998, Byrne
1997, City of Bellevue Washington. 2000, Duffy-Anderson and Able 1999, Hendon et al.
· 2000, Hendry et al. 1988, Jackson 1996 Jennings et al. 1999 Lindeman 1989, Simenstad
et al. 1999
One paper reviewed here develops a methodology for evaluating the cumulative impact
of shoreline structures. Macfarlane et al. (2000) considered nine factors and graded 26
areas around a bay in Massachusetts to assess their sensitivity to shoreline development.
Although qualitative and simplistic, the method worked well enough to identify several
areas that would suffer disproportionate environmental impacts if small, private docks
were installed. Past studies, especially Mulvihill et al. (1980), examined the impacts of
particular structures, but did not offer an approach to evaluating their impacts. It may be
appropriate to evaluate the Macfarlane et al. (2000) system in the field on Long Island.
Titus (1998) proposes a legal strategy that may limit property owners' right to armor the
shoreline without causing a constitutional "property takings" crisis. He proposes a system
of rolling easements that would avoid the conflict between property owners' rights and
the public interest in tidal lands, using the extended time of erosional loss to make
compensation affordable.
Authors dealing with regulatory issues include: Macfarlane et al. 2000 and Titus 1998.
Certain concerns that are often mentioned in relation to small shoreline structures were
not discussed in the papers reviewed here. The concerns seem reasonable, or even
probable, but they are not necessarily supported by science or even confirmed
observation.
One such concern is that docks that cross marshes will facilitate predation on species
such as waterfowl that nest on the marsh. The presumption is that such species as
raccoons or foxes, normally upland predators, or predatory birds that perch in trees or on
pilings, will take advantage of the dry walkway to gain access to nests. One paper (City
of Bellevue 2000) went so far as to indicate that the authors had looked for evidence of
increased predation in the literature, but had found nothing.
Another concern is habitat fragmentation. It seems clear that a wooden structure crossing
a grassy wetland at some elevation above the marsh surface separates marsh sections on
either side in a way that is not natural. Identifying impacts of this change, and when they
become noticeable, does not appear to have been done. One of the species that might be
affected by this sort of fragmentation is the northern harder, as it cruises back and forth
over the marsh looking for prey. However, it is not clear that harrier predation success is
harmed, or even affected, by these wooden structures.
An additional question is the impact of shoreline structures on local species of fish and
waterfowl. Many of the studies reviewed here examine impacts on species typical of the
Pacific northwest. The species that might use marsh habitat that erodes away in front of
bulkheads has not been examined in the same detail. While species that use the low
marsh are known, the specific link of population impacts to shoreline structures has not
been established locally.
8
2. Annotated Bibliography
1. Able, K.W., J.P. Manderson, and A.L. Studholme. 1998. The distribution of shallow
water juvenile fishes in an urban estuary: the effect ofmanmade structures in the lower
Hudson River. Estuaries, 21:731-744.
Source: TNC collection
The objective of the study was to determine what effect, if any, large pile-supported
platforms (piers) have on the habitat distribution and abundance of juvenile fishes. Nearly
1500 fishes, mostly juveniles, representing 24 species were collected from May to
October during 1993 and 1994. The effect of habitat type on fish assemblage structure
was significant in both years. Fish abundance and species richness were typically low
under piers; young of the year fishes were rare and Anguilla rostrata accounted for a
large proportion of the total catch. Young of the year were common at pile field and open
water stations, where abundance and diversity were high. This suggests that under pier
habitat is likely to be poor for juvenile fishes compared to pile field and open water areas.
2. Able, K.W., J.P. Manderson, and A.L. Studholme. 1999. Habitat quality for shallow
water fishes in an urban estuary: the effects of man-made structures on growth. Marine
Ecology Progress Series 187:227-235
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library.
QH541.3.S3 M26
Juvenile winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and tautog (Tautoga onitis)
were caged for 10 days under large piers, in pile fields, or in open water habitats in
shallow (1.1-3.9 m) areas of the Hudson River estuary. For both species, fish grew better
in pile fields or open water than under piers. Fish caged under piers lost weight at a rate
comparable to laboratory starvation. These results suggest that habitat quality under very
large (>20,000 square meters) piers or platforms is of reduced quality compared to the
natural shoreline. The authors suggest that these predatory fish rely on visual cues to find
prey, and that these cues were not available in the dark, under-pier environment. It is not
clear whether a much smaller pier would produce a similar loss in predatory efficiency.
3. Anisfeld, S.C., M.J. Tobin, and G. Benoit. 1999. Sedimentation rates in flow-restricted
and restored salt-marshes in Long Island Sound. Estuaries 22:231-244
Source: TNC collection
Many salt marshes on the Connecticut shore of Long Island Sound have devices to
restrict tidal flow, such as tide gates. Sediment cores were collected fi.om restricted flow
marshes, a natural, unrestricted flow marsh, and a previously restricted marsh that had
been restored to natural flow in the 1970's. Restricted flow marsh corns reflected the
effects of organic matter oxidation, compaction, and surface subsidence. Inorganic
sediment accretion was similar at reference and restricted marshes, but organic matter
accumulation was significantly higher at the natural marsh. Sedimentation rates were
9
much higher at the restored marsh, suggesting that removal of the flow restriction had
caused a rapid increase in marsh surface elevation. It is noted that flow restoration must
be managed so that the marsh is not drowned, but has a chance to accumulate sediment
and respond to the increased flow.
4. Backman, T.W., and D.C. Barilotti. 1976. h-radiance reduction: Effects on standing
crops of the eelgrass Zostera marina in a coastal lagoon. Marine Biology 34: 33-40.
Copy on file. Source: Science and Engineering Library, SUNY Stony Brook. QH1.M25
Eelgrass (Zostera marina) abundance was studied in a coastal lagoon in southern
California, and was found to correlate with the level of irradiance at depths greater than
0.5 m below tidal datum. Experimental shading reduced irradiance by 63%. Turion
density was reduced by day 18 in shaded areas. At the end of 9 months, mr/on density
had been reduced to 5% of adjacent control areas. Identified impacts of eelgrass losses
include: effects on organisms which feed on eelgrass, effects on organisms which lay
eggs on eelgrass or use it as a nursery area, and increased bottom erosion which could
remove or alter the benthic community.
5. Bamegat Bay Estuary Program. 2000. Characterization Report, Chapter 7: Habitat loss
and alteration. Intemet document: www.bbep.org/Char_Rpt. 30 pp.
Copy on file. Source: TNC files
This is a review style document, summarizing observations and findings, rather than
providing scientifically supported information. The third section, "Human alteration of
Shoreline Habitats," deals with the impacts of bulkheading. Among habitat alterations
attributed to bulkheading are: replacement of littoral habitat with deep water, elimination
of beach habitat important to birds and terrapins, release of toxic wood preservatives into
the water, and indirect facilitation of other impacts, including marsh filling behind the
bulkhead, boating, and human or pet disturbance of wildlife.
6. Beauchamp, D.A., E.R. Byron, and W.A. Wurtsbaugh. 1994. Summer habitat use by
littoral-zone fishes in Lake Tahoe and the effects of shoreline structures. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 14:385-394.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library.
SH219.N678
The effect of piers on summer habitat use was evaluated in Lake Tahoe. Habitat
complexity in the lake declines with depth; much of the shallow zone has a boulder
substrate, but deeper areas have few boulders. The daytime densities of fish associated
with piling-supported piers did not differ significantly from daytime densities of these
fish in adjacent areas without piers. Most piers were high (2-3 meters) above the water
and provided little shade. However, daytime densities of fish associated with rock crib
piers, many of which are associated with boulder habitat, were significantly higher than
adjacent areas without rock-crib piers. The vertical relief and interstitial spaces of the
10
cribs provided both cover and greater attachment area for food organisms. It is suggested
that bulkheads would reduce useful fish habitat by reducing shallow water areas.
7. Bouchard, S., K. Moran, M. Tiwari, D. Wood, A. Bolten, P. Eliazar, and K. Bjorndal.
1998. Effects of exposed pilings on sea turtle nesting activity at Melbourne Beach,
Florida. Journal of Coastal Research, 14: 1343-1347.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
Information Center. Shelved alphabetically.
The study focuses on possible impacts of the use of a beach stabilization system in which
a series of cement discs is anchored into the beach by pilings. Accreting sand buries the
discs, but leaves the pilings exposed. The study investigated the effects of the exposed
pilings on loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green (Chelonia tnydas) turtle nesting
activity. Nesting activity decreased significantly in the presence of pilings when
compared to control beaches to the north and south. The same area was not different fi.om
control when pilings were not present. The authors contend that the system should still be
considered, however, because nesting was not entirely eliminated, and continued to occur
as normal outside the piled area. However, they also state that the effect of the piles on
hatchlings should be assessed as well.
8. B~yan. M.D., and D.L. Scamecchia. 1992. Species richness, composition, and
abundance of fish larvae and juveniles inhabiting natural and developed shorelines of a
glacial Iowa lake. Environmental Biology of Fishes 35:329-341
Copy on File. Source: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Libra~. QL614.E58
Young-of-the-year communities were evaluated along natural glacial lake shorelines and
in areas where natural vegetation had been reduced by development. Vegetation density
and amount of recreational activity are the primary differences between these sites. Fish
species richness and abundance were consistently greater in natural areas at shallow (0-1
meter) and intermediate (1-2 meter) depth zones, but did not differ greatly at the 2-3 m
depth zone, which was farther fi.om shore. The most diverse and abundant vegetation was
found at approximately 1 meter depth, roughly 20 meters fi.om shore. Ten of the twenty
species sampled inhabited deep water as larvae and migrated inshore as juveniles.
Eighteen of the twenty species were more abundant in natural sites than in developed
sites. Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolornieu0 was the only gamefish consistently
found in equal or greater abundance in developed areas. Juvenile fishes were generally
more abundant where macrophyte abundance and species richness were greatest. The
authors conclude that vegetation removal will alter the species composition of the fish
community, by directly affecting vegetation dependent species with food chain effects on
the species that prey on them.
9. Byrne, D.M. 1997. The effect of bulkheads on fish distribution and abundance: A
comparison of littoral fish and invertebrate assemblages at bulkheaded and non-
bulkheaded shorelines in a Bamegat Bay lagoon. Proceedings of the second Marine and
11
Estuarine shallow water science and management conference, April 3-7, 1995, Atlantic
City, NJ. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA/903/R/97009. pp. 53-56
Copy on file. Source: U.S. Geological Survey Librmy, Reston VA, obtained through
Suffolk County Library Interlibrary Loan.
Lagoon canals are generally 30 m wide, usually less than 1 km long, and depth is usually
3 m or more, often more than 6 m. Water quality is poor due to restricted circulation, and
there is a tendency towards water column stratification and bottom anoxia. A study was
undertaken to validate the assumption that these areas function as fish and invertebrate
habitat, and to compare bulkheaded and non-bulkheaded shorelines as habitat. Inland
silverside, and mummichog were the most abundant fish species, compared to Atlantic
siverside and threespine stickleback were less common in this environment than in the
bay as a whole. Species diversity and abundance were similar in the lagoon and the bay.
Although species composition was similar between bulkheaded and non-bulkheaded
sites, catches were reduced in fi'ont of bulkheads to a statistically significant degree. The
author suggests that this is due to the low level of structural complaexity in the
bulkheaded shoreline habitat.
10. Cambridge, M.L., A.W. Chiffings, C. Brittan, L. Moore, A.J. McComb. 1986. The
loss of seagrass in Cockburn Sound, Western Australia. II. Possible causes of seagrass
decline. Aquatic Botany 24:269-285
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. QK916.A65
The paper examines possible causes of seagrass in Cockbum Sound following extensive
industrial development. Light reduction by enhanced growth of epiphytes and loose-lying
blankets of filamentous algae in nutrient enriched waters is suggested as the most likely
cause of decline. Extensive seagrass decline coincided with the discharge of effluents rich
in plant nutrients. This paper again establishes the crucial role of light in seagrass
growth.
11. Chu, Y.-H. 1985. Beach erosion and protection, a case study of Lincoln Park,
Washington. Shore and Beach 53:26-32
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. TC330.A1
A5
Lincoln Park is a 130 acre park located on Williams Point on the East Passage of Puget
Sound. It is surrounded by a concrete and concrete-cobblestone seawall designed to
prevent erosion. The seawall has been damaged over time by wave action, beach scour,
and drift log damage. The wall failed twice during the 1950's, and repairs were made.
The wall continued to deteriorate and part of the park was closed after storms in 1981.
The paper examines the U.S. Army Corps preferred long-term beach nourishment
approach as a solution to these problems. Beach nourishment is seen as providing: 1)
seawall toe protection and eliminating scour and erosion of the seawall foundation; 2)
resistance to overturning and breaching of the existing seawall due to pressure from the
land side; and 3) reducing the wave height that might reach the seawall. It is
acknowledged that the beach nourishment material will continue to erode in front of the
seawall, and that frequent renourishment will be necessary. The paper indicates how
shore parallel structures, such as seawalls, are not a permanent solution to shorefront
erosion.
12. City of Bellevue, Washington. 2000. Final report on effects of shorezone
development: Potential impacts of shoreline development. Utilities Department, City of
Bellevue, Washington. 19 pp. Internet document:
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/utilities/shorezone/potential.htm
The study is a through review of the impacts of shoreline structures on local resources.
Sections include: historical changes, chemical contaminants associated with docks, piers
and bulkheads, disruption of physical processes, effects on predation and prey-refuge
habitat, effects on productivity, effects on fish migration, and effects of recreational and
construction activity.
Reference is made to the replacement of complex shoreline habitat in Lake Washington,
including woody debris, overhanging vegetation, emergent vegetation, and shallow water
habitat with a shoreline that is 81% bulkheaded, with attendant loss of refuge and forage
habitat for juvenile salmohids. Bulkheads were associated with reduced abundance and
diversity of fishes in north temperate lakes. No evidence was found for positive effects of
shoreline armoring on aquatic species. The study expresses the opinion that the simplified
habitat affords a critical advantage to predators over their prey species, possibly tending
to extinction of prey. Although some species can use such structures as piers for cover,
other cannot, and piers do not provide as much shoreline complexity as natural habitats.
The study notes that bulkheads can also potentially interrupt the input of sediment from
shore, disrupt wave energy, or block longshore sediment movement. These effects could
lead to shore erosion as well.
13. Colligan, M., and C. Collins. 1995. The effect of open-pile structures on salt marsh
vegetation: summary. NOAA/NMFS. Habitat and Protected Resources Division.
Copy on file. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Field Office, Islip, NY.
Vegetation height and index of cover were measured under and adjacent to open pile
piers in coastal estuarine waters of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. There
is a statistically significant difference in height between plant locations which suggests
plant etiolation as a result of shading. The difference in index of cover was also
significant, with less growth under piers. Index of cover appeared to be most affected by
height and height/width ratio while vegetation height was more influenced by pier width
and orientation. A combined "Vegetation Variable Model" attempts to consider all
factors and effects to give a prediction of likely pier impacts.
13
. 14. Corliss, J., and L. Trent. 1971. Comparison ofphytoplanton production between
natural and altered areas in West Bay, Texas. Fishery Bulletin 69: 829-832.
Copy on file. Source: Science and Engineering Library, SUNY Stony Brook. SHI 1.A25.
Phytoplankton production was compared between an undredged marsh area, a bay area,
and an adjacent marsh area altered by channelization, bulkheading, and filling. Average
gross production in canals in the altered area was higher than in the marsh or the bay.
Gross and net production were significantly higher in the canals and the marsh than in the
bay, but differences between canals and marsh were not significant. Discussion suggests
that eutrophic conditions will occur more frequently near the housing development due
to: greater depth, lower turbidity, reduced aeration by wind, and reduced water exchange
in the canals compared to the natural areas.
15. Doody, J.P. 1996. Management and use of dynamic estuarine shorelines. In
Nordstrom, K.F., and C.T. Roman. Estuadne Shores: Evolution, Environments, and
Human Alterations. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 421-434
Copy on file. Source:: Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Information Center, SUNY
Stony Brook. GC97.E79
This literature review and commentary describes the "coastal squeeze" affecting salt
marshes in south-west England and other locations affected by relatively rising sea level.
In many such places, embankments or structures have been built landward of the marsh
to protect human development. Because the upper limit of the saltmarsh is constrained by
the structure, the intertidal habitat is squeezed between it and the rising sea level, rather
than being able to migrate landward. As the coastline is squeezed and made narrower, it
may become more fragile and lose its ability to respond to storms, tides, sediment
movement and pollution. Five options for dealing with rising sea levels are explored. The
conclusion makes a case for managed retreat from the shoreline.
16. Douglass, S.L., and B.H. Pickel. 1999. "The tide doesn't go out anymore"--The
effect of bulkheads on urban bay shorelines. Shore & Beach 67: 19-25, also Internet:
http://www.southalabama.edu/cesrp/Tide.htm
Copy on file. Source: TNC files
Based on a study of aerial photographs and video, the armoring of the shoreline of
Mobile Bay, Alabama, increased from 8% in 1955 to 30% in 1997. The rate of armoring
is correlated to the rate of population growth in the area. Vertical bulkheads are the most
common type of armoring. Loss of intertidal habitat is estimated at 10-20 acres or 6 miles
of shoreline. The authors raise the concern that urbanized bays will become "bathtubs"
with vertical walls and no intertidal fringe.
14
17. Duffy-Anderson, J.T., and K.W. Able. 1999. Effects of municipal piers on the growth
of juvenile fishes in the Hudson River estuary: a study across pier edge. Marine Biology
133: 409-418.
Copy on File. Location: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library. QH1.M25
The growth rates of two fish species, the winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes
arnericanus) and the tautog (Tautoga onitis) were used to evaluate habitat quality under
and around municipal piers in the Hudson River estuary. Growth rates were measured in
a series of 10-day field-caging experiments conducted at two large piers during the
summers of 1996 and 1997. Cages were strung on a transect from under the piers to
beyond them, including the pier edge. Under piers, both fishes lost body weight to an
extent comparable to laboratory-starved test fish. Mean growth rates at pier edges and
beyond were generally positive, with growth at pier edges ofien being more variable and
less rapid than at open water sites. Dry weights of stomach food contents were higher for
open water fish, although benthic prey was available at all stations. It is concluded that
under-pier environments are poor quality habitats for some species of juvenile fishes.
18. Fitzpatrick, J., and H. Hirkman. 1995. Effects of prolonged shading stress on growth
and survival of seagrass (Posidonia australis) in Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 127: 279-289.
Copy on file. Source: Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Information Center, SUNY
Stony Brook, shelved alphabetically.
Experimental shading reduced the light reaching a shallow Posidonia australis meadow
to less than 10% of incident light. Shaded seagrass had significantly lower leaf growth
rate, shoot density, shoot weight, and epiphyte weight than seagrass in control plots. The
epiphyte community also changed as fleshy macroalgae were replaced by entrusting
invertebrates. Shading in early summer had more effect than shading in late summer.
There was no significant recovery ofP. australis in the 17 months following shade
removal.
19. Glasby, T.M., and S.D. Connell. 1999. Urban structures as marine habitats. Ambio
28: 595-599.
Copy on File. Location: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library.
xQH540.A52
The study compares the subtidal organisms of urban structures (such as pontoons, pilings,
or retaining walls) to those of naturally occurring rocky reefs. The results indicate that the
urban structures may be considered novel habitat, quite unlike natural reefs, and that they
are changing local species composition. Even where a retaining wall was made of the
same material as nearby rock (sandstone), the wall had fewer species than nearby rock
and had two species not present on the natural rock. Differences could be caused by
substrate material, position and orientation of the structure, whether the structure floats,
'. 15
shading, and water velocity around the structure. Artificial hard surfaces could also
provide "stepping stones," permitting dispersion to locations and over distances not
normally accessible to some larvae.
20. Gotceitas, V., and P. Colgan. 1989. Predator foraging success and habitat complexity:
quantitative test of the threshold hypothesis. Oecologia 80:158-166.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library, QL1.O55
Previous studies had indicated that increased habitat complexity reduced predator
success. However, it was not clear whether a certain "threshold" level of complexity was
required before predator success was affected. In this study, the predator largemouth bass
(Micropterus saltnoides) foraged on the prey juvenile bluegill sunfish (Lepornis
macrochrius) in an environment of varying artificial vegetation density. In this model, a
threshold density was found (276 stems/square meter). This tends to support the
observation that prey fish prefer more complex habitats. In this study, prey fish preferred
denser vegetation when offered a choice of refuge habitats. The authom found that prey
fish prefer habitat that is more densely vegetated than necessary to reduce predator
foraging success. This study provides an intellectual link between structural effects on
vegetation and effects on associated fish communities.
21. Hendon, J.R., M.S. Peterson, and B.H. Comyns. 2000. Spatio-temporal distribution of
larval Gobiosoma bosc in waters adjacent to natural and altered marsh-edge habitats of
Mississippi coastal waters. Bulletin of Madne Science 66:143-156
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library, GC1.B8
Larval naked gobies (Gobiosoma bosc) were collected near a natural Spartina/Juncus
marsh, a natural sandy beach, and an altered Spartina/Juncus marsh. Altered marsh
stations consisted of two bulkheaded stations and one dp-rap station. Abundances were
significantly higher at the natural stations than at the altered stations during year one. In
year two, abundances were lower and not significantly different among habitats. The
authors conjecture that reduction in this prey species in altered areas could be
compounded by the loss of their predators fi.om the same areas, and that loss of this
feeding resoume could affect the populations of these economically more important
predator fish.
22. Hendry, K., K Conlan, K.N. White, A. Bewsher, and S.J. Hawkins. 1988. Disused
docks as a habitat for estuarine fish: a nationwide appraisal. Journal ofFish Biology 33,
Supplement A: 239-241.
Copy on File. Location: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library.
QL614.J68
Fish communities in ten U.K. dock complexes were examined as part of a wider study of
the potential of disused docks for alternative uses including recreational and commercial
16
fisheries. Most of the docks were nutrient rich with frequent algal blooms. Bottom water
anoxia was common. It is concluded that water quality issues are controlling factors in
fishery diversity and abundance near disused docks, and that active water quality
management can make these sites attractive fisheries.
23. Ianuzzi, T.J., M.P. Weinstein, K.G. Sellner, and J.C. Barret. 1996. Habitat
disturbance and marina development: An assessment of ecological effects. 1. Changes in
primary production due to dredging and marina construction. Estuaries 19:257-27l.
Potential impacts on primary production were estimated for a proposed 800-slip marina at
Davids Island, in the extreme western portion of Long Island Sound. Estimates were
made, using a variety of methods, of productivity in six depth zones from approximately
2 meters above to 2 meters below mean low water. A 17% drop in macroalgal production
was anticipated. Although microalgal production also was expected to decline in the short
term, microalgal production accounts for only 3% of all primary production in the area. It
was also anticipated that the quieter waters of the marina would eventually lead to greater
microalgal production which would partly mitigate the loss of macroalgal production.
The relatively small change was attributed in part to the large contribution of the rockry
nearshore area before marina construction, which leads to anticipated high productivity
values for the hard substrates of the built marina.
24. Jackson, N.L. 1996. Stabilization on the shoreline of Raritan Bay, New Jersey.. In
Nordstrom, K.F., and C.T. Roman. Estuarine Shores: Evolution, Environments, and
Human Alterations. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. pp. 397-420
Copy on file. Source: Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Information Center, SUNY
Stony Brook. GC97.E79
This paper reviews the types of alterations that have occurred to estuarine shorelines in
the presence of development and how they influence the physical dimensions and
sediment characteristics of sandy beaches. The focus is on changes that have occurred
over a period of years to decades. Alterations are related to such physical characteristics
of beaches as topography, shoreline orientation, sheltering by headlands, changes in
shoreline function, and vulnerability of human development.
Identified alterations include shore perpendicular structures (groins), shore parallel
structures (seawalls and bulkheads), and sand placement. Beaches in more exposed
locations have been altered such that they are higher and wider than natural, while
beaches in more sheltered locations have been reduced in size both longshore and cross-
shore with increased stabilization. Beaches are coarse-grained and narrow in front of
shore-parallel structures such as bulkheads. Wave reflection may contribute to increased
scour, oversteepening of the foreshore slope, and coarsening of sediments, reducing
suitability of these areas as habitat. Loss of spawning areas in Delaware Bay is mentioned
as a consequence of beach truncation due to bulkheading.
17
25. Jackson, N.L., and K.F. Nordstrom. 1992. Site specific controls on wind and wave
processes and beach mobility on estuarine beaches in New Jersey, U.S.A. Journal of
Coastal Research, 8: 88-98.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Marine and Atmospheric Sciences
Information Center, shelved alphabetically.
Eight low-energy sand beaches in the Raritan and Delaware Bay estuaries were compared
to identify the influence of shoreline orientation, sheltering by adjacent headlands, slope
and width of the low tide terrace, and human modification on beach processes and
responses. It is important to note the site specific nature of effects: wind and wave
processes may be similar at two different sites, but beach mobility may be different,
while beach mobility may be similar at beaches with different wind and wave climates.
Compartmentalization by human structures can increase or decrease beach mobility,
depending on the compartment's position relative to the ends of the natural longshore
drift compartment. It is believed that a structure positioned near the end of a natural shore
compartment increased mobility, while another structure near the center of a shore
compartment showed reduced beach mobility. The site most affected by human impacts
was one where a storm drain released flows onto the beach. In two comparable sites
where one beach included a jetty and bulkhead and the other did not, greater mobility
occurring in the altered site is believed to be due to the effect of local reversals of
longshore transport currents caused by the structures, especially the jetty.
26. Jeunings, M.J., M.A. Bozek, G.R. Hatzenbeler, E.E. Emmons, and M.D. Staggs.
1999. Cumulative effects of incremental shoreline habitat modification on fish
assemblages in north temperate lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
19: 18-27.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library,
SH219.N678
Species richness and tolerance offish assemblages were examined in littoral zones of 17
Wisconsin lakes with extensive residential and recreational development. Fish
associations were compared among site specific and lakewide conditions. Stations were
randomly selected within strata defined by the type of erosion control structure: rip rap,
retaining walls, and no structure. Species richness at the site level was greatest in dp rap,
regardless of fish assemblage structure. However, more effort was required to get a
complete sampling at sites without artificial structure, suggesting more diversity of
habitat. On a lakewide basis, species richness is positively correlated with local habitat
complexity, but assemblage structure, assessed as a proportion of intolerant or tolerant
species, shifted in response to cumulative effects. As modification increased, intolerant
specialist species were replaced by tolerant generalist species. This suggests that
cumulative structural effects across the lake should be considered in addition to local
effects ora single structure. The authors are unusually clear and articulate in reference to
the nature of cumulative impacts and why they cannot meaningfully be managed on a
site-by-site basis. Some major points include: l) adding some rip rap to a natural
18
shoreline increases habitat diversity by adding a previously non-existing element;
however, as more of the shoreline is riprapped, diversity is lost as the natural shoreline is
armored; 2) retaining wall habitats are the least complex locally, providing areas of
relatively deep water but less variability; 3) shoreline modifications rarely occur one at a
time, so assessing their impacts individually is impossible; 4) there is often a lag between
structure installation and biological impact, making it impossible to link the impact to a
causative structure; and 5) the biological impact may occur at the lakewide scale, even
though a structure is localized. Although this study was carried out in isolated bodies of
freshwater, some of the results may be relevant to enclosed or isolated bay areas.
27. Karlson, R. 1978. Predation and space utilization patterns in a marine epifaunal
community. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 31:225-239
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. QH91.A1
J6
This paper reports an experimental investigation of the possible influence of artificial
substrata, such as pilings, on benthic communities. The author describes these artificial
substrates as a potentially important selective force for changes in settlement preferences.
In one experiment, the predacious echinoid Arbacia punctulata was added to or removed
from communities that had been established in its presence. In a second experiment,
Arbacia was removed from piles that had been newly submerged to examine its effect on
recruitment and early development of the community. In the experimental situation,
Arbacia punctulata preyed upon all but two of the twenty most common sessile epifauna
species found in the Beaufort, North Carolina region, conferring an enormous
competitive advantage on these two species. In this case, a slow-growing, non-
competitive hydroid, Hydractinia, which is not ordinarily a common species, became one
of the most common species on pilings because Arbacia would not eat it except under
extreme population pressure. As Arbacia eliminated its competitors, Hydractinia slowly
grew to cover extensive areas of the artificial substrate. This emphasizes that structures
are not only physical objects, but that they can change ecological interactions by their
presence.
28. Kearney, V.F., Y. Segal, and M.W. Lefor. 1978. The effects of docks on salt marsh
vegetation. Unpublished study carried out under grant from Connecticut State
Department of Environmental Protection.
Copy on file. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Field Office, Islip, NY.
Vegetation density and height were sampled beneath and adjacent to docks and walkways
built over salt marshes at three locations in Connecticut. The three location were
representative of different tidal regimes. Dock height was found to be the most significant
variable limiting vegetation growth, perhaps because it was the only dock measurement
with much variability. Vegetation density ofS. alterniflora was less affected than S.
patens or D. spicata. Accelerated erosion was also observed under some docks. This
19
study is frequently referenced in U.S. Fish and Wildlife service comments on dock permit
applications.
29. Lindeman, K.C. 1989. Coastal construction, larval settlement, and early juvenile
habitat use in grunts, snappers, and other coastal fishes of southeast Florida. (Abstract
only) Bulletin of Marine Science 44: 1068.
Copy on file. Location: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library. GCI.B8
Sampling stations were established in Biscayne Bay to determine whether juvenile fish
use differed significantly in constructed habitats compared to natural ones. Monitoring
took place from 1985 to 1989. Consistent differences in species and life stage were
found. Larval and juvenile porkfish (Anisotremus virginicus) and sergeant majors
(Abudefdufsaxatilis) were associated with vertical structures, and could remain there
through maturity. These species rarely used seagrass habitat. Newly settled gray and
schoolmaster snappers (Lutjanus griseus, L. apodus) used seagrass beds, and use vertical
habitat primarily in juvenile and subadult stages. It is predicted that predation on larval
stages may increase in artificial habitat, and that this habitat may be colonized by reef
species not ordinarily found in Bay waters.
30. Loflin, R.K. 1995. The effects of docks on seagrass beds in the Charlotte Harbor
estuary. Florida Scientist 58:198-205
Copy on file. Source: Science and Engineering Library, SUNY Stony Brook. Q11.F65
Docks located over shallow seagrass beds were associated with a seagrass *'shadow"
underneath and adjacent to the docks, which is nearly devoid of vegetation. Shadow area
is correlated to total dock area, but not to dock width, height or orientation alone. Other
changes included boat propeller scarring of grass flats, changes in seagrass species
composition, and differences in epiphyte loading on grass blades. Additional research
focussing on the effects on seagrass of modifying dock dimensions is called for.
31. Ludwig, M., D. Rusanowsky, and C. Johnson-Hughes. 1997. The impact of
installation and use of a pier and dock assembly on eelgrass (Zostera marina) at Star
Island, Montauk NY: Kalikow dock case study. National Marine Fisheries Service.
Copy on file. Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Island Field Office, Islip, NY.
A valuable case study of both dock impacts and the regulatory process as it affects permit
applications to the New York District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The study
was carried out as a condition ora temporary permit for a boat dock in Lake Montauk
which had been opposed by the resource agencies. Impacts found extended over a one
acre area, and were perceived as expanding. The dock covered less than five percent of
this area. Illegal "propeller dredging" of boat berths had buried and destroyed some
eelgrass beds, while increased turbidity and light reduction due to shallow floats affected
eelgrass beyond the dock. In addition, it was determined that although mean low water
20
was described as four feet on the permit application plans, it was actually two feet or less,
rendering the site unsuitable for the boat dock from both recreational and ecological
standpoints. A thorough regulatory history is also provided.
32. Macfarlane, S.L., J. Early, T. Henson, T. Balog, and A. McClennen. 2000. A
resource-based methodology to assess dock and pier impacts on Pleasant Bay,
Massachusetts. Journal of Shellfish Research 19:455-464
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library, SH370.A1
J6
This study provides a step-by-step method for evaluating the sensitivity of a given
shoreline area to dock and pier construction. A study of the number and impacts of
private piers on Pleasant Bay was undertaken in support of a management plan for the
bay. In this location, realtors indicate that a dock can add fi'om $50,000 to $100,000 to
the value of a home. The Study area was partitioned into 26 subsections, and each
subsection was evaluated for nine factors representing biological, physical, and human
use characteristics relevant to the impact of docks and piers. The nine factors were: semi-
enclosed or open water bodies, water depth, shellfish habitat, eelgrass, fringe salt marsh,
density of existing structures, moorings, navigational channels, and recreational activity.
Scoring was 0, 0.5, or 1, where 0 indicated the least significance or sensitivity and 1 the
greatest. Results indicated that a significant portion of the bay's more secluded shoreline
is extremely resource sensitive. The environmental impacts from dock and pier
construction in these areas pose a direct threat to natural resources, and these areas have
been deemed inappropriate for the construction of docks or piers. Less sensitive areas
may be appropriate for docks or piers based upon criteria that are still to be developed.
Concerns related to docks and piers include: vegetation loss from shading, shellfish
habitat loss, impacts to eelgrass, chemical leachates from treated wood, construction
impacts, fragmentation of beach habitats, sediment resuspension from boat propellers,
boat paints, chemicals used in marine sanitation devices, and petrochemicals.
33. McGuinness, K.A. 1989. Effects of some natural and artificial substrata on sessile
marine organisms at Goleta Reef, Panama.. Marine Ecology Progress Series 52:201-208
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library.
QH541.3.S3 M26
There were significant differences in the number and abundance of alga species one three
natural and two artificial substrates in waters of the Caribbean coast of Panama. The
natural substrates included coral, rock, and mangrove wood; the artificial substrates were
concrete and perspex. Reactions to the five substrates varied according to location as
well, with different forms of colonization occurring in a reef, in a lagoon, and in a
mangrove. The results indicate that the type of substratum can play an important role in
determining the abundance of sessile species in some marine habitats. Differences may
be due to differential grazing, differential spore retention, water, or heat. The study also
suggests that benthic fauna cannot be sampled by placing artificial sheets of material in a
given location, because results are variable, unpredictable, and differ from natural
surfaces.
34. Mulvihill, E.L., C.A. Francisco, J.B. Glad, K.B. Kaster, and R.E. Wilson. 1980.
Biological Impacts of Minor Shoreline Structures on the Coastal Environment: State of
the Art Review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program. FWS/OBS-
77/51.2 vols.
Partial copy on file. Location: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library.
xQH541.5.C65 B4 1980. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Long Island Field Office, Islip,
NY.
In 1980, Beak Consultants carded out this state of the art review, identifying 555
information sources. This is still the most complete literature review of this topic,
although it is now somewhat outdated. The types of structures included in the study were:
breakwaters, jetties, groins, bulkheads, revetments, ramps, piers and other support
structures, buoys and floating platforms, harbors for small crat% bridges and causeways.
Information is organized by types of structure and by region.
Information about each structure type includes: structure function, site characteristics,
geographic prevalance, engineering, socioeconomic and biological placement constraints,
construction materials, life expectancy, environmental conditions, methodology of
environmental impact studies, physical and biological impacts (short-term, chronic, and
cumulative), and structural and non-structural alternatives.
Few studies were found that quantitatively investigated the impacts of structures. Of
those few, almost all are observational, comparing areas with structures to neighboring
areas without for a brief period of time. Most sources of information evaluated here are
government documents which offer common-sense or widely believed assertions, rather
than actual data. Few of the data sources were articles in peer-reviewed journals.
The study concludes that the impact of any structure is site specific and must be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis. However, structures ranked as "high impact" included
small boat harbors, bridges and causeways, bulkheads, breakwaters, and jetties. Those
with moderate impact are revetments, groins, and ramps. Low impact structures include
buoys and floating platforms, piers, pilings, and other support structures.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2001. Biological Opinion: Programmatic ESA and
EFH consultation for 15 categories of activities requiring Department of Army permits.
Intemet document: http://www, nwp.usace.army, mil/op/g/notices/bo.pdf
Discusses a wide variety of wetlands altering work requiring federal permits and their
impacts on fish habitat. Limited supporting documentation or data provided. With regard
to shoreline hardening, notes that the hardening measures transfer and focus hydraulic
forces to other areas. Nearshore topography is scoured, critical fish habitats are often
destroyed, terrestrial habitat is lost, and erosion of neighboring property can be
accelerated.
35. Niedowski, N.L. 2000. New York State Salt Marsh restoration and monitoring
guidelines. NY State department of State, NY State department of Environmental
Conservation. 187 pp. Intemet version:
http://www.dec.state.ny, us/website/dfwmr/marine/saltmarsh.pdf
Literature review and commentary on a variety of salt marsh impacts, including a section
on shoreline hardening and structures. Bulkhead impacts include: flanking, where
bulkheads increase erosion in neighboring unprotected areas, which can produce erosion
on either side of the bulkhead, and scour, where wave heights and flooding increase,
eroding away wetland areas in front of the bulkhead. Bulkheads also impede new marsh
formation by preventing or limiting overwash, which provides sediment for marsh
formation. Dock impacts focus on shading and injury to salt marsh vegetation.
36. Nordstrom, K.F. 1989. Erosion control strategies for bay and estuadne beaches.
Coastal Management 17: 25-35.
Copy on file. Source. SUNY Stony Brook, Main Library Stacks, HT392.C6
Highlights a number of geomorphic differences between bay and ocean beaches. Notes
that the wave climate of estuarine beaches is different from ocean beaches in that wave
are low and have short periods, and longshore sediment transport is also low. Erosion
rates are high because sediment is not deposited between storms and because there is
little sediment available on bay shorelines to replenish losses. For this reason, groins are
not useful on bay beaches, because there is not longshore sediment to trap. However, they
can retain artificially placed beach sand for a longer time than would be possible on an
ocean beach. Bulkheads may be effective in locations where they do not block an upland
sand source and where the beach is either very narrow or cannot form due to high erosion
rates. In cases where upland sediments are fine grained, bulkheads may prevent
sedimentation where human development approaches the shore. They ot~en provide
recreational boating access as well. They are not recommended for use in low erosional
areas because they eliminate the ecological function of the natural shoreline. Rip-rap
armoring can provide attractive fish habitat, which can improve recreational fishing.
However, if this sort of habitat is not native to the area, it can change the species diversity
and balance of the area.
37. Portnoy, J.W., and A.E. Giblin. 1997. Effects of historic tidal restrictions on salt
marsh sediment chemistry. Biogeochemistry 36: 275-303.
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. QH344.B58
Hydrology, porewater chemistxy, and sediment composition were compared for natural,
seasonally flooded, and dra'med diked marshes in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Flooding
periods were longest in natural and shortest in drained marshes. Chemistry depended on
23
water table depth and the supply of sulfate for anaerobic metabolism. Drained marsh
sediments were highly acidic (pH<4) and porewaters were rich in dissolved iron. The
natural and seasonally flooded marshes had near neutral pH and iron concentrations an
order of magnitude lower. Porewater nutrients, sulfides, and alkalinity were much lower
in both flooded and drained diked marshes than in the natural marsh. However, the
manipulated marshes retained high levels of nutrients, though in a less mobile form. The
authors suggest that restoring flow to these marshes might mobilize these nutrients,
which might benefit recolonizing vegetation but could be harmful to water quality ion the
bay. The drained marsh was 90 cm below the level of the natural marsh. The seasonally
flooded marsh was only 15 cm below the natural marsh. The authors use these changes to
assess the evolution of these marshes since the time they were cut off from tides and tidal
sediment sources.
38. Reish, D.J. 1961. A study of benthic fauna in a recently constructed boat harbor in
southern California. Ecology 42:84-91
Copy on file. Soume: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library. QH540.E3
This study examines succession in the artificial habitat of a newly constructed boat basin
in southern California. The marina was dredged from land to a depth of 12 feet below
mean low water. The marina is also bulkheaded. Samples were taken at two different
times of the year from 1956-1958, and once in the summer of 1959. 3,186 specimens
representing 94 species were collected. Polychaetes represented 87% of the specimens
and 60% of the species. Mollusks and crustaceans were very diverse, representing a small
number of specimens but 19% and 16% of the species, respectively. One of the three
major species of polychaetes of the naturally occurring benthic community nearby was
never found abundantly at the marina. There was no indication of succession in the
marina, in that no sequence of species has occurred. Almost all species present at the time
of the first sampling were still present four years later. In addition, there was an
unexplained reduction in population after the population peak of April, 1957.
39. Roman, C.T., W.A. Niering, and R.S.Warren. 1984. Salt marsh vegetation change in
response to tidal restriction. Environmental Management 8:141-150
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. TD 169.E6
The structures discussed in this study include roads, causeways, bridges, and
impoundments equipped with tide gates that restrict the flow of salt water on to the
marsh. Transportation arteries are named as a major cause of flow restriction. Vegetation
change at six Connecticut sites with restricted tidal flow was documented in this study.
Tidal flows had been restricted from less than ten to several hundred years. Tidal
restriction reduces water salinity, lowers the water table, and leads to a drop in marsh
surface elevation. These factors tend to favor common reed (Phragmites australis2 over
Spartina spp. The study details the change in vegetation from the original marsh to the
Phragmites marsh. The Phragmites marsh is described as less ecological finctional than
Spartina dominated marsh. At several Phragmites dominated sites where tidal flow was
restored after more than two decades of flow restriction, Phragmites height was reduced
and natural vegetation reestablished itself along tidal creeks.
40. Ross., N.W. 1985. Environmental impacts of marinas and their boats. U. Wisconsin
1985 Docks and Marinas Conference. 8 pp.
No copy on file. Source: University of Idaho Inter-library loan, through Suffolk County
Public Library
Discusses various impacts of marinas and boating in non-technical terms. Impacts of
marinas include construction and dredging, bulkheads, breakwatem, piers, docks, and
wharves. Construction impacts are especially severe if they involve loss of salt marsh.
Dredging for construction suspends sediment, increasing turbidity and injuring nearby
organisms. Breakwaters can trap floating degree and interfere with flushing, reducing
water quality within the marina. Floating breakwaters are recommended. The most severe
identified role of bulkheads is as a retaining wall for salt marsh fill. Rip-rap is
recommended instead ofbulkheading because it provides more substrate for fouling
organisms and reduces wave energy more effectively. Piers, docks, and wharves should
be high enough to allow light penetration and long enough to reach adequate water depth.
Impacts of boating include fuel spillage, noise, litter, auto traffic, and boat sewage.
41. Russell, G., S.J. Hawkins, L.C. Evans, H.D. Jones, and G.D. Holmes. 1983.
Restoration of a disused dock basin as a habitat for marine benthos and fish. Journal of
Applied Ecology 20:43-58
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Science and Engineering Library. S3.J86
The study examines the benthic flora and fauna of an abandoned dock area in Liverpool,
England. An air-lift pump has been installed, oxygenating the water column and
preventing stratification and its consequent anoxic conditions. This stratification occurs at
other docks without air pumps. The dock provides a stone and concrete substrate rising
up fi.om fine estuarine sediments. The benthic community is dominated by the mussel,
Mytilus edulis. High fish abundance is reported. Vegetation is reported to be more
abundant and robust than in the surrounding Mersey estuary. The contaminant and
bacteria levels are low enough to permit human consumption of mussels. The authors
conclude that abandoned docks can provide valuable habitat if monitored and managed
continuously.
42. Shafer, D.J. 1999. The effects of dock shading on the seagrass Halodule wrightii in
Perdido Bay, Alabama. Estuaries 22:936-943
Copy on file. Source: Marine and atmospheric sciences information center, SUNY Stony
Brook, shelved alphabetically.
Aboveground and belowground biomass, density, blade length, and chlorophyll content
of shoalgrass (Halodule wrightiO growing directly under north-south oriented docks was
· . 25
. compared with shoalgrass growing adjacent to docks. Light levels under docks were 19%
and 16% of surface irradiance at shallow and deep sites, respectively. Shoot density was
40-47% lower and biomass was 30-35% lower in shaded plots. Blade length and
chlorophyll content were increased in shaded plots. Seagrasses were not found under
docks where light was less than 14% of surface irradiance. Shading effects were most
pronounced in the middle of the day; the north-south orientation of the docks in the study
may allow for continued seagrass survival by allowing early morning and late afternoon
light to reach the plants.
43. Short, F.T., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 1996. Natural and human induced disturbance
of seagrasses. Environmental Conservation, 23: 17-27
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook, Main Library Stacks, TDI69.E58
This report provides valuable background on the ecological role of seagrasses and their
worldwide decline. It investigates literature reports of seagrass decline to fred
connections among the causes of loss. Although a number of natural causes result in
seagrass loss, human disturbances which affect seagrasses are those which affect water
quality or clarity. The study focuses on the importance of light to sea grasses, and
increasing human inputs to coastal waters (sediment, nutrients, pollution) are seen as the
main cause of sea grass decline. The study also notes "mechanical damage," which is
more closely related to the effects of structures. Dock shading, boat moorings which
make holes in the seagrass meadow due to anchor chain movement, and propeller or boat
bottom damage are all examples of mechanical damage related to shoreline structures.
Structures such as dams or dikes which alter tidal regime are also damaging to seagrass
habitat.
44. Simenstad, C.A., B.J. Nightingale, R.M. Thom, and D.K. Shreffier. 1999. Ferry
impacts on salmon: impacts of ferry terminals on juvenile salmon migrating along Puget
Sound shorelines--Phase I: synthesis of state of knowledge, l. ntemet version: http://www.
wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/research/OnePages/WA-RD4721 .htm
Addresses three issues with regard to impacts on migratory salmon: 1) alteration in
migratory behavior, 2) reduction in prey production and availability, and 3) increased
predation. A review of over 60 documents established that juvenile salmon react to
shadows and other artifacts in their environment created by shoreline structures.
Although changes in migratory behavior were established, no evidence was found to
prove a link between this level of behavior alteration and survival. Salmon prey
availability and production are affected when shoreline structures affect the growth of
eelgrass and other important habitats. Evidence for increased predation was lacking. No
studies have addressed whether docks concentrate piscivorous birds, fishes, or mammals.
The degree of uncertainty led the authors to recommend field studies.
45. Spalding, V.L., and N.L. Jackson. 2001. Field investigation of the influence of
bulkheads on meiofaunal abundance in the forshore of an estuarine sand beach. Journal of
Coastal Research 17: 363-370.
26
Copy on file. Source: Marine and atmospheric sciences information cemer, SUNY Stony
Brook, shelved alphabetically.
A one day field study was conducted on an estuarine sand beach foreshore in Raritan
Bay, New Jersey, to document meiofannal abundance at sites fronting bulkheads and at
an adjacent site with no bulkhead. Data on meiofauna and sediment characteristics were
gathered at low water across the foreshore in three sites: Site 1 where a bulkhead
intersects low on the profile, Site 2 where there is no bulkhead, and Site 3 where a
bulkhead intersects high on the profile. Mean grain size was slightly finer in front of the
bulkheads than at the natural site. Data from the top core sediments at Site 1 reveal lower
meiofaunal density at the base of the bulkhead compared m the sampling station lower on
the profile and to similar stations at Sites 2 and 3. Increased energy at the base of the
bulkhead at Site 1 resulted in transport of meiofauna with eroded sediments. No impact
was observed for the bulkhead constructed higher on the profile (Site 3).
46. Thom, R.M., and D.K. Shreffier. 1994. Shoreline armoring effects on coastal ecology
and biological resources in Puget Sound, Washington. Coastal Erosion Management
Studies, Vol. 7. Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program. Washington State
Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
Copy on file. Source: TNC files
The study is meant to be a review of the present state of knowledge (ca. 1994) of
shoreline armoring effects. The conclusion is that the literature indicates that shoreline
armoring: 1) cuts offthe sediment supply to neighboring beaches, 2) exacerbates beach
erosion in front of the revetment, 3) transforms sandy beach to gravel, cobbles, or may
even erode the beach to bedrock, 4) eliminates shoreline vegetation, degrading spawning
habitat, and 5) changes the biological community that the beach can support. Each of
these impacts is investigated in considerable detail in this report. A unique insight of this
report is that bulkheads can impede groundwater flow to fronting wetlands, changing the
marsh both chemically and physically. The report also provides a thorough discussion of
armoring impacts to finfish, shellfish, and benthos. The report focuses on the Pacific
species native to Puget Sound.
47. Titus, J.G. 1998. Rising seas, coastal erosion, and the takings clause: How to save
wetlands and beaches without hurting property owners. Maryland Law Review 57: 1279-
1399.
Copy on file. Source: TNC files. Available on Internet at http://
www.epa, gov/globalwarming/publications/impacts/sealevel/take_txt .html
The author provides a detailed argument that thc legal structure exists to prevent owners
from protecting their property at the expense of the public's tidal lands. A system of
rolling easements is recommended, in which private owners are warned in advance that
27
some day, environmental conditions may render the property useless, and that if and
when that occurs, the state will not allow the owner to protect this investment at the
expense of the public. By the time the property is rendered useless, several decades later,
the owner will have had time to factor this expectation into his or her plans and into the
price paid for the property. It is the author's contention that such advance warning cannot
be construed as a taking, because landowners are not prevented fi.om using their property,
and do not suffer major economic deprivations in the short tenn. They are denied a future
course of action that interferes with the public interest. The author suggests that rolling
easements can be purchased at low cost through eminent domain.
48. Trent, L., E.J. Pullen, and R. Proctor. 1976. Abundance of macrocrustaceans in a
natural marsh and a marsh altered by dredging, bulkheading, and filling. Fishery Bulletin
74:195-200
Copy on file. Source: Science and Engineering Library, SUNY Stony Brook. SH11.A25
Indices of abundance of macrocrustaceans were determined for day and night and
compared between a natural marsh area, upland and bayward canal areas of a housing
development, and an open bay area. At night, brown shrimp (Penaeus aztecus) and blue
crabs (Callinectes sapidus) were significantly more abundant in marsh and bayward canal
areas than in the upland canal and bay areas, white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) were
significantly more abundant in the marsh area than the other three areas, and pink shrimp
(Penaeus duorarum) were significantly more abundant in the marsh than in the upland or
bayward canal areas. By day, brown shrimp were more abundant in the bayward canal
than in the upland canal or the bay, and pink shrimp were more abundant in the marsh
than in the upland canal. Lower catches of each species in the open bay and upland canal
compared to the marsh or bayward canal are attributed to: permanent loss of intertidal
vegetation in the housing development, low abundance of detrital material and benthic
macroinvertebrates in the open bay and upland canal, and eutrophic conditions in the
upland canal.
49. Twn, S.-W., and W.-M. Liao. 1999. Effect of seawall slopes on scour depth. Journal
of Coastal Research 15: 985-990.
Source: TNC collection
A model was built to test the effect of short-crested waves on seawalls of varying slopes.
Scour depth was found to be closely related to the shape of the wave and the front slope
of the seawall. Results suggest significantly reduced scour with a front slope of ¼ (one
foot vertical rise for every four feet of horizontal run) compared to steeper slopes. Scour
was not significantly reduced compared to ¼ when the slope was reduced to 1/7. A larger
scale test is recommended to verify these conclusions.
28
50. Weinstein, M.P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and
shellfish, Cape Fear River, North Carolina. Fishery Bulletin 77:339-357
Copy on file. Source: SUNY Stony Brook Science and Engineering Library. SH1 I.A25
This study does not discuss impacts of artificial structure, but does establish the
importance of fringe marshes as juvenile fish nursery area. Samples taken in the upper
reaches of tidal creeks and in marsh fringe along the Cape Fear River indicated that these
areas serve as primary nursery habitat for post-larval and juvenile fishes and shellfish.
Among species clearly making use of the marsh for this purpose were spot (Leistornus
xanthurus), Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia tyrranus), Striped mullet (l!,fugil cephalus),
white mullet (/~ curema), and brown shrimp (Panaeus aztecus). Distribution patterns for
several species were correlated with salinity and substrate, with tidal headwaters the
apparently preferred habitat.. Seasonal effects appeared to separate related and
potentially competing species temporally. Marshes closest to the fiver mouth were
species rich due to seasonal invasion by low densities of reef, nearshore, and shelf marine
species.
51. Zabawa, C.F., R.T. Kerhin, and S. Bayley. 1981. Effects of erosion control structures
along a portion of the northern Chesapeake Bay shoreline. Environmental Geology 3:
201-211.
Copy on file. Source: Science and Engineering Library, SUNY Stony Brook.
QEI71.A22.
A 6,500 meter reach of Chesapeake Bay shoreline was examined for historical evidence
of erosion before and after bulkheading. Bulkheads were found to produce no deficit in
the sediment budget to downdrifl beaches, because scouting of the beaches in front of the
bulkheads filled the downdrift sand supply. Bulkheads did eliminate uplands as a source
of erodable material to the littoral environment, but the down drift effects of this were
small due to accelerated erosion on the seaward side of the bulkhead. Groins were found
to maintain beach width, but did not prevent landward migration of the shoreline over a
50 year period.
29
GLOSSARY
ABIOTIC-non-living; refers to the structural portion of the environment and includes
such things as water, soil, and air
AEROBIC-using oxygen
ANAEROBIC-not using oxygen
BIVALVE-a shellfish, such as a clara or oyster, with an upper and a lower shell
BENTHOS-organisms that live on the ocean or estuarine floor
I~ULKI-IEAD-a vertical structure, usually made of wood, stone, or sheet metal, designed
to hold back water and halt erosion at a specific point
CHLOROPHYLL a (also CHL a)-The major protein involved in photosynthesis, used as
a measure of the quantity of living plant matter in a sample
CONSUMER-an organism that gains energy by feeding on other organisms
CRUSTACEAN-marine animals with jointed legs and bodies that are divided into two
major parts. Examples arc lobsters, crabs, shrimps, and barnacles.
EPIFAUNA-animal species that live on thc surface of the sediment
EUTROPHICATION-the accumulation of nulrients, especially nitrogen and
phosphorous, in a water body
INVASiVE SPECIES-a species not native to a particular ecosystem that is able to grow
and reproduce rapidly because natural checks on its growth are lacking.
MEIOFAUNA-animals between 0.1-1.0 millimeters in size.
PILE FIELD-an area containing wooden posts or piles that are not connected by a
covering structure such as a dock, walkway, or pier
POREWATER-water trapped between the particles of bottom sediments
PRIMARY PRODUCTION-the capture of light energy through photosynthesis and its
transformation into chemical energy in the form of plant tissue
PRODUCER-an organism that carries out photosynthesis
17/o5 '0~ FRI 11:57 FAX 516 ?§5 6145 $01~I'~OLD CLERK ~ Accounting ~002
05/17/2B02 09~00 51628~7018 JA~ H RAMI~O, ~NC ~E B2
OFI~ICi~. OF TH]I~ ?o~rN C~.r~Rg
TOWI~ OF SOUTHOLD
APPLICATION FOR PUNUC ACCESS TO RECORDS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clark's
Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned W you
In response to your request, or as an interim response.
SECTION I.
(bepartment dr Officer, if known, I~hat has the informationJ~ou are requesting.) '-
RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: [Describe the record sought. If possible, supply
date. file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent Information.]
Printed Name:
Mailing Addr.~s {if different from above):
Telephone Number:
[ ] APPROVED
[ ] APPROVED WITN DELAY*
Freedom of Information Officer
[ ] DENIED*
RECEIVED
MAY ~t~og
* If delayed ar denied see reverse ;ida for explanation. SsetbelaTownCh~
We, the undersigned and residents of Southold, respectfully pefitio~ [he Southold Town
Board of Trnstees to deny permission to Mr. Steven Kram to build ~r~dock onto Peconic
Bay. We do so for environmental reasons and safety concerns.
SIGNATURE
1
2
3
ADDRESS
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
15
Board of Trustees to deny permission to Mr. Steven Kram to build o dock onto Peconic
Bay. We do so for environmental reasons and safety concerns.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
32
33
34
35
36
39
40
43,
it /( / r
March 4, 2002
HOMEO ERSASSOC TION, C.
P.O. Box 428
Southold, New York 11971
Mr. Albert J. Kmpski, President
Southold Town Board of Trustees
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, N. Y. 11971-0959
Dear Mr. Krupski:
To begin let me compliment you on your competence and professionalism in chairing the
last meeting during February. As a former school board president I can appreciate the
task it is to chair a meeting in front of a group of penple with diversified interests. You
did-lt.well.
On behalf of our property owners, I am writing to once again express our firm opposition
to the proposal by Mr. Steven Kram to build a dock onto Peconic Bay. You will shortly
receive a petition from residems here reaffirming that opposition.
Based on the fact that the gentlemen from the Stale recommended against it at the last
meeting and the article in the February 28 edition of the Suffolk Times that the Board is
considering banning the constmetion of all docks onto the Bay, we are optimistic that you
and your fellow Trustees will resolve this matter in our favor.
Yours truly,
Richard Engert
Trustee, Angel Shores Homeowners Association
22.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We went and it was high water and we couldn't get out
there. There was no change in the house, so we left. The house hadn't been
staked and we didn't receive any new plans for the house.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well it's like I said, I wanted you to determine if there were
going to be any changes. This could continue to be a problem. I had called the
office when Iow tide was going to be and indicated that it was a problem in that
area and went out there and marked the location of the mooring pile and then
had that stolen by somebody who happened to be walking through that area, I
guess. I thought that you might have seen it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well the house wasn't staked. We asked you last
month, or maybe the previous month to have the house staked and to have a
50' setback for the house. It didn't really make sense to keep going back and
forth if nothing is ready for us. I'll make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
JIM FITZGERALD: Can I hear your thoughts on the dock situation assuming
that it turns out to be the way it's shown on the drawing.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well we have to go look at it. That's my thought.
JIM FITZGERALD: It's right here on a piece of paper.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We actually need to see it on a survey. This isn't an
actual survey. This should be placed on a survey.
JIM FITZGERALD: Why is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Because that's the way the Code is written.
JIM FITZGERALD: Would you accept a survey if there was a project plan in
all cases?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No, we need whatever information we need. But, you
had one dock placed on a survey but you're going to have to show the house
placement on a survey, correct? So you might as well have the dock placed
on the survey.
JIM FITZGERALD: But I'm thinking about other projects because it seems to
change.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Well I'm sorry if it does. We try to be consistent. I'll
make a motion to Table the application.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Seconded. ALL AYES
Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of STEVEN KRAM requests a Wetland
Permit to construct a 4'X 57' fixed dock with four 2-pile dolphins for mooring.
Located: 100 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-12
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Is there anyone who would like to speak on behalf of
this application?
JIM FITZGERALD: (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The SEQRA requirement has been completed.
JIM FITZGERALD: Meaning?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Meaning that we can vote on the project. We've
complied with the SEQRA law and coordinated with the required agencies.
Now we can vote on the project.
JIM FITZGERALD: Did any of the other agencies have any input?
22
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, no comments.
JIM FITZGERALD: Which means that they don't care about it right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Presumably.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Any other comments?
JIM FITZGERLALD: I would do nothing but repeat the (inaudible). The most
recent drawing I gave you shows the dock moved to the westerly side of the
property to accommodate the concern of the property owners association.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
NEIGHBOR: I speak on behalf of the people from Angel Shores. We are
opposed to the dock and whether you look left or dght, we still surround the
whole area so it doesn't make much difference. We oppose the dock and we
had submitted previously a petition from 50 of the surrounding area people
who oppose the dock and are very against it. We have the environmental
concems for the area and the safety of the people there and therefore we do
not want to see the dock there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you.
NEIGBBOR: I'm from Angel Shores also and we understand that the DEC
didn't care for this dght?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We're not aware of the DEC's decision on this.
NEIGHBOR: How about the Bay Constable? At the last meeting you made it
quite clear that he wasn't happy with it.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Maybe it was the Baykeeper.
NEIGHBOR: Oh ok.
JIM FITZGERALD: Excuse me, what meeting was he at?
NEIGHBORS: The last headng.
JIM FITZGERALD: The Baykeeper was at the last hearing and spoke against
this?
NEIGHBOR: Yes he did.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh He can confirm that. Turn around.
KEVIN MCALLISTER: Yes, I did.
JIM FITZGERALD: Thank you.
NEIGHBOR: To me, this dock is going to look like some sort of fence between
the two beaches that we do use. From the high-water mark, out 57', it's an
obstruction to the beaches that we do use. This is dght in between both
beaches. They are pdstine beaches. There are no docks there. If this is
allowed, you have several other homes that will be looking for it too.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
JIM FITZGERALD: May I respond. The concept keeps coming up, which I
guess is under the "not in my backyard" heading in the regulations about if you
let this, then other people would want to do it. It's not my understanding that
that's what this Board is all about. The fact that the area around you at a
given time, there was no other dock around and a dock was there, and now
there's another dock there. This is a waterfront community. People use
docks. People moor their boats, all in the same kind of area we are talking
about, and people swim in the water. People swim in the water in front of their
beach and the people that have a house, have a dock in front of their house.
That's all.
NEIGHBOR: (inaudible) This is not a friendly situation and this stems from a
party from the year before and they tried to stop anybody crossing in front of
the high-water mark from one beach to the other. (inaudible)
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: ^ lot of things changed. Years ago, we all had a beach,
then we had to have a bulkhead, then we got a bulkhead, and now we have
no beach. Now we want a dock.
JIM FITZGERALD: And what will that do? The dock is not going to cause any
erosion problem.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: A dock actually is considered hardening of the shoreline
and it does contribute to erosion.
JIM FITZGERALD: Any more than the hundreds of groins and jetties that we
have along there.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: There were a lot of mistakes made in the past.
JIM FITZGERALD: So we're going to fix it now by denying this dock?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKt: I didn't suggest that yet. I just answered your question.
JIM FITZGERALD: Thank you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Is there anyone else who hasn't spoken.
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: Well we have our comments from last month, and the
Peconic Baykeeper spoke and the accumulative impact of placing structure on
the bay. Nature Conservancy has a large package on reasons why not to
allow docks on the bay. I agree with them all.
JIM FITZGERALD: Is that information available to civilians.
TRUSTEE POLIWOD^: Yes, it's in the file.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I was just going to reiterate what some of the other
comments were. You were saying that everyone wants docks when everyone
comes out here but I think we've learned from the past and what we've
learned and we're hearing more and more from Baykeepers and Nature
Conservancy, is now to start taking care of these areas that we've all been so
concerned about. It's not just the one dock. It's that all of these things are
changing and changing and what's been done in the past, as Artie said, isn't
necessarily what's good for the future.
JIM FITZGERALD: The thing I really don't understand, I don't think it's been
addressed yet is, specifically, in detailed terms, what is it that the dock will do
that's bad for the Town of Southold?
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It increases the hardening of the shoreline, it
increases the...
JIM FITZGERALD: Any dock is good or bad for the Town of Southold.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It's placed in a public area so for safety and ...if you
want to look at Chapter 97-28, the Wetland Code, there are a number of items
here that are relevant. One is the safety and navigation. Of course it will result
in a problem with navigation because it is a structure completely alone in an
area of the bay that's completely undeveloped. Another reason is that it's
adjacent to a public bathing beach and the dock is going to attract boats and
24
jet skis and all sorts of motorized boating activities, which could be. dangerous.
So, that's in the standards, 97-28F, which adversely affects navigational tidal
waters. Then of course, you get into 97-28D, adversely affect the shellfish and
other beneficial marine organisms because you're actually going to physically
displace some of that environment in the tidal and inter-tidal area, by the
presence of the dock itself. It will also, because it is a hard structure, it will
also cause some damage, under Chapter 97-28B, it will cause damage from
erosion and of course during installation, turbidity and siltation. But it will
affect, because it is a structure, G-change the course or any channel or the
natural movement or flow of any waters. It will affect the natural flow of
waters, which in fact, will affect the natural flow of sand movement down the
beach. We've seen this happen in the past in docks on the bay that were
permitted. We've seen how they affected the flow of water and the flow of
sand.
JIM FITZGERALD: Really.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Absolutely.
JiM FITZGERALD: Is there one that I could look at?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Go to Cleaves Point in East Marion and you'll see some
of the mistakes of the past that were made.
JIM FITZGERALD: These things that you just described would only apply to
docks on the bay, right?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Not necessarily. We're only talking about this particular
dock at this moment, not in general. Some are in general, but that this
moment we are specifically referring to this location. Any other comment? Do
I have a motion to close the hearing?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: So moved.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I'll make a motion to DENY the application.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
23. Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of R.W. REINIGER requests a Wetland
Permit to install post and reil fence 48'+/- overall length with top rail 4' +/-
above grade; seaward end of fence to be at ordinary high water mark.
Located: 3500 Lighthouse Rd., Southold. SCTM~50-2-1
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: The problem is that this property, as you can see here, is
so close to the end of Lighthouse Road, and he gets a lot of activity on the
beach, much of which is not stuff he wants to look at. I guess he got tired of
taking pictures of them so he would like to give some indication to the citizenry
that it's private property that they are doing their thing on.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Is there any other comment?
TRUSTEE POLIWODA: I looked at this.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh It's the Board policy to permit an open fence of post and
rail or less 8' above the high-water mark.
24
19. Proper-T Permit Services, Inc. on behalf of STEVEN KRAM requests a
Wetland Permit to construct a 13'X 8' +/- extension to the existing house;
construct 4'X 57'+/- overall fixed open walkway free-standing dock with
steps to grade at landward end. Located: 100 West Lane, Southold.
SCTM#88-6-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Would anyone like to speak in favor of the
application?
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, I would. I think the part of the application to
construct an extension to the house is pretty straight-forward, unless you
have any questions. (changed tape) (inaudible) Let me go back if I may.
The part of the application that refers to the dock is pretty straight-forward
too. Do you have any comments?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll read the CAC comments. The CAC
recommends Disapproval of the application because all proposed
structures were not staked. In orderto achieve the appropriate water
depths, the structure would have to go much further out.
JIM FITZGERALD: To achieve what water depth?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It doesn't say a specific number...resulting in
negative impacts on the entire area including limiting access to the public
resources and interfering with navigation. The proposal is for a 68' dock
reaching 2 %' 4". That's the CAC comments but Iht me take any other
comments and then the Board will talk about it. Is there any other
comment?
RICHARD ENGERT: I'm a Trustee with the Angel Shores Homeowners
Association of which we have 41 property owners. I'm sure you've
inspected the area. Our private beach is dght adjacent to this property
and then also on the other side of it there are three more beaches that
belong to one of our property owners. Or.. behalf of all 41 members we
vigorously oppose the construction of f. hat 57' dock. We have no problem
with the other structure but we have three major concerns. One has to do
with the...we're on the east side of that dock about 15' ..each property line
is about 'i 5' from that dock and from what people t~il me, and fight now I
wish I had that gentleman who was speaking on number 17 because I
didn't understand a word he said but from what I understand, the water'
flows from east to west and there is a concern with beach erosion. There
is a jetty all the way down and when you walk down there on the east side
of that jetty, the beach is totally gone and it's just a hole there. Our
second concern that we had is that in our covenant which was registered
in 1995 with the Suffolk Coun .ty, on page 41, the Southold Planning
Commission put in there that Lots 42, 43, and 44 can not construct a dock
or any other structure out into the Peconic Bay so to be consistent with it,
if we can't do it, why can the adjacent property owner. Would you like to
see this?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, I believe you.
RICHARD ENGERT: Our third concern that we have is that during the
summertime, we're going to have about 40 families with small children that
use that beach frequently and if you put a dock up, you're going to have
boats coming in, jet skis and who knows what. There is certainly a grave
certain about safety. We've got kids in the water, thei~:'parents in the
water and accidents do happen. Once again, those are our three major
concems and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for
you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you, that's pretty straight-forward. What
were the CAC comments?
SCO'~I' HILARY: In the odginal application, they referenced a 68'
structure and when you do the distance to the beach from the bulkhead
seaward, that's approx. 40' dght there so the structure wouldn't be going
into the water too far. That area on the bay is historically known as...you
really need to go out far to try to achieve any water depths. That was one
concern. We didn't have any problem with the proposed addition but we
do have a problem that, that area is not consistent with having those types
of structures and it would limit navigation as well as public access.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. Does the Board have any comments?
TRUSTEE FOSTER: Well I kind of thought that was what we discussed.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes. Now I spoke to Mr. Fitzgerald and we were
getting some other information, I believe, on docks in the bay from the
Baykeeper and we're waiting on that. He's on vacation now so he wasn't
available so I had asked Mr. Fitzgerald eadier today if we couldn't split this
application off, and review the house addition separately from the dock
because we didn't want to hold up the house application because it's
going to require a building permit and whatnot, from the dock review. I
don't know if the Boards inclined to do that or do you just want to vote...
BOARD: That's fine.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Do you think that's appropriate?
JIM FITZGERALD: Yes, that's fine. May I comment on the dock?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Yes.
JIM FITZGERALD: Let me ask you this. If that dock were in a creek,
would it be acceptable, with all other things being equal?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: It depends on the exact location. It's impossible to
put that dock...you can't superimpose it in any creek because every
location is completely different. You and I have been out there in a kayak
and know you really have to look hard at every location.
JIM FITZGERALD: I'm not quite clear on why the Board is interesting in
gathering more information. It must be because you think that it's not an
appropriate place for a dock, correct?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We do. We do feel it.
JIM FITZGERALD: Why is that?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: We feel it's inappropriate because exactly the
reasons the homeowner's association stated. Those are some of our big
concerns, safety and navigation. The fact that it's public bottom and it's
going to monopolize public bottom where, historically, there is no other
docks in that immediate area, and of course, the effect of the environment
in that specific area. There's a number of reasons for us to be un-inclined
to approve it but if we're going towards the disapproval, we want to make
sure that we have all of our facts and figures straight and we don't want to
rash into it.
JIM FITZGERALD: I think all of the things that you say, with the exception
of that there are no other docks in the area, could also apply to a dock in a
creek. Safety, navigation, and the environment. I think that dock in that
location is less, from an environmental standpoint, is less intrusive then a
dock in the creek. That's not a great bottom there for food production or
shellfish production and what have you.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: The last couple of years, if you noticed, the length
of the catwalk we've been approving in the creek is basically to the edge
of the water and not much further. This in fact extends some 30' into the
water and so we don't approve too many fixed docks 30' into the actual
water. You can't compare this dock with a dock in the creek.
JIM FITZGERALD: The only I'm comparing them is simply because docks
in the creek almost are routinely approved with appropriate review and
discussion. What I'm trying to get at is the reason for your thinking in
terms of disapproving this one merely because it happens to be in the
open bay.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh There is also a history of dbcks being built on the
bay and there are very few in Town for the reason that it's very difficult to
keep on a dock in the bay because of the prevailing southwest winds in
the summer time. Our experience is that docks, once approved, require
amendments to make them larger because there is insufficient water
depth and then the dock needs extra pilings to tie the boats up because of
the rough water and then the dock needs an "L" or a ~ at the end with a
wave curtain because of water conditions. These docks, from my
experience on the Board, have been, the docks that we've approved on
the bay, in my experience, have been mistakes because they've grown
from just a dock to almost madnas and have certainly created an impact.
JIM FITZGERALD: Well it would be very simple for the Board to put a
condition on the project that says "no future extensions". You could put a
condition on it that says, because this is the next thing that's going to
come up, that if it's not used for two years, then take it out.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No but see, because there's got to be a ...it's not
like black and white, here's the dock, it comes in this size only. Now, the
dock can come in any size so already before this dock is even been
shown at a public headng, there's already a request to add pilings to it so
that's just an example of how these docks start to...
JIM FITZGERALD: No that was a late...
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh No, but I called that one before it happens. These
docks tend to grow and here's a request for mooring piles.
JIM FITZGERALD: Between you and me, you didn't call it between the
time the owner called me and asked me to make that addition.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: But I suggested that to you before I knew about the
addition. That's been the history of docks on the bay...So that's my feeling
from what I've seen as a Board member for years. -..
NEIGHBOR: I'm a homeowner in the association and I have three young
children. I just wanted to differ with his opinion about it being no different
than a dock in the creek in as much as the adjacent property is a
recreational beach so that really is my major cencem. The dock invites
boat traffic and that's not appropriate next to a pdvate beach that's utilized
by 49 families,
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. -' '
JIM FITZGERALD: From the standpoint of the... I think on the things that
came up from some discussion was the visual instruction of the dock in
· the pdstine water[ront. While there aren't many docks in the bay
throughout the Town, there ara an awful lot of groins and jetties and they
don't look very different from a distance than a dock does. The other thing
is that dudng the summertime, there are a lot of boats moored there and
some of them are moored very dose to public beaches. So, what's the
deal there as far as the comment the gentleman just made? Is that a
matter that the Trustees take into account when you get an application for
a moodng that's next to a public or association beach?
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: At this time, the Town of Sbuthold does not regulate
moodngs in the bay. We had about a half an hour discussion about
moodng in the bay at our worksession this evening, which is one of the
reasons why we started so late. It is becoming a big problem. We
attempted to regulate moodngs in the bay a number of years ago and we
were basically shattered down by everybody who was interested in it and
received absolutely no support for it. Now, there's seems to be more of a
concern because it is becoming such an unregulated activity and
justifiably so since the mooting are taking place on public bott, om, but
that's another issue.
JOE GREGO: I'm also a homeowner at Angel Shores. From what I'm
seeing of the diagram, this free-standing dock starts at the nigh-water
mark, not at the bulkhead.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct.
JOE GREGO: It goes out 57' plus or minus.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI'. That's what I'm looking at here, yes. I did have a
different plan here a minute ago.
JOE GREGO: According to the diagram, at mean-low water, that's 2.4'
correct? From my recollection in that area, mean-high water is 3.6' above
that. That means this free-standing dock is going to be approximately 8'
above mean-low water, and you're looking at it, because you're going to
have to come above the 6' level. What l'm getting at is that at Iow-water,
there is going to be approximately 6' or 7' of dock in the air and there is
going to be bamacles on those poles eventually and like he said, people
have small children and even adults, they get a boat wave and gets
pushed against one of those pilings with the barnacles, you've got a rough
cut. This is a big safety factor. And another thing, fine they're not going to
tie a boat up, but is there a restriction in the Town for boat lifts to pull them
up out of the water?.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: No.
JOE GREGO: Ok, that's something that could happen, so I think the Town
should take all that into consideration.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Thank you. I think the Board is still inclined to
gather more information on this and we would be happy to split the
application and approve the addition to the house tonight. I'll make a
motion to Table the public headng until next month.
TRUSTEE KING: So moved.
TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Seconded. ALL AYES
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh I'll make a motion to Approve the application portion
of it to include only the addition to the house.
TRUSTEE KING: Seconded. ALL AYES
20. Land Use Ecological Services, Inc. on behalf of GUSMAR REALTY
requests a Wetland Permit re-seed and re-grade existing area, fix
sprinkler system, install wood chip access path, and install chain-link
fence. Located: Shipyard Lane, East Madon. SCTM#38-7-12
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: Would anyone like to spea~( in favor of the
application?
DAN HALL: Good evening, I'm from Land Use to speak on behalf of the
applicant. This project is a remediation that was required by the DEC as a
settlement for activities involving repair of a utility line and they had to
create a buffer area and it appears in the file that your jurisdiction is 100'
from the wetland zone and the high-water mark at this site so it really
involves the planting of the beach grass.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKI: That's correct, that's the limit of our jurisdiction. Is
there any other comment? Is there a CAC comment on this?
SCO']-]' HILARY: There was no inspection and no comment.
TRUSTEE KRUPSKh Ok, thank you.
TOM KRAUS: I'm speaking as a representative of the Crescent Beach
Condominiums on the adjacent property to the project. Our concern is
based on the fact that the declaration of covenants and restrictions for
Summit Estates specifically prohibits what it is they are applying to do. I
have copies of the covenants and restrictions for the Board members. This
specific site that's in the site plan is referred to on page 4 and continued
on page 5 as the land running along the land now or formedy Cleaves
Point Condominiums for 540' to the high-water mark on Gardiner's Bay
and then across the Cleaves Point Condominiums and up Crescent Beach
Condominiums. The site plan is also known on the site map of Summit
Estates as a park and recreation area pamel B. If you go to the next
page, it says "the fence which extends in the park and recreation parcel B
is to be removed". (inaudible) They also raised the property by erecting a
concrete wall 4' high so the grades that you see on the site plan stop of
"Proper-TPermit Services
Phone: 631-734-5800
Fax: 631-734-7463
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE: February 11,2002
Trustees
Jim Fitzgerald
Steven Kram; SCTM #1000-88-6-12
We would like to change the design of the landward end of the proposed structure as per the
attached revised drawings and the following project description:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct 13' X 8'+ extension to existing house; construct 4' x
57'± overall fixed open walkway free-standing dock with steps to grade at landward end.
Enclosures:
Project Plan, Revised 2/6/02
The location of the seaward end of the structure is unchanged.
734.$800
I
June 18, 2002
Al Kruf~ki, Chairman
Southold Town Trustees
Town Hall Annex
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
JAMES H, RAMBO, INC.
229 BISHOP'S LANE
SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. 11968
PHONE: (631) 283-1254
(631) 734-5858
FAX: (631) 283-7018
Re: Dock App?cation of Mr. Steve Kram of Southold
Dear Mr. ~r~ki,
We ?egret not being afforded the opportunity to reargue the
referenced application before the board. This is the first time, in our
memory, that a permit has been denied with prejudice. We renew our
request t~ appear before the board.
Barring that request please send the owner and his
representative formal denial of his application. Hopefully, you will
define your rationale. The owner's options remain open. Perhap~
competent council will refuse to allow you to state those objections.
We will request (FOIA) your minutes when they have been
transcribed.
Mr. Justice Holmes (one of our most liberal Supreme Court
Justices) warned in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon 260 U.S. 393,416
(1922) ~Ve are in danger of forgetting that a strong public des/re to
improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the
des/re by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the
change~.
P/ease reply as soon as possible.
Respectfully,
Thomas E. Samuels, Pres.
Cc: Jim Fitzgerald
Steve Kram
Wm. Morris Agency, Inc.
Board Of Southold Town Trustees
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
ISSUED TO STBVEN KRAM
Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 615 of the Laws of
the Stale of New YorE, 18931 and Chapter 404 of the Laws of the
State of New York 19521 end 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 IdATERIALS FROM
LANDS UNDER TOWN WATERS;!~. and in accordance with the
Resolution of The B6erd adopted at a meeting held on .~.b...t...~ ......
20g.~ ....... and in consideration of the sum of $..J.g.)).~.g.g. ...... peld by
Steven Kram
Of .................. ~:?~ .........................' ...................... N' Y' andsubject to the
Terms and Conditions listed on the reverse ride hereof,
o{ Southold Town Trustees authorizes and permits the foBow~ng:
Wetland ~e~mit ~o const~ct ~ 13~ St+/- e×tension to the
existing house.
all in accordance with the detai~ecl specifications as presented in
the originating appllcatlon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said Board of Trustees kere-
by causes ifs Corporate Sea! to be affixed, and thesepresents fo
be subscribed by ~'majorlty of the seld Board as of this date.
· , K,e(~n.~h- ~oli~oda(Absent)
'rnatees
TERMS end CONDITIONS
Steven Kram
11499 Bellagio Rd., Los Angeles CA 90049 N. Y~ ~
5. ~ ~ p,.~,,iT shotdd be r'*";,,,.4 imt~mi2~y, or ~s laog ~s dm s,id p,~,d,~e whims
m -~,~,~-i- d~e stmau~ o~ p~oject Lavolved, to l~oviae e~ide~ce m ~ maces,ed chin: ~
4. Zl~t ~he wink ~...Ived ~ b~ mbject to ~he ~_oa ~i ~ of the Boeai o~
i~ ~ ~ ao~-complLm~ with.the prmds~om of tl~ od~ ~pl~ m~ be c~ase for
~oc~oa of chLs Pe~n~t by mohtloa of d~e ~ BoemL
5. Thtc dJere will be no uarusomble imerfe~oce wi~h mvi~ u t reml~ of zhe w~k
be~em ~chodzed.
7. Th~ if fuaL~ ope~iam of d~e Towa of Southold ~lai~e dm maonl m~i/or ~miem
the lo~tcioa o~ d~e wofR herein ?,~, or fi, in d~e opiak~ o~ the Bo~d o~ Tmseees, the.
upoa du~ nook:e, to remove o£ "lter d~is work oc project he,da stated witbom: extmme~ to the Tram
8. Th~ me hid Board will be not~fled by the Ps'm{"-- o~ ~he o0~ledo~i~ the work m~h-
odzed.
9. That d,e Pe.,'-,i-',.e will oL-~ !,, all mher ~ ~d ~ d~ ~ b~ ~ ~-
ple,:~'~l m chis pet-mit which my I~ ,,~%je~ to ~-vom, upoa f,~.,~ to obm~a seine.
Albert J. Krupski, President
James King, Vice-President
Artie Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Peggy A. Dickerson
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Seuthold, New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
February21,2002
BOARD OFTOWNTRUSTEES
TOWN OFSOUTHOLD
Mr. James E. Fitzgerald, Jr.
Proper-T Permit Services
P.O. Box 617
Cutchogue, N~' ! I935
RE: STEVEN KRAM
100 West Lane, Southold
SCTM#88-6- l 2
Dear Mr. Fitzgerald:
The Board of Town Trustees took the following action during its regular meeting held on
Wednesday, February 20, 2002 regarding the above matter:
WHEREAS, Proper-T Permit Scrvises on behalf of STEVEN KRAM applied to the Southold
Town Trustees for a permit under the provisions of the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of
Southold, application dated January 3 i, 2002, and.
WHEREAS, said apphcation was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council
for their findings and ceconunendations, and,
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on
February 20, 2002, at which time all interested persons were given an oppommity to be heard,
and,
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in
question and thc 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,
2
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health,
safety and general welfare of the people of the town,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT,
RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of STEVEN KRAM to
construct a 13'X 8'+/- extension to the existing house.
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,
President, Board of Trustees
AIK/lms
DEC
Bldg. Dept.
Telephone
(631) 765-1892
Tovat H.~. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 11'/9
Southold. New Yo~k 11971
SOUTHOLD TOWN
CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNC-~,
At the meeting of the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council held Tuesday,
February 12, 2002, the following recommendation was made:
Moved by Scott Hilary, seconded by Jason Petrucci, it was
RESOLVED to recommend to the Southold Town Board of Trustees DISAPPROVAL of
the Wetland Permit Application of STEVEN KRAM to construct a 13'X 8' +/- extension
to the existing house; construct 4'X 68' +/- fixed open walkway dock attached to existing
bulkhead.
Located: 100 West Lane, Southold. SCTM#88-6-12
The CAC recommends Disapproval of the application because afl proposed structures
were not staked.
In order to achieve the appropriate water depths, the structure would have to go much
further out resulting in negative impacts on the entire area, including limiting the access
to the public resources and interfering with navigation.
Vote of Council: Ayes: All
Motion Carried
JAN 3 I
HOG
NECK
BAY
PROJECT IS CIRCLED
~o~o~ ~, ~
BAY~
'~ \'5,
\
/ SHELTE.
VICINITY MAP
Application regarding the property of
Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
Represented by
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617, Cutchob'u¢, NY 11935
James E. Fitzgerald, .Ir. 516-734-5800
January I 0, 2002
THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT IS SHADED
TAX MAP
Application regarding the property of
Steven Kram, SCTM # 1000-88-6-12
Represented by
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617, Cutchogme, NY 11935
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. 516-734-5800
January I0, 2002
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-5800
July 19, 2004
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11935
Re: Request for Extension of Permit #5634, Steven Kram; SCTM #1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
There was an amendment to the original permit, and we have not had sufficient time to complete
the approved activities in the amendment. We ask for a one-year extension to this permit which is
due to expire on 9/25/04. The $50 fee is enclosed.
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-5800
July 1, 2003
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Reouest to Amend Permit No. 5634; SCTM #1000-88-6-12. Stevan Kram
Dear Sir:
The property owner, Stevea Kram, wishes to amend the referenced permit to include
additional operations as follows:
Construct 4' high mesh deer fence around the property beginning 15' landward of the
existing bulkhead
Construct 4'x 4' platform and stairs to beach on the seaward side of the existing
New drawings showing the proposed amendments are enclosed.
If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please call me.
Enclosures:
Amendment fee (check, $40)
Project Plan (Rev 7/1/03) (6 copies)
~s E. Fitzgeral~
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Albert J. ¥~upski, President
James King, Vice-President
Hen~ Smith
Ar~e Foster
Ken Poliwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,,New York 11971-0959
Telephone (631) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Office Use Only
Coastal Erosion Permit Application/
Wetland Permit Application i/Major
Waiver/AmendmenffChan~es
Received Application: q! Sa4t ]~ ~
ReceivedFee:$ ~0 ~' l ,~' O ~ /
Completed Application q ['~[ oTM
Incomplete
SEQRA Clmsification:
Type I Type II Unlisted
Coo-~-:-dmation:(date sant)~a~..ff_
CAC Referral Sent:
Date of Inspection: ~ / { ~/
Receipt of CAC Report:
Lead Agency Det~ u~nation:__
Technical Review: ,
Public Hearing Held: ~. !~
Resolution:
Minor
Name of Applicant Steven Kram
Address 11499 Bellagio Road, Los Angeles CA 90049
PhoneNumb~:( ) 310-859-4400
SuffolkCoun~TaxMapNumb~: 1000- 88-6-12
Pmpe~yLocation: 100 West Lanet Southold
(See attached maps.)
(provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location)
AGENT:
(If applicable)
Address:
James E. PitzEerald, Jr. / Prooer-T Permit Services
PO Box 617, Cutchogue I~ 11935
Phone:
Board of Trustees Application
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning:.
GENERAL DATA
15,783 sf
A-C
Previous use of property: .
Intended use of property:
Private residence
Private residence
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Agency Date
Sq~thold Trustees . 2/21/02
No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permit/approval ever been revoked or mspended by a governmental agency?
X No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct additions to the existing house as follows: one is 14'
x 27.8' and extends to the east of the existing structure; another is 7' x 65.4' and is located
along the back, or north side of the existing structure; another is 4' x 9' and is on the front,
or south side, of the existing structure.
Board of Trustees Application
WETLANDfrRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA
· Purpose of the proposed operations:
Expand house
Area of wetlands on lot: -0- square feet
Percent coverage of lot: N/A %
Closest disumce bev.veen nearest existing structure and upland
edge of wetlands: N/A 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 For crawl space
ffyes, how much material will be excavated? 94
· How much material will be filled? N/A
Depth of which material will be removed or deposked:3 max
Proposed slope throughout the area of operations: N/A
Manner in which material will be removed Or deposited: Ba ~-~'~
cubic yards estimated maximum
cubic yards
feet
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):
It is expected that the project will have no significant
effect on the wetlands and tidal waters of the Town.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
I, James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, depose and say that on the 15 day of July, 2003, I personally posted the property known
as 100 West Lane, Southold, by placing the Board of Trustees' official poster where it can easily
be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in place for eight days prior to
the date of the public hearing, which date is noted there,, ? .~ _j~
~mary 20, 2002 at
or about 7:09 PM.
· FitZg~'al~', J5
Sworn to before me this ~r~cO
day of ~-kS~ooc ,2003:
Notary Public '-~ k>
~ pU~IC ~ ~
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Steven Kram
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, deposes and says that on the 14th day of July, 2003, deponent mailed a true copy of the
Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at the
addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said
persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of
Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, NY 11935,
that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re-
quested.
Sworn ~ before me this ~c~
day of M.~ ,200
Notary Public~ ,.~,o
5634 Date:
TO: Adjacent Property Owners
(Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.)
'10, 2OO3
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
In the matter of: Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT:
1. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to:
Amend Permit No. 5498 to include construction of a 4' high mesh deer
fence around the property beginning 15' landward of the existing
bulkhead, and construction ora 4'x 4' platform and stairs to beach on the
seaward side of the existing bulkhead
The project described above is proposed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad-
dress of that property is as follows:
100 West NY 11971 I
Lane,
Southold,
I
The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of
the Town Code, is open to public comment. A public hearing will be held at Town Hall,
53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday, July
23, 2003. If you wish to comment you may call the office (631-765-1892), or applications
may be reviewed and comments may be submitted in writing up to 24 hours prior to the
hearing.
The project described above will be reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of
the Town, State, or Federal governments.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAIVEE:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NO.:
Steven Kram
11499 Bellagio Road
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310-476-7446
A copy of the plan showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience.
October 2, 2002
KRAM: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1000-88-6-13.44
John Fallon
4 Hemlock Road
Bromcville NY 10708
1000-88-6-13.60
Angel Shores Homeowners Assn Inc. (Lot 13.60)
PO Box 428
Southold NY 11971
1000-88-6-13.43
John & Susan Fallon
4 Hemlock Road
Bronxville NY 10708
1000-88-6-13.57
Angel Shores Homeowners Assn Inc. (Lot 13.57)
PO Box 428
Southold NY 11971
AFFIDAVIT OF MA II,lNG
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Steven Kram
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, deposes and says that on the 17th day of September, 2002, deponent mailed a true copy of
the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at
the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said
persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of
Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Off'ce at Cutchogue, NY 11935,
that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re-
quested.
Sworn to before me this 25th
day of September, 2002
Notary Public L3.3 ~
TO:
Date: September 16, 2002
Adjacent Property Owners
(Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
In the matter of.' Steven Kram. SCTM #1000-88-6-12
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT:
1. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trnstees for a permit to:
Amend Permit No. 5498 to include additions as follows: one is 14' x 27.8'
and extends to the east of the existing structure; another is 7' x 65.4' and is
located along the back, or north side of the existing sR'ucture; another is 4' x
9' and is on the front, or south side, of the existing structure.
The project described above is proposed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad-
dress of that property is as follows:
1100 West Lane, Southold, NYl1971 ]
The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of
the Town Code, is open to public cortmaem. A public hearing will be held at Town Hall,
53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday,
September 25, 2002. You may contact the Trustees Office at 631-765-1892 or in writing if
you wish to comment
The project descntxxl above will be reviewed by the Board of TruStees of the Town of
Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of
the Town, State, or Federal governments.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NO.:
Steven Kram
11499 Bellagio Road
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310-476-7446
A copy of a sketch or plan showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience.
September 12, 2002
KRAM: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1000-88-6-13.44
John Fallon
4 Hemlock Road
Bronxville NY 10708
1000-88-6-13.60
Angel Shores Homeowners Assn Inc. (Lot 13.60)
PO Box 428
Southold NY 11971
1000-88-6-13.43
John & Susan Fallon
4 Hemlock Road
Bronxville NY 10708
1000-88-6-13.57
Angel Shores Homeowners Assn Inc. (Lot 13.57)
PO Box 428
Southold NY 11971
5L VEY OF r<OPE T'f'
51'II)ATE-" BATVIEIN
TOi'~6 5CXJll'IOLD
.?~UJ'T, OLK C,O[~TT, NY
.~.,~VE¥1= [::) 11-2~"-01,1~-I~'-01
cJU~FOLK. C, OUNT't' TAX #
1000-~-6-12
CERTIFIED TO;
I ~T F~
P~EL LI~ ~1~¥ IN ~
FLeD ZO~ ~ ~) ~p # ~10~1~ 5
~ATIO~ ~ ~E ~'~
~I~APHI~ ~CALE I"=~0'
N
JOHN C. EI-rLERS LAND SURVEYOR
6 EAST MAIN STREET N.Y.S. LIC. NO. 50202
RIVERHEAD, N.y. 119O1
369-8288 Fax 369-8287 REF.-\~IP SERVER~D~PROS~01-304A
11499 Bellagio Road
Los Angeles. California 90049
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I hereby designate and authorize James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. of Proper-T
Permit Services to act in my behalf as my agent in the submission and processing of a permit
application for the construction of a dock s~award of my property and for the expansion of the
house on my property located at 100 West Lane, Southold, and designated by Suffolk County
Tax Map No. 1000-88-6-12, and to furnish, upon request, supplemental information in sup-
port of the application.
Sincerely,
STATEMENT TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
County .... )
Stme of California )
I, Steven Ir, ram, being duly sworn, depose and affirm that I am the sole Trustee of the Kram
Family Trust, an owner of the property located at 100 West Lane, Southold, New York 11971,
and identified by Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-88-6-12, and that all work will be done
in the manner set forth in the present application and as may be approved by the Southold
Board of Town Trustees. I agree to hold the Town of Southold and the Town Trustees
harmless and free fi.om any and all damages and claims arising under'or by virtue of said
permit(s), if granted. I hereby authorize the Town Tmsteas or their agent(s) or
representative(s) to enter upon my property to inspect the premises in conjunction with the
review of the present application.
S~wom to before me this ......~,.q. ...... day of.....~.~..~.~.. ...... 2001
............ ._7...
NbtaryPU~c
J
?,i.l&4 ~/E~J--l'ed 12
I pROJEGT I.D. NUMBER
I
~17.21
App d C
SMte Envlmnmemsl Oulilty Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART'I~-pROJEGT INFORMATION ~o be completed by Applicant or Project sponsorl
1. A~HT~N~R ~ 2. P~E~ NAME
J~es E. Fitzgerald? Jr. ~ Kr~ proper~y
~. ~E~ ~ON:
~w~ Southold . ~ Suffolk
100 West ~ne
Southold ~ 11971
See attached ~.
5. IS P~ A~ON:
s- P~O~CT DESC~ON: Co~mct ~d~t[o~ to thc e~ ho~ ~ ~o~ows: one ~s 14'
x 27.8' ~ e~e~ to t~ ~ of~c c~ ~t~; ~t~r ~ 7' x 65.4' ~d is located
~o~ ~c ~[, or ~ side of~ c~8 ~c~; ~othcr ~ 4' x
or ~h side, of thc c~ ~.
7. ~UNT OF ~D
8. M~ ~ A~ON COMFY ~ ~NG ZONING O~ O~E~ ~NG ~NO USE
SEQR
9. WHAT IS p~ESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF IOl~E~r?
Deem~
Medium-size private Ymterfro~.t residences
[] OUtlr
10. seER A~ION INVOLVE A I~RMIT AI~ROVAI., OR FUNOIN~. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY O~ER GOV~NM~TAL AGENCY (F~E~
~A~ OR
~ y~ ~ NO If y~ Jim ~1) ~ D~i~m ' '
Sou~o[~ 3~;* So~o~ ~e~eee; ~S~C
11. ~ ANY ~ OF ~E A~ON NAVE A CUR~y VAUD
9/23/02
If
Is in tho Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete tho
I Aisoismnnt Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
1
HOG
NECK
BAY
THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED
PROJECT I~ CIRCLED
VICINITY MAP
Application regarding the pro~per~y of
Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
PROPER-T PERMIT SERVICES
P.O. Box 617+ Cutchogue, NY 11935
James E. Fitzgerald. Jr. 516-734-5800
January lO, 2002
--"---
PROJECT18 S~DED
Appli~ti~ r~ding ~e ~ of
S~m ~, S~ ~1~-88~12
PROPER-T PE~ SER~CES
P.O. Box 617, Cutch~e, ~ 1193~
~anu~ 10~
THE pRoPOSED ADDITIONS
WHICH ARE THE ouBJ ..... x 85.4', ONE iS
APPLICATION. THERE ARE THREE; ONE IS 7'
~4' x 27.8', AND ONE IS 4' x 9'.
....-.-
SED 8' x 13' EXTENSION WAS APPROVED BY
THIS pROPO 5498 DATED 2/21102
THE TRUSTEES IN pERMIT NO.
Pr,opdr-T Permit S vices
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
September 3, 2002
(631) 734-58OO
Pre~ent
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Somhold, New York 11971
Re: Aoolication to Amend Permit No. 5498: Steven Kram. SCTM #1000-88-6-12
Dear Sir:
Mr. Kram would like to extend his house further than the expansion allowed under Trustee Permit
No. 5498, and proposes an amendment to that permit as shown in the attached Project Plan -
House, Revised July 8, 2002. The new proposal includes three sections as shown on the drawing:
one is 14' x 27.8' and extends to the east of the existing structure; another is 7' x 65.4' and is
located along the back, or north side of the existing structure; and the third is 4' x 9' and is on the
t~ont, or south side, of the existing structure.
Please note that the new proposed additions do not extend any further seaward than the previ-
ously-approved extension, and aH are sjgnificantly landward of the existing deck.
Enclosures:
Armndlmm fee, $40
Project Plan - House, Revised 7/8/02 (3 copies)
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
Albert J. Krupski, Presiden~
James Kin~, Vice-Presiden~
Henry Smith
Art/e Foster
Ken Pollwoda
Town Hall
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold,,New York 11971-0959
Telephone (681) 765-1892
Fax (631) 765-1366
BOARD OF TOWN T~tUSTEES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Office Use Only
~-'Wefiand Permit Application
Waiver/Amendment/Changes
~Received Application: I!~110~-~
~'-Received Fee:$ ~"
· "Completed Application 1~ I ~
Incomplete
Coastal Erosion Permit Application
~"Major
SEQRA Classification:
TypeI Type II Unlisted,/~
· ~.oordination:(date sent)
.~CAC Referral Sent: I J
...Bate of Inspe~ion:
· Receipt of CAC Report:
Lead Agency Det~mlination: __
Technical Review:
,...'Public Hearing Held:
Resolution:
Minor
JAN 3 I
Name of Applicant Steven Kram
Address 11499 Bellagio Road, Los Angeles CA 90049
Phone Number:( ) ~10-859-4400
Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 1000 - 88-6-12
Propen'yLocation: 100 West Lane, Southold
(See attached maps.)
(provide LILCO Pole #, distance to cross streets, and location)
AGENT: James E. Fitz~erald, Jr, / Pro~er-T
(If applicable)
Address: PO Box 617, Cutchogue NY 11935
Phone: 73a-5800
Permit
Services
Board of Trustees Application
Land Area (in square feet):
Area Zoning:
GENERAL DATA
15~783 sf
A-C
Previous use of property:
Intended use of property:.
Private residence
Private residence
Prior permits/approvals for site improvements:
Agency Date
X No prior permits/approvals for site improvements.
Has any permiffapproval ever been revoked or suspended by a governmental agency?
X No Yes
If yes, provide explanation:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Construct 13' X 8'+ extension to existing house; construct 4' x
68'± fixed open walkway dock attached to existing bulkhead.
~oard of Trustees A~plication
WETLAND/TRUSTEE LANDS APPLICATION DATA
Purpose of the proposed operations:
Expand house; dock for private recreation.
Area of wetlands on lot: -O- square feet
Percent coverage of lot: N/A %
Closest distance between nearest existing structure and upland
edge of wetlands: i~/A feet
Closest distance between nearest proposed structure and upland
edge of wetlands: N/A feet
Does the project involve excavation or filling?
No ~, Yes For crawl space
If yes, how much material will be excavated?
· How much material will be filled? N/A cubic yards
Depth of which material will be removed or deposited:3 max
Proposed slope throughout the area of operations:
Manner in which material will be removed or deposited:
15 cubicyardsestimated
feet
Statement of the effect, if any, on the wetlands and tidal waters oftha town that may result by
reason of such proposed operations (use attachments if appropriate):
It is expected that the project will have no significant
effect on the wetlands and tidal waters of the Town.
14-I&4 (~JBfl--Text 12
PROJECT I.D. NUMBER
617.21
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
SEQR
PART I--PROJECT INFORMAllON (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor)
1. APPUCANT/SPONSOR I 2. PROJECT NAMe
James E. Fitzgerald? Jr. I Kram property
3. PROJECT LOCATION:
uumc~;)emy Southold . co~w Suffolk
1OO West Lane
Southold NY 11971
See attached maps.
5. IS PROPOSED ACTION:
[] NIW [] Ex0ansion [] M~:IJ fleet Ion~ilt erlt Ion
e. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOiq: Construct 13' X 8'+ extension to existing house; construct 4' x
68'+ fixed open walkway dock attached to existing bulkhead.
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED:
,n,t~,yless than O.
8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS?
[] Yes [] NO If No. cletnnbe OHefly
g. WHAT I$ pRESENT LAND USE IN VICJNITY OF pROJECT?
[] ResMentml [] InOustrlal [] Commm';,al [] Agriculture [] P~ddFer#t/Ooe.
Medium-size private waterfron~ residences
[] Other
10. DOES ACT;ON INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE OR LOCAL)?
[] Yes [] No If y#. list agency(s) and ;)ermWaoproVell ' '
Required: D~SDEC, NYSDOS, USACoE, 'Southold Trustees
DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLy VA~JD PERMIT OR APPROVAL7
[] Yes [] No If yeS, list Igency nlme a~l plfmll/eli;)~vel
12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMITIAPPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
[] Ye, [] NO
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
James E. ~.t-$z~aldw Jr.
O De r-~ i C e Date:
If th~ctlon Is in the CoastBI Area, and you are a state agency, complete the
'Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment
OVER
11499 Bellagio Road
Los Angeles, California 90049
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Sir:
Please be advised that I hereby designate and authorize James E. Fitzgerald, Jr. of Proper-T
Permit Services to act in my behalf as my agent in the submission and processing of a permit
application for the construction of a dock seaward of my property and for the expansion of the
house on my property located at 100 West Lane, Southold, and designated by Suffolk County
Tax Map No. 1000-88-6-12, and to furnish, upon request, supplememal information in sup-
port of the application.
Sincerely,
JAN 3
L
STATEMENT TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
County .... )
State of California )
I, Steven Kram, being duly sworn, depose and affirm that I am the sole Trustee of the Kram
Family Trust, an owner of the property located at 100 West Lane, Southold, New York 11971,
and identified by Suffolk County Tax Map No. 1000-88-6-12, and that all work will be done
in the manner set forth in the present application and as may be approved by the Southold
Board of Town Trustees. I agree 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. I hereby authorize the Town Trustees or their agent(s) or
representative(s) to enter upon my property to inspect the premises in conjunction with the
review of the present application.
Sworn to before me this ......~..~ ...... day of.....~.~..~....., 2001
Proper-T Permit Services
POST OFFICE BOX 617, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK 11935-0617
(631) 734-58OO
January 31, 2002
President
Board of Town Trustees
Town of Southold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
JAN 3 ~
Re: Application for Permit on Behalf of Steven Kram; SCTM #1001~;88-6-12
Dear Sir:
Attached are documents which have been prepared in suppor~ of the application for a permit to
construct an addition to the existing house and construct a dock on the property of Steven Kram
in the Town of Southold.
Proper-T Permit Services represents Mr. Kram in this matter, and a letter of authorization is part
of this submission.
If there are any questions, or if additional information is needed, please call me.
S' rely,
Enclosures:
Application Fee ($200)
Letter of Authorization
Notarized Statement of Applicant
Survey of Property
Application Form (3 copies)
Short EAF (3 copies)
Vicinity Map (3 copies)
Tax Map (3 copies)
Project Plan (3 copies)
Section View (3 copies)
a subsidiary of
THE PECONIC EASTERN CORPORATION
TO:
Date: February 11, 2002
Adjacent Property Owners
(Names and addresses are listed on the attached sheet.)
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
In the matter of: Steven Kram, SCTM #1000-88-6-12
YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE THAT:
I. An application is being submitted to the Board of Trustees for a permit to:
Construct 13' X 8'+ extansion to existing house; construct 4' x 57'± overall
fixed open walkway flee-standing dock with steps to grade at landward end.
The project described above is proposed on property adjacent to yours. The street ad-
dress of that property is as follows:
[ 100 West Lane, Southold, New York 11971
The project, which is subject to Environmental Review under Chapters 32, 37, or 97 of
the Town Code, is open to public comment. A public hearing will be held at Town Hall,
53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 at or about 7:00 PM on Wednesday,
February 204, 2002. You may contact the Trustees Office at 631-765-1892 or in writing if
you wish to comment
The project described above will be reviewed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of
Southold. The project may require independent review and approval by other agencies of
the Town, State, or Federal governments.
PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NO.:
Steven Kram
11499 Bellagio Road
Los Angeles, CA 90049
310-859-4400
A copy of a sketch or plan showing the proposed project is enclosed for your convenience.
Y
February8,2002
KRAM: ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1000-88-6-13.44
John Fallon
4Hemlock Road
BronxvilleNYl0708
1000-88-6-13.60
AngelShores Homeowners AssnInc.
PO Box 428
Southo~NYl1971
1000-88-6-13.43
John & Susan Fallon
4 Hemlock Road
Bronxville NY 10708
1000-88-6-13.57
Angel Shores Homeowners AssnInc.
PO Box428
Southo~NYl1971
AFFIDAVIT OF MAII,ING
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
Steven Kram
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, deposes and says that on the 1 lth day of February, 2002, deponent mailed a true copy of
the Notice set forth in the Board of Trustees Application, directed to each of the named persons at
the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said
persons are the addresses of said persons as shown in the current assessment roll of the Town of
Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at Cutchogue, NY 11935,
that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail/Return Receipt Re-
quested.
Sworn to before me this /~O
day of~~~.
Notary Public
HELEN£ D. HORNE
..)~ar,/Public, State of New Yolk
No. 4951364
Qualified in Suffolk
Cc,remission Expires May
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
TO THE SOUTHOLD BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF:
StevenKram
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
I, James E. Fitzgerald, Jr., residing at 385 Haywaters Drive, Cutchogue, NY 11935, being duly
sworn, depose and say that on the 1 lth day of December, 2001, I personally posted the property
known as 100 West Lane, Southold, by placing the Board of Trustees' official ~oster where it can
easily be seen, and that I have checked to be sure the poster has remained in ~lace for eight days
prior to the date of the public hearing, which date is not~ereon to~ ~lay, February 20,
2002 at or about 7:00 PM.
J~.: Fitzger~tr~
Sworn tq IFfore me this r:;30 ~
day of '2/t'~ ,2002.
g
Notary Public
HELENE O. HORNE
Notmy Public, State of New Yo~k
No. 4951364
Qualified in Suffolk CountY..
Commission Expb'es May 22,